2

not one pertinent word to reply to the Bishop's argument: such is the force of truth and reason, that its very fiercest opposers are obliged to submit to it, and can only bite the chains which they cannot get rid of. Who is it now, that poorly answers? The question was; whether libelling the Founder of our religion, and blaspheming his miracles, are any part of the liberties of a Christian nation? The law is the rule and the boundary of the subject's liberty; and the law has absolutely precluded all such profane licentiousness. The Bishop speaks with the law, and this gentleman threatens him with axe and scaffold 2 against law. Which is no strange thing in a man that can defy Heaven, and blaspheme Omnipotence: but yet it comes very oddly from one that is pleading on the side of mercy, and for the liberties of mankind; and who perhaps has already forfeited the protection of the laws, and owes bis liberty and all that he enjoys to the lenity of the government, and to the gentleness of that very religion which he insults and blasphemes. He goes on wandering from the question, because he sees where he is pinched." The great council of the nation are only qualified to say what liberties belong to the nation a." True, in points undetermined by law: but in things which have been long legally fixed and determined, the great council of the nation speaks by the standing laws; which are the measure of the subject's liberties, till repealed by the same authority that gave them.

IX.

"The prosecution carried on against Woolston, at the (" earnest application of particular Prelates, shows what "spirit they are of b." As to the prosecution carried on against Mr. Woolston, if the poor man be in his senses, it is certainly right. Those that prosecute him, no doubt, judge him to be so. And if it be at the application of particular Prelates, as this writer says, (of which I know

z Page 10.

a

Page 11.

b Ibid.

c Ibid.

nothing,) as they also take him to be in his senses, they do no more than is their duty to do; acting therein, as I conceive, from a true Christian and apostolical spirit, tender of the interests of our most holy religion, zealous for the glory of God, and the good of souls, watchful against deceivers and ravening wolves, that tear the flock of Christ, and continually walk about, seeking whom they may devour. It is a gross mistake to imagine that prosecuting offenders in a legal way has any thing at all of an ill spirit in it; since it is the kindest and best natured office that can be, when there is a necessity for it. To neglect it, at such times, is to expose the best men to the insults and oppressions of the worst, and is indeed illnature and cruelty to the public, which is the greatest cruelty a man can be guilty of.

X.

"They have little sincerity when they declaim against "the free use of irony and ridicule, in contradistinction "to the liberty of serious argument, because the judg"ment which they solicited and obtained in Westminster "Hall is this, viz. d

"Christianity being part of the common law of England, "all attempts to subvert or overthrow Christianity must be "punishable by common law, because they tend to over"throw the common law.

"So that by this judgment all arguments against "Christianity, whether serious or ludicrous, are equally "attempts to subvert Christianity, and consequently to be

66

punished alike by common law e." I admit the premises according to the determination of the judges, and the inference also which this writer draws from them; namely, that arguments against Christianity, be they serious or ludicrous, are indifferently (not always in the same degree, or with the same guiltiness) attempts to subvert Christianity, and are consequently to be punish

ed, according to the degree of their malignity, one as well as the other. I see what fallacy this author is aiming at, in equally and alike: I detected him before doing the same thing; and so it is enough now to have just mentioned it. As to irony and ridicule, they are either good or bad, according as they are properly or improperly employed. When they are used in a right manner, at a right time, and to right purposes, the use of them is good, just as the use of wine, or feasts, or any other indifferent things: but when, instead of well using them, they are abused or misemployed, to serve the ends of pride, passion, vanity, immorality, atheism, &c. then the use of them is bad.

Those that have particularly condemned the use of irony and ridicule in the cause of profaneness, or against Christianity, did not, I presume, intend altogether to acquit even serious arguments, in the same cause, from blame: if they did, I must take leave to dissent from them. Sobrius accessit ad evertendam rempublicam, is no commendable character; such a person, in some circumstances, may be a more dangerous and a more detestable man, than a joker or a buffoon that aims at the same thing. But, I suppose, what some ingenious and very worthy persons meant, in speaking more favourably of sober reasoning, was chiefly with a view to other controversies, where some part of Christianity only, and not the whole, is struck at, and where a much greater tenderness may reasonably be allowed than to professed infidels. Or if they had not that in view, they might not perhaps accurately distinguish between the general case and this particular. A ludicrous way of writing, generally speaking, betrays a greater malignity, as showing that men are advanced to the seat of the scorner. Besides that, in that way, there is less colour or pretence for conscience, which is a plea that the laws have justly indulged: for however a man may sometimes, with a tolerable grace, plead conscience for a modest opposition to some things established, yet he can never with any face pretend he is indispen

sably obliged to lampoon an establishment, or to make ballads upon it. it. I I may add farther, that childish levity, frothiness, and buffoonery, show little or nothing of a serious regard to truth, and therefore least of all deserve any favour or indulgence. To say all in a few words; in many cases, a ludicrous manner of opposing received doctrines may deserve censure, where a modest and serious opposition might be excusable. But in some of greater importance, neither serious nor ludicrous ought to be endured: and one of these cases is, when any persons endeavour to poison the minds of the people with atheistical principles of irreligion and infidelity. Be the poison ever so soberly administered, it is poison still, and will do mischief, more or less, in any vehicle whatever. But to proceed.

XI.

"Observe what an essential difference there is between "the judgment of the law, and the Lord Bishop of Lon"don: one says, whatever denies the truth of Christiani"ty, tends to subvert it; while the other maintains, and "does verily believe, the more freely it is discussed, the "more firmly it will stand f." The judgment of the law and the judgment of the Bishop may both be very right, and very consistent with each other: for the one speaks of the natural and general tendency of a thing; the other of the accidental effect. I hope it may be said without offence, that rebellion often serves accidentally to strengthen a government, while its natural or general teńdency is destructive of it. For which reason a rebel, though accidentally serviceable to the crown, yet deserves to be hanged for rebelling; and he must take it as a favour, if, after he is caught, he escapes the gallows.

XII.

"It is not the punishment of buffoonery that men of

f Page 12.

2

"sense oppose: but they can never approve a judgment, "which, if carried into a precedent, must be a total re"straint upon all religious inquiries, and all arguments in "general on any subject, whether pleasant or grave §." As to his men of sense, and their approving or disapproving; it matters not. Their sense, one may be sure, is of a pitch with his own, and we have seen what that is: and as they are parties in this case, their judgment is corrupt and biassed. But as to his plea, that all religious inquiries will be restrained, he should have said irreligious, which is quite the contrary, and alters the whole state of the argument. For he must not bear us in hand, that libelling Christ Jesus, flouting his miracles, running riot against both Testaments, and poisoning the minds of the people, can come under the soft name of religious inquiries. Mere inquiries do not satisfy these gentlemen, but they deal abroad their instructions, obtruding themselves as guides, listing proselytes, and forming a sect; which is something more than making inquiries. However, there is field large enough left for religious inquiries within the bounds of decency, and without falling foul upon all revealed religion. But the fault lies in their ignorance, or their ill taste. They know nothing or relish nothing of the many innocent, useful inquiries, within the compass of theology, which are agreeable entertainment to wise men and scholars, and where there is room enough for a latitude of thought. It is a glorious liberty which we Englishmen enjoy, as it stands bounded by law and we have good reason to thank God for it, and to wish it may never be abridged. But he that asks more, weakens our securities, and endangers what we have, and paves the way for slavery and bondage; whether it be Popery or prevailing infidelity, that this outrage and licentiousness should at length conclude in, the tyranny of either would be unsupportable, and our valuable liberties would expire. As to the tyranny of Popery, it is out of ques