vant informs him dinner is ready-away goes domestic and foreign politics-Soult and Wellington-princes and pugilists— bankrupts and members of parliament-judges and juries-special pleaders and sharpers-births and deaths-marriages and executions together---and to-morrow he's as eager as ever to know the news.

But the sober moralist considers no circumstance unim. portant, which transpires within the sphere of human society; he marks each passing event-observes the general tendency of things-pursues the courses of truth and error, as they cross, separate, and unite, in the multifarious transactions of life-looks at man as he is, when stript of the garb of sophistication and deceit-and imbibes a just mode of thinking from the free exercise of his mind on every subject. Such a man cannot always rest satisfied with pitying popular prejudice, or smiling at consecrated absurdity and licensed oppression. The generous impulse of truth dilates his heart and animates his breast! and the voice of justice and of nature cannot be stifled-But why do I generalise, when my subject is simply the late prosecution and trial of a bookseller for publishing the third part of Paine's Age of Reason?

When we observe the avidity with which the laws of our country have pursued deistical writings in general, and Mr. Paine's in particular, we are naturally led to ask, on the broad subject of prosecution, for what is called blasphemy of the holy scriptures ?---is it prudent is it just : On the score of prudence, I would observe, that the moment a prosecution is commenced against any work, it is a sure mean of bringing it into notoriety, and extending its circulation. People are curious to learn what are the contents of that book which has occasion for the interference of the law; and thus a production, which, if left alone, would have been condemned to oblivion, is forced upon the notice of those who would never have heard of it. There is little dorht but the legal proceedings against the former parts of the Age of Reason doubled the number of its readers. Mr. Eaton, the defendant in the present action, is a bookseller: he is aware of this---he anticipated no doubt the present prosecution, and calculated the consequences. It was purely a speculation on his part, and the Attorney-general has been so impolitic as to further his design. Another consequence attending these sort of prosecutions is, that either the name or the thing is so much like persecution, that many intelligent good sort of people can hardly see the distinction; they are apt to confound the one with the other, and the individual thus per pro-secuted (I had nearly made the mistake myself in the first syllable), however sinister may be the motives, and unworthy the intentions from which he acts, is considered an injured

man, and excites commiseration, when he would otherwise have experienced contempt.

The ostensible purpose of this trial is to suppress infidelity and to support religion, but its effects are just the reverse. Religion blushes at the thought of being protected by the arm of the law, and infidelity exults to see such protection necessary. If infidelity has gained its thousands-the prosecution of infidelity has gained its tens of thousands. But if we ask, on what principle of justice it is that the sceptic is brought to the bar of criminal jurisprudence, the question assumes a more serious shape. Is it because the propagation of their opinions are dangerous to the good being of society ? (so says Mr. Attorneygeneral, and so I think)-I think true or false opinions necessarily promote or deteriorate the happiness of man; but who shall presume to determine what opinions are, and what are not, dangerous to the well-being of society? It might happen that one set of men would find it more their interest to support one system of religion than another; for instance, the Romish divines might find their interest in Catholicism, and even our Protestant ministers, and our Protestant lords, and our Protestant judges, and our Protestant Attorneys-general, might find something more than their spiritual welfare in cherishing mother church!

But it may be said, that society must determine on this important point for itself—that is, determine by its representatives and delegated authorities. The answer is, that whatever rights men may be supposed to give up to the social compact, yet there are certain indescriptible rights which are eternal in their nature, and which no human associations can annihilate or abrogate-such is the right of private judgment, and the free enjoyment of opinion. But if we were to admit the principle, that society is competent to fix the standard of religious opinion, what would be the consequence ?--of course. all opinions not entertained by the majority would be proscribed; and what might not be the fate of those who happen to be in the minority? What would become of the church of England, whose members are very far from being the majority of the nation? Down would go the bench of bishops, and all the orders of the clergy would be disbanded to-morrow-but, no! the principle is inadmissible---mind must go free !-The spirit of the British constitution cherishes this generous freedomthe mild laws of England do not presume, generally speaking, to interfere with opinions, though evidently prejudicial to the well-being of society. So tolerant are the times in which we live, that sentiments the most dishonourable to God, the most immoral in their nature, and the most iniquitous in their consequences, are suffered to be taught---the worship of the own

LIVING IVING AND TRUE GOD is forsaken for idolatry and polytheism --a swarm of men, the most obnoxious to intellectual attainments, are allowed to glut on the rich spoils of industry-the most absurd sectarians are tolerated-consecrated ignorance addresses the multitude as the oracles of heaven-and holy madmen are suffered to be at large. Now then existing establishments démonstrating the lenient nature of our laws, and proving that opinion is not settled by the state, but that on the contrary nothing is so base, so absurd, or so unreasonable, but what is allowed to be taught and to be practised---is it not hard upon infidels that they alone should be singled out by the law as obnoxious to public good? that their light artillery should not be suffered to annoy us, whilst so many engines are at work against us, and so many heavy batteries opened on every side to beat down the common sense of mankind!

There is something in our nature that recoils at the exertion of power against argument-to deny that liberty of opinion to others which we assume to ourselves, is a species of injustice not to be endured-that every individual has a right to exercise his judgment unrestrained, and that no coercion should be used to suppress opinions, however wild and sophistical, is a position so self-evident, that no argument can render it more

So.

In support of this position, the greatest names might be brought, and the most respectable authorities adduced. I know that the sound of a name cannot justify that which is unjustifiable, and that the authority of a bishop cannot make truth more true; but still it is pleasant to find, that even bishops have sometimes declared themselves in favour of principles which are founded in justice, and consistent with the rights and liberties of mankind.

Dr. Lardner, in addressing himself to the Bishop of Chiches ter, in answer to some observations the bishop had made in a letter to him, concerning his reply to Mr. Woolston, observes, "Your Lordship freely declares he (Woolston) ought not to be punished for being an infidel, nor for writing at all against the Christian religion, which appears to me a noble declaration. If the governors of the church and civil magistrates had all along acted up to this principle, I think the Christian religion had been before now well nigh universal." And the Bishop of Landaff declares a similar sentiment to Mr. Gibbon; "It would give me much uneasiness to be reputed an enemy to free inquiry in religious matters, or as capable of being animated into any degree of personal malevolence, against those who differ from me in opinion, On the contrary, I look upon the right of private judgment, in every concern respecting God and ourselves, as superior to the controul of human authority; and have ever regarded free disquisition as the best mean of

illustrating the doctrine, and establishing the truth of Christitianity. Let the followers of Mahomet, and the zealots of the church of Rome, support their several religious systems, by damping every effort of the human intellect to pry into the foundations of their faith; but never can it become a Christian to be afraid of being asked a reason of the faith that is in him; nor a Protestant to be studious of enveloping his religion in mystery and ignorance."-But what can appear more truly inconsistent than that after the writings of Paine and of Woolston had become subjects of controversy-after Lardner had replied to one, and the Bishop of Landaff to the other--after the Bishop of Chichester had declared that Woolston ought not to be prosecuted for his infidelity-after the Bishop of Landaff had made this manly confession to Mr. Paine, "If you have made the best examination you can, and yet reject revealed religion as an imposture, I pray that God may pardon what I esteem your error. And whether you have made this examination or not, does not become me, or any man to determine."--Yet that immediately after this, the writings of both these men should be proceeded against by law-after they had been confronted by the force of argument, they are suppressed by the argument of force.

When will the zealot have the sense to leave religion to rest on its own merits, and to recommend itself to society by its own intrinsic excellence? Is it because Christianity is trueis it because it is of divine origin-is it because its evidences are almost irresistible-is it because its doctrines are consistent with the most enlightened philosophy---is it because its morality is sublime, and its precepts worthy all acceptation, that therefore it cannot stand against the drivelling of scepticism, or the sophistry of infidelity, without being protected by the shield of civil authority ---Are the arguments against Christianity specious and delusive? let them be published to the world that they may be refuted---are they vulgar and scurrilous? let them not be honoured with notice---let scorn be their portion, and general contempt their reward.

But it may be said, that writings of this description are calculated to do mischief with the weak or ignorant, by bringing religion into disrepute. Such was the argument of Mr. Erskine, as counsel for the crown, in the prosecution of Williams, for publishing the former parts of the Age of Reason. "I can conceive (said the orator) a distressed but virtuous man, surrounded by children, looking up to him for bread when he has none to give them, sinking under the last day's labour, and unequal to the next, yet still looking up with confidence to the hour when all tears shall be wiped from the eyes of affliction, bearing the burden laid upon him by a

mysterious Providence which he adores, and looking forward with exultation to the revealed promises of his Creator, when he shall be greater than the greatest, and happier than the happiest of mankind. What a change in such a mind might not be not be wrought by such a merciless publication!"

It is not denied that such publications may do some mischief -but the question for a wise legislator to determine upon is, whether the attempt to suppress them by pains and penalties will not do much more. Besides, when we consider the extensive and expensive establishment employed by the people of this country for the express purpose of supporting religion -when we calculate how many thousands are educated and set apart for the avowed end of teaching the truths of the gos pel-when we know that the obscurest village has its church -when we see the glittering spire in every direction of the metropolis, and the conventicle in almost every street of the city, the weak or the ignorant believer ought not to be known in this country-we should all of us by this time be men in Christ, and rooted and grounded in the truth. If it be true, as Judge Hale and Lord Kenyon have asserted, that" the Christian religion is part of the law of the land"-its truths must have enlightened the human mind, and have ameliorated the condition ofsociety. Considering how many centuries the spiritual and secular powers have gone hand in hand, one would have thought that ignorance would long ago have been banished from the land, and that the veriest clown should be able to detect the fallacy of the objections to his belief, and ready to give a reason concerning the faith that is in him.

Frail indeed must be that system which shrinks from the sight of enquiry, and recedes from the touch of oppositionsuch, I am bold to say, is not Christianity-but such is every religion which requires the support of civil authority. The true disciple of Jesus disdains to appeal to any authority but reason and evidence---he will not join in the hue and cry raised by the bigotted and the corrupt against principles and opinions, which, however noxious in themselves, are innocent, compared with those which stand opposed to them. If he is told that Mr. Paine was an infidel, he will pity him---if it is urged that he denied altogether that Christianity came from heaven, he will attempt to prove, by argument, that it did---if it is said that he represents the morality of the scriptures as mean and pusillanimous, he will prove to him, by his actions, that he is mistaken.

As for the existence of sceptical writings, they are to be dated principally to this very system which is so sedulous to suppress them. Priests may thank themselves for all the wit and argument and railery which has been levelled against