Christianity having been from its origin to the present day, actually propagated on these principles, how can Christians refuse to others the same privileges urged upon the same pretences, with equally honest intentions, and with expectations of rendering the same kind of benefit; that is, to put an end to erroneous and mischievous opinions? If the modern reformers of Christianity (Infidels as they are politely called) are equally honest and sincere with the Christian reforiners of Paganism, and use precisely the same arguments for precisely the same purposes; what right has a Christian to object to it? The Christians, indeed, at the onset of their career, sometimes went further than mere argument; and opposed and obstructed the Pagans, who were in the peaceable exercise of their religion, by force and violence. I apprehend that in doing so they did wrong, and deserved punishment. I wish my present argument to be confined exclusively to opposition by a fair and open discussion.

In fact, do not the priesthood proceed now as the early Christians did? Do not our Bible societies, and our Tract societies, and our Missionary societies, disperse Christian publications, and preach Christian doctrines to all nations, Jew, Turk, and Gentile? to the Mahommedans, Hindoos, Burmanese, Otaheitans ? Are not our Christian Protestants sedulously at work in Roman Catholic countries, and the Roman Catholics equally industrious in England? How edifying is the truly Christian warfare in Ireland, where a few Protestants, with an army at their back, are endeavouring with might and main to convert from the religious error of their ways, ten times the number of Catholics, by fine and inprisonment, by hanging and burning, and the holy uses of the musket and bayonet, the dungeon and the gallows.

In a Christian country, therefore, as in England, to punish by fine and imprisonment, honest, zealous, and well-meaning men, who do no actual injury, except by using fair argument, and inviting to open discussion-men who take no other liberties with Christianity than Christ and his apostles, and all the primitive Christians took with their honest and well-meaning heathens of their day-whose motives are unimpeachable and praiseworthy, even if their opinions be erroneous-and who suffer with all the fearlessness and unconcern of the early martyrs of the Churchif Christians and Christianity can justify such persecution, then it is high time that all honest and well-meaning men should retire from the ranks of Christianity, and refuse their countenance to a religion which, unable to support itself by argument, makes no scruple to employ the hired bigots of the bench to suppress all discussion, by fining and imprisoning those who have failed of being convinced by a proud and rapacious clergy.

The prevailing religion of any country either is erroneous, in whole or in part; or it is not. If it be erroneous, a full and free discussion of its errors, real or supposed, is the only way to mend

it. If it be perfect, and incapable of being proved erroneous what possible injury can arise from discussion? Discussion, and that alone, is sure to dispel the doubts and fears of the weakminded, and confirm the faith of the ignorant, and the wavering. Magna est veritas, et prevalebit. To dread discussion and investigation, belongs to error-not truth.

Suppose an unbeliever (being prohibited from advancing the arguments that press upon his mind) should from precedent considerations profess the orthodox faith. Pains and penalties, present or in prospect, may produce this effect; they may coerce his conduct, but they cannot convince his intellect, What do you gain on converting, by the force of argumentative fine and imprisonment, an honest man into an hypocrite? I appeal to every man of reading and reflection; every man of good education, whether the majority of his acquaintance of this description, are not unbelievers in fact, though conformists in conduct? There may be a majority of true believers among ignorant fanatics, but I doubt if this be the case among those who rank as men of sense and men of the world. What good does modern Christianity produce, to counter-balance this far spread simulation and dissimulation-this degrading, but prudent and almost necessary hypocrisy? Would it not be better for Christianity to take the chance of unreserved, unlimited discussion, by which unbelievers of honest intention, sound intellect, and good education, may be converted, rather than have a Christian priesthood entrenching themselves behind the law, and treating every doubt as a denial? As our Calvinistic Presbyterians generally do.

In this country we have a great deal of theoretical toleration, and much practical bigotry. If what are called Infidels are not prosecuted for avowing their opinions, do not the pious priesthood with one accord, offer their supplications and prayers that vengeance may fall on the blasphemer who doubts or denies the truth of their dogmas, or the validity of their heavenly credentials? Where they cannot prosecute, do they not combine to hunt such a man out of society; to insinuate calumnies that they cannot prove; to disparage his moral character; to paralyze his honest influence; to prevent his success in the world? Are they not the calumniators of all men whom they suspect of Infidelity; unless he make his peace by subscribing like his neighbours to some of their conventicles? Is he not put under the ban of all Bible societies, Tract societies, Missionary societies, and the clerical societies of sturdy beggars, stationary and itinerant, of every description? Are not his prospects in life blasted, his family made his enemies, and his friends terrified at being so deemed ?

Christians do not seem to be aware, that on calling on the civil power to aid them in protecting religion, they afford an incontrovertible proof that they themselves have doubts as to its divine origin. When we look into the New Testament, which they

regard as the word of God, we find it stated, that when Jesus sent his disciples forth to preach his doctrines, he told them they should experience all sorts of rebuffs; but he did not say one word as to punishment in this world of those who rejected him and his disciples-or of those who avowed their disbelief. He said that his Church was founded on a rock, and that all the powers of hell could not prevail against it. If Christians believe this to be the fact (and they must believe it or give up the name), why trouble themselves in what manner the rock is assailed by the writings or speeches of philosophers? When they concern themselves so much about those who oppose Christianity, do they not raise a doubt as to Christianity itself? Do they not call in question the assertion of the founder of their religion, when he assured his followers, that nothing shall shake the foundation of the faith he had established.

If Jesus had said in any part of the gospels-" He that calleth in question any part of my mission, the same you shall proceed against-the same you shall fine and imprison"-then they would have had some rule to go by, and their prosecutions might have had some countenance-but when, in perusing the gospels, we find nothing to warrant this, and are told by the priests that their religion is a religion of forgiveness--of the overlooking of injuries -and the returning of good for evil-the very reverse of prosecution-we cannot help thinking that all proceedings at any time against those who even call in question Christianity, are of an anti-Christian nature.

Jesus is said, in one part of the New Testament, to have declared that his kingdom is not of this world. How then can this religion be part of any of the laws of any kingdom or republic of the earth? It might as well be said that Christianity is part of our being, because the gospels contain the precepts by which our lives shall be governed. That these precepts are laws to Christians, no one will deny, but not as the laws of the land. They are the laws of Jesus, laid down to guide those who are willing to be his disciples--but were never intended to be used as secular means, to compel or punish. The man who does not acknowledge them, is not a Christian. If by not conforming to them, he violates some established law of the land, let him be judged by that law which he has infringed---and not for his simple belief, or for any objections he may start against the divinity of the Christian institutions.

PHILO VERITAS.

EIGHTEENTH DISCOURSE,

Delivered before the Society of Universal Benevolence, in their Chapel, Founders' Hall, London,

On Sunday, Nov. 26, 1826,

On Sincerity.

By the Rev. ROBERT TAYLOR, A. B. Orator of the Society.

MEN AND BRETHREN-AS in this course of moral science, we have deduced all the proprieties and fitnesses of human sentiment and conduct, from principles of no less certain evidence to the mind, than the laws of the triangle and the circle: our mode of inculcation has not to fear that liability to be misunderstood, and that perversion of its rules from the purpose of their intention, to which all other methods of instruction must necessarily be subject. If with us, a shadow of doubt or uncertainty, hang over the mind as to the propriety of sentiment and conduct, in any supposable relations or circumstances of life; we hold that doubt itself, to be a sufficient indication of the most complete and absolute ignorance. Our only duty in that case, is, to know that we don't know what our duty is, and therefore not to act as if we did. The whole business of investigation and inquiry in such a case, is to begin again. There must be no throw for a chancebit, no guess, no venture, no faith in morals. If you are less certain as to what conduct you ought to adopt, or what sentiment you ought to entertain, where it was possible that you might have been more certain, the only certainty is, that you are at sea without chart or compass; and had better certainly do what you know to be wrong, as knowing it to be wrong, (and morality would recommend you to do so, the rather, how wrong soever you might know the doing to be) than to do any thing at the hap-hazard of its character, when you know nothing at all about it, or are in the least degree out of sight of the reason for doing it. For, of the wrong which you know to be wrong, you know the measure, but wrong unknown, is wrong unmeasurable. Thus, as in the case of some very important arithmetical calculation, in which a man might find his fortune, or as it might be, his life itself at stake, upon the absolute accuracy of the addition, should the sagacious reckoner proceed to count seven, and three, and two, and then, taking the whole of those numbers together, declare his conviction that they made up the sum total of eleven, or thirteen, or somewhat thereabout, or may be a dozen, indignant Science would dash her tablet from his hand, and exclaim, Nay, 'tis ten thousand ! for all is one, to a mind so wholly destitute of No. 2.-Vol. 4.

the arithmetical faculty, as to mingle a feeling of hesitation and doubt in that science.

So the everlasting law of righteousness, morality, the perfection and end of all science, admits not of indecision and uncertainty, but leads from one conclusion to another, with the infallible precision of geometry and arithmetic, determining only what is absolutely and irrefragably right, or determining nothing. The first point of all real knowledge is, when you know nothing, to know that you know nothing, and that point gained, your vessel is at least righted for fair sailing, whatever port she's bound for. Morality therefore is more opposed in nature to that indistinctiveness of the mind's action, and that surrender of the mind's inherent independence, to the dictation of others, which constitutes religion, than to all other vices. Because, as you now perceive, morality and religion are essentially, and in principle,; the absolute negation and contrariety of each other, and like day: and night, can only exist, the one when the other is out of existence.

- Following therefore the principles of our moral science, from the blended perfection of justice in all his actions, and truth in all his communications, and that justice and truth sustained by fortitude of character, the wise and good man will exhibit to the world his crowning and distinguishing quality of SINCERITY..

That noble virtue, which I now undertake to commend to you, by such certain demonstrations of its excellence, as shall not leave it to your choice, whether you shall wish to be of such a character or not, nor borrow your admiration from your favour, but› shall make you in love with sincerity; which, establishing its claims upon you in the clearest convictions of your understandings, shall command the affections and mould the heart itself to its impressions.

You will observe that our science has not arranged the virtue of sincerity, according to the theological method, in the basement as previously existing, and competent to sustain the virtues of fortitude, justice, and truth; but as the capital of the great pillar sustained by those virtues, resulting from them, and never to be looked for, and never to be found, where they are wanting. :

A sincere fool, a sincerely ignorant, or a sincerely wicked man, are incongruities of the conceit, to which the necessarily clear and precise notions which constitute the moral science, are abhorrent, 'tis out of nature, there never were such, there never can be such characters.

Low cunning, pitiful artifice, and contriving mystery, are necessarily the characteristics of ignorance and impotence; and surely, it is not any degree of obstinacy or shamelessness, with which such characteristics may be exhibited, that should be mistaken for their apology, or give to the transparent dunce, whom we see through and through to be a dunce, the grace of a