⚫ favour us, whatever part we act.' I imagine that even the profane and graceless ought not to be despaired of, and consequently that their sentiments and speeches ought not to be altogether disregarded. Such are not always irreclaimable. Much less ought we to furnish them with what may serve not only to confirm them in their pernicious course, but to prove the instruments of gaining over others to their party. The apostle Peter did not think the sentiments even of heathens were to be despised by the disciples, and therefore enjoined them to be careful that their conversation might be honest among the Gentiles, that they may be ashamed who falsely accuse their good conversation in Christ *. And the apostle Paul makes the opinion of infidels of so great consequence, that he expressly requires, that regard be had to it, even in the election of a bishop. He must have a good report of them which are without †. Shall we then think it a matter of no moment, that we give occasion to the enemies of God to blaspheme? Does it appear to us a thing absolutely indifferent, that the good ways of the Lord are, by our means, evil spoken of among them who know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Is it all one whether fools be recovered by us, or confirmed in their folly?

I conclude with my most fervent prayers to the God of grace and father of mercies, that he would

* 1 Pet. ii. 12. iii. 16.

+ 1 Tim. iii. 7.

be pleased to direct the great council of our church, as on every occasion, so particularly on the present, that he would inspire them with the amiable spirit of their Master, with the wisdom that is from above, which is not like the wisdom of the worldling, earthly, sensual, devilish, but first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy; that we may all know, by experience, that the fruit of righteousness is sown in for them that make peace. peace

CHAP. III.

The

proper

and Christian Expedients for promoting Religious Knowledge, and repressing

Error.

It requires but little art to make ignorance jealous. The multitude every where are ignorant, and, by consequence, easily enflamed with jealousy. It requires but few (sometimes a single person has been sufficient) of those in whom the populace confide, to suggest that there is danger, and they are instantly alarmed; they ask neither evidence nor explanation. As the flame spreads, its influence on every individual increases. Each is actuated not only by the fervour originally excited in himself,

but by that which is as it were, reflected from every countenance around him. When the fury of the people, from a notion of gross injury, is worked up to a certain pitch, they are no longer capable of controul. They encourage one another by their number and rage. There is nothing which they do not think themselves able to effect. They run headlong into the most violent excesses. Whatever be the cause they contend for, they have not so much as an idea of any other expedients than such as are dictated by fury. It happens then almost invariably that they over-shoot the aim of those who first raised the alarm, and awaked their jealousy. And when they And when they interpose to restrain them, they generally find it impracticable. For the people then have no ears for any language but that of their passions. In vain are they reminded that more moderate methods were pointed out to them from the beginning. If the rabble are to be set to work, they must be allowed to go to work their own way. They have neither capacity nor patience for pursuing moderate methods.

For these reasons it would not be consonant to justice to charge the effects of the popular frenzy wholly on those who at first were active in alarming them. As little would it be, on the other hand, wholly to exculpate the first instigators. That they did not foresee the fires that would be kindled, and the destruction that would ensue, and were therefore not the intentional causes of the particular outrages, justice as well as charity require us to admit ;

but that any one, who inflames the minds of the multitude, must be sensible, that he endangers the peace of his country, as well as the property and lives of his fellow-citizens, and therefore, by all the principles of law, is responsible for the consequences, cannot be denied. And even on the principles of sound morality, he is so far answerable, as the consequences actually were, or might have been, foreseen by him. Nor is it easy in this case to find an apology for the heart, that is not at the expence of the understanding.

But we can say the less in behalf of those from. whom the evil originated, because their more moderate methods are as really unjustifiable, on the maxims of the gospel, as the more violent methods of the multitude. The difference between them is not so much in kind as in degree. The introduction of force into the service of religion, whether applied by the magistrate, or by the mob, has ever proved, and will prove the bane of true religion. It is the establishment of the profession of religion on the ruins of its spirit. It is attempting to support Christianity by undermining virtue. It presents the strongest temptations to what every one who reflects, whatever be his system of opinions, must admit to be the grossest crimes. It is one of the earliest corruptions of Antichristian Rome, the spiritual Babylon, and the source of most of her other abominations. I may add, it is a sure evidence, that we have not yet recovered from the intoxication occasioned by the envenomed cup of

which she has made all nations drink, when we so entirely adopt her sentiments, and speak her language. Ill does it befit in particular the shepherds of Christ's flock to recur to such unsanctified expedients. To what expedients shall we then recur, ' when an immediate danger threatens?' To such only as are (if I may be allowed the expression) congenial to the service.

But let it be observed, that there is not always danger when the cry is raised. There is no more real danger here at present to protestantism from popery, than there was in England to episcopacy in Queen Anne's time, from protestant dissenters, when the like cry of the danger of the church, from a cause as trivial, excited such tumults throughout that nation, or than there was to Christianity itself not thirty years ago from Judaism, on occasion of the naturalization bill, or Jew bill, which put all England in a ferment. The mode of arguing adopted at that time in England, in regard to Jews, was remarkably similar to that now used in this country, in regard to Papists. If Jews, it was said, were allowed but liberty, they would soon become possessed of power. If they were, in any case, permitted to acquire real (or what we commonly call heritable) property, they would soon be proprietors of the whole kingdom; if entire freedom were given to their religious profession, judaism would soon become predominant; circumcision in less than a century would be established by act of parliament, and our churches would all be converted into syna

M m