ries themselves account them fo? They can distinguifh, when they please, between fincere and merely nominal Chriftians. They need not be told that great numbers in every nation are of that religion which happens to prevail at the time; or rather that they are of no religion.

Thirdly, Have not the courts of princes, notwithstanding Christianity may have been the profeffed religion of the land, been generally attended by a far greater proportion of deifts, than of ferious Christians; and have not public measures been directed by the counfels of the former much more than by those of the latter? It is well known that great numbers amongst the nobility and gentry of every nation confider religion as fuited only to vulgar minds; and therefore either wholly abfent themfelves from worship, or attend but seldom, and then only to fave appearances towards a national eftablishment, by which provision is made for the younger branches of their families. In other words they are unbelievers. This is the defcription of men by which public affairs are commonly managed; and to which the good or the evil pertaining to them, fo far as human agency is concerned, is to be attributed.

Finally, Great as have been the evils abounding in nations profeffing Christianity, (and great they have been, and ought greatly to be deplored) can unbelievers pretend to have given us any hope at prefent of the state of things being meliorated? It is true they have talked and written much in this way; and many well-wishers to the human race have been difpofed to give them credit. But it is not words that will prove any thing. Have they done any thing that justifies a hope of reformation? No,

themfelves muft firft be reformed; or rather, to use an appropriate term of their own, regenerated. Far be it from me that in fuch a cause as this I fhould write under the influence of national prejudice, or fide with the enemies of civil and religious freedom: but I must fay, there never was a representation more neceffary than that which was given in an address from the Executive Directory of France. to the Council of Five Hundred, about the beginning of the year 1796. In this address they "re"queft the most earnest attention of the Council "towards adopting some measure for the regenera❝tion of the public morals." This is the regeneration wanted, and which, having rejected Christianity, they may be ever feeking, but will never be able to obtain. They may continue to revolutionize as long as a party fhall be found that wishes for an increase of power, and perceives an opportunity of gaining it; and every party in its turn may talk of “ saving liberty:" but never will they be free indeed until they are emancipated in fome good degree from the dominion of vice; and never will this be effected but by a knowledge of evangelical truth.

The friends of legitimate liberty have deeply to regret, that under that revered name has been perpetrated almost every species of atrocity and that not only towards individuals, but nations, and nations the most peaceable and inoffenfive, whofe only crime was that of being unable to refift. Liberty has fuffered more from the hands of infidels, amidst all their fucceffes and declamations, than from its profeffed enemies; and still it bleeds beneath their wounds. Without entering into political difputes, I may fafely affirm, that if ever the nations of the earth be bleffed with equal liberty, it will be by the

prevalence, not of the pretended illuminations of infidel philofophy, but of that doctrine which teaches us to do unto others as we would that others should do unto us.

Finally, Mr. Paine affirms, that men by becoming deifts would "live more confiftently and morally than by any other fyftem." As to living more confiftently, it is poffible there may be fome truth in it for the best chriftians, it must be allowed, have many imperfections, which are but fo many incon fiftencies; whereas by complying with this advice, they would be uniformly wicked. And as to their living more morally, if Mr. Paine could coin a new fyftem of morals, from which the love of God fhould be excluded, and intemperance, incontinency, pride, profane fwearing, curfing, lying, and hypocrify exalted to the rank of virtues, he might very probably make good his affertion.

Mr. Paine profeffes to "deteft the Bible on ac count of its obfcene ftories, voluptuous debaucheries, cruel executions, and unrelenting vindictivenefs." That the Bible relates fuch things, is true; and every impartial history of mankind muft do the fame. The question is, Whether they be fo related as to leave a favourable impreffion of them upon the mind of a serious reader. If fo, and if the Bible be that immoral book which Mr. Paine reprefents it to be, how is it that the reading of it should have reclaimed millions from immorality? Whether he will acknowledge this, or not, it is a fact too notorious to be denied by impartial obfervers. Every man refiding in a chriftian country will acknowledge, unless he have an end to answer in saying

Age of Reafon, Part I. p. 12,

otherwife, that those people who read the Bible, believe its doctrines, and endeavour to form their lives by its precepts, are the most fober, upright, and useful members of the community and that thofe on the other hand, who difcredit the Bible, and renounce it as the rule of their lives, are generally speaking, addicted to the groffeft vices; fuch as profane swearing, lying, drunkenness, and lewdnefs. It is very fingular, I repeat it, that men by regarding an immoral book fhould learn to practife morality; and that others by difregarding it fhould learn the contrary.

How is it that in countries where Chriftianity has made progrefs, men have almoft univerfally agreed in reckoning a true Chriftian, and an amiable, open, modeft, chafte, confcientious, and benevolent character, as the fame thing? How is it alfo that to fay of a man he rejects the Bible,' is nearly the fame thing, in the account of people in general, as to fay, he is a man of a diffolute life? If there were not a general connexion between these things, public opinion would not so generally affociate them. Individuals, and even parties, may be governed by prejudice; but public opinion of cha racter is feldom far from the truth. Befides, the prejudices of merely nominal Chriftians, fo far as my obfervation extends, are equally ftrong, if not stronger, against those Chriftians who are diftinguished by their devout and ferious regard to the Scriptures, than against profeffed infidels. How is it then to be accounted for that although they will call them fanatics, enthusiasts, and other unpleasant names, yet it is very rare that they reckon them immoral? If, as is fometimes the cafe, they accuse them of unworthy motives, and infinuate that in fe

cret they are as wicked as others, either fuch infinuations are not ferioufly believed, or, if they be, the party is confidered as infincere in his profeffion. No man thinks that genuine Chriftianity confists with a wicked life, open or fecret. But the ideas of infidelity and immorality are affociated in the public mind; and the affociation is clear and ftrong; fo much fo, as to become a ground of action. Whom do men ordinarily choofe for Umpires, Trustees, Guardians, and the like? Doubtless they endeavour to felect perfons of intelligence: but if to this be added chriftian principle, is it not of weight in thefe cafes? It is feldom known, I believe, but that a ferious intelligent Chriftian, whofe fituation in the world renders him converfant with its concerns, will have his hands full of employment. Afk bankers, merchants, tradesmen, and others, who are frequently looking out for perfons of probity whom they may place in fituations of truft, in whofe hands they would chufe to confide their property? They might object, and with good reafon, to per fons whofe religion rendered them pert, conceited, and idle; but would they not prefer one who really makes the Bible the rule of his life, to one who profeffedly rejects it? The common practice in these cafes affords a fufficient answer.

How is it that the principles and reafonings of infidels, though frequently accompanied with great natural and acquired abilities, are seldom known to make any impreffion on fober people? Is it not because the men and their communications are known?*

*It is faid of a Gentleman lately deceafed, who was eminent in the literary world, that in early life he drank deeply into the freethinking fcheme. He and one of his companions, of the fame turn of mind, often carried on their conversations in the hearing of a reli~