excludes all that is peculiar to any other. Its propriety shall be made manifest in the sequel.

If we charge to christianity the rivers of blood that have been shed in what are termed religious wars of past days, and the heart burnings and bitter feelings engendered by religious controversies of the present day, some christians will exclaim "unfairness, disingenuousness, innocent cause —abuse no argument against use, &c. &c.” It must be borne in mind, that we are at this moment discussing a question of fact. If it be admitted that religion has been the innocent cause of these evils, the whole point is conceded to us. But others deny that it has been even the innocent cause, and confidently exclaim, "What! a religion that enjoins meekness, mildness, forbearance, and brotherly love, cause strife, and hatred, and murderous wars?" No, no; all these evils must be attributed to the bad passions of man, which our holy religion cannot restrain. The fallacy of this argument consists in the false and heretical definition of religion, which is never given but to answer this particular purpose. We never hear them say, as they should, and as I will say for them: "What! a religion, all faith in certain facts, and compliance with certain definite and childish ceremonies, on pain of hell's torment, generate wars?" We answer yes, it always has, and always will, while man shall remain the being that he is. This disposition, in a devotee, to oppress, and persecute, and shed blood, springs not from the worst, but, as paradoxical as it may seem, from what are called the best feelings of human nature; feelings which prompt us to labor and strive for another's safety and happiness. To exemplify: If you see a blind man about to step off a dangerous precipice, is it a good or a bad feeling that prompts you to warn him of his danger-if he persevere in the same course in spite of your warning, is it your good or bad feelings that prompt you to lay hold of him, and by force pull him away? If a votary really believes the facts, and complies with the requisitions of the Bible, fully persuaded that by such faith and compliance he will gain Heaven, and that without both he will be consigned to endless misery, his good feelings, not his bad, will prompt him in the first place to persuade others to believe and do like him; and if they continue to persevere in their unbelief and recusancy, is it his good or his bad feelings that will prompt him to compel them? The notion of compelling a man to believe, appears absurd, I admit, and is so in truth. But there is no more absurdity in endeavoring to force faith by means of the torture, than in exhorting to faith by promising Heaven; for, whatever we can with propriety be exhorted, we can be compelled to do-from all which is drawn an unanswerable argument against the notion of faith being voluntary; if it be voluntary, we can with propriety be both forced and exhorted to believe;

and the best, because the most certain and effectual arguments would be the rack, pincers, and hot gridirons. Our Protestants have long since acknowledged the absurdity of resorting to such means to produce faith, but have not abandoned exhortation, which is equally absurd and ridiculous. I acknowledge that we can with propriety be both forced and exhorted to listen to and read both testimony and argument, and to inquire for the former, and to canvass and rigidly scrutinize both; but our conclusions are involuntary, irresistible and independent of racks, exhortations or promises.

But to proceed with the main argument: If our supposed votary should see an individual of great talents and eloquence, using both to convince his (the votary's) friends and kinsmen that these facts are false, and actually succeeding in his efforts, would it be his good feelings or his bad, that would induce him to stop the mouth, aye, and the breath of the vile infidel; vile only in his estimation? On one side he sees the life of an individual, and, in his opinion, a very mischievous one-on the other, the everlasting› salvation of thousands of precious and immortal souls. Will any one, possessed of the common good feelings of human nature, hesitate what course to pursue? Your votary does not, and never has hesitated when he has not been restrained by the strong arm of the civil law. He conscientiously bends the golden rule to suit his purpose-determines that if he were leading thousands to hell, he would be willing the orthodox should put him out of the way, and so off goes the infidel's head. Thus, upon the well known principles of human nature, we account for religious wars and persecutions.

We will now descend to particulars. When Christ was said to have been born, the Roman empire was in the zenith of its power, splendor, and glory, and embraced the whole of the then civilized world; Judea being one of its dependencies. That my readers may form something like a correct notion of the power, wealth, splendor, and extent of this empire, I will refer them to the first chapters of Gibbon.

If we had no direct information on the subject, the structure of their language, with the writings of their poets and orators, would be sufficient to satisfy us that the Romans, at that day, were not behind any people of christendom, in all things that adorn and dignify man. The few poems and orations that have come down to us from those times, are represented and esteemed by your divines as literary treasures, and held up as moddels of literary taste and excellence in all parts of christendom.

At the period of Christ's birth, this empire began to decline; but do not understand me as hinting that this decline was the effect of Christ's birth, or that there is any connexion or relation between the two. In the language or Shakspeare, the same thing would have happened if his mother's cat

had but kittened. But I do put the question, and put it for the purpose of shewing the infatuation and recklessness of philosophers, christian philosophers, and their total disregard of truth in their attempts to account for moral effects, and their chance medley shots at moral causes as productive of these effects. I say, I put the question: What produced, or to what causes are to be ascribed, the refinement and high state of literature of the Romans at that period. It must be recollected that it was not yet eight hundred years ab urbe condita, not eight hundred years between the birth of a Cicero and the twins who sucked the she-wolf. Will you ascribe this wonderful change from savagism to civilization, to the religion of the Romans, to the worship of their Jupiter, and other deified heroes, their Naiads and Dryads? Oh no, you will say the civilization of the Romans progressed in spite of their polytheism. With what show of reason or propriety can you ascribe the present improved state of christendom to the influence of the prevailing religion? A Roman zealot might have said, there is great skill and perfection in the fine and useful arts, a high state of civilization and refinement, much learning and science, and our holy religion handed down from our savage ancestors, all existing at this time at Rome; therefore, the latter is the cause of the former. So yo may say, we have poets, orators, scholars, statesmen, warriors, printing presses, gun powder, and rail roads, and a science that scales Heaven-another that plunges to the bowels of the earth, and another that is at this moment fingering the fibres of the brain, and our holy religion handed down to us from Christ and his holy Apostles; therefore to the influence of the latter is to be attributed the existence of the former; and there would just as much truth and good logic in one argument as the other. With the same propriety, the Methodist might say there were camp meetings in the neighborhood of New York, or the Presbyterian that John Mason preached in Murray street in 1806; therefore, Fulton invented the steam boat. It will not be strictly true to say there is no connexion between religion and the progress of science and civilization. Religion has not forwarded, but retarded the march of science. Religion said, I repeat it, religion said (for its essential ingredient is faith) that the sun and moon revolved around the earth; therefore, Gallileo was ordered, by the religionists who had the power, to break his tellescope and burn his papers, and think no more in opposition to the dicta of the inspired writers of the Bible. Religion said there were such beings as witches, and that they must be put out of the way; therefore, it was heresy, worthy of death, to deny either, and the good, and great, and learned, and conscientious, and religious Lord Hale, sentenced persons suspected of witchcraft to be burned. Religion says there were ghosts, spiritual bodies, or corporeal spirits, (both

equally absurd and unintelligible,) such as Samuel's, and Christ's, and the many Saints', after the resurrection; but few of our christians are religious enough to believe that there are any now-a-days. Religion says the Earth, Sun, Moon and Stars were called into existence about six thousand years ago; therefore, you must not too rigidly examine the rocks found in the bowels of the earth, for fear you will find some evidences of its having existed ten times as many millions. It is admitted that some of our religious professors are not sufficiently religious to be deterred from such examination. Religion says there is something in or about man, no body can tell what, called the soul, that thinks for him;therefore, you must not analyze the brain, which religion has set down as a mere mass of unorganized matter, for fear you may find it to be, not only the seat, but the organ of thought. It is therefore plain, without any further illustration, that religion has not favored the cause, or forwarded the march of science.

We will not quit Rome yet. The empire continued gradually to decline, from the commencement of the present era, till the reign of Constantine, in the fourth century, who took christianity under his protection; in other words, made it the religion of the state. We are willing to admit that, for this period, this religion did not retard or hasten the fall of this great empire. Immediately after this union of church and state under Constantine, the decline of the empire was more rapid. Did religion aid in this acceleration? You answer in the negative, and tell us it was so changed and corrupted, that not a feature of the true religion could be distinguished in the whole system; and you admit that the dark age was the legitimate offspring of this corruption. We cannot let you off with these admissions: There were throughout all this period, the great and essential ingredients, the distinguishing characteristics of the christian religion, viz: faith, and a persuasion that hell's torments would await him who had it not. The bigots of those days may have believed too much-had too much faith; but they had the faith, and the persuasion-the same faith, and the same persuasion, which every christian necessarily must have, and which, as we have shewn above, as necessarily make him a persecutor, and a murderer. We contend, therefore, and offer our arguments in support of our positions, that christianity was directly instrumental in hastening the fall of that great empire, and in shrouding the fairest portion of the globe, for many ages, in mental and moral darkness and gloom.

You cite us to the reformation-shew us Luther and his co-adjutors, and tell us, that at this period your religion began to put forth her moral energies; and that from this period, you date her legitimate and salutary influences. What logic! What infatuation must have got hold of the

minds of men who can reason thus! Your religion was corrupted and defiled, you say, and you purified it washed out all its stains; or, to drop the figure, brought it back to its original state. And what then? Man became more free! What next? Our religion is, therefore, a positive good. These are your conclusions; but the legitimate conclusion from the premises is, therefore, our religion is not so corrupt and bad, or so great a curse as it was.

You find an individual chained to a block-his neck galled by the rough and unpolished ring that is fastened around it—you file it smooth. Do you think he would exclaim, "Oh, what a delightful necklace! what a positive good!" No; he would say, "it is smoother than it was-smooth as at first." But he is a slave still. And do you pretend to assert, that man became free at the reformation-that he is free now-mentally free? Call up and ask the ghost of Servetus, and of the thousands that have fallen in religious wars since the days of Luther, and they would deafen you with their united cry of No! No! No! Ask the Catholics of Ireland. But I come home to our own country. Ask the honest, though melancholy infidel, and he will answer, behold the victim of the intollerance of manmy customers have left me-former friends pass me coldly in the street -boys, taught and instigated by their parents, point their fingers at me— my kindred have discarded me, and here I am, an outcast and a beggar, because I could not; yes—because I could not believe the facts they did, and had the honesty or imprudence to confess it.

The great, and in truth the only principle established by the reformation was that the Pope should not have the sole right of interpreting the scriptures, and the only direct object effected was to deprive him of some of his temporal power. But neither Luther nor any other reformer ever dreamed of granting the legal right to deny the facts of the Bible, and the sectarians of our own country have no notion of conceding to their neighbor the moral right to deny them, from which it is evident, that if they had the power, they would make such denial penal. What has been the consequence growing out of this privilege of reading and interpreting the scriptures for ourselves? Why the major part of the professed christians have come to the conclusion, that many of the allegations of their inspired penmen are false, in other words, have ceased to be christians. They have dared to deny that the earth, sun, moon, and stars were made but six thousand years ago; they have dared to deny the existence of witches and ghosts; they have dared to assert that the sun was never stopped, because it never moved, and finally they have dared to assert that by so doing they have got rid of many weak and puerile superstitions. When they shall dare deny that Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost, and rose from the dead, and ate honey and