the hands of a small number of persons, who, however wise or warm their benevolence, cannot be insensible to the blandishments of power. Besides, if any opinions lead to the employment of external force, in order to produce internal changes, what opinions rather than those which teach that, by the force of circumstances, you can make man think, and feel, and act as you will? The patient in the hands of a persecuting socialist could not plead conscience, for man's accountableness to God is disallowed; nor could he plead conviction or education-that is the very disorder that has to be cured. The socialist knows, if he does not know himself, that he is wrong and wretched; and if the patient is so foolish as not to wish for an improved character-nay, to resist the appliances of reason-this obstinacy only shows how inveterate is the disease, how loud the call is for an effectual cure; and might naturally impel the moral physician to resolve on making the patient sound and happy in spite of himself. And should any follower of this new philosophy feel himself called to make the attempt, he would have a ready justification against the charge of bigotry, in declaring that he was not responsible for his actions, he but did as he was impelled. And as to the infliction of evil by the employment of force, how could there be any, since the circumstances brought to bear on the patient were but the needful discipline to bend him to the yoke of Socialism, and make him happy? In fact, the socialist is the 'social father'-the rest of the world are his children, whose characters are formed for them by the great parent; and if any of his family continue refractory in his hands, he is authorised, by the relation he bears to the child, to resort to all needful severity. I have, indeed, no fear that the present Head of Socialism could ever find it in his heart to employ compulsion, but I have seen too much of the spirit of persecution in some of his satellites,

to think it would be safe that they should be invested with power; and I frankly say, that though some of their views favour the use of force, I should fear their passions more than their principles. In their case, as in every other, persecution would, in the main, have to be charged on the lower impulses of human nature.

I have proved that Christianity did not introduce persecution; I have proved that Christian authorities are not guilty to the extent alleged; I have shown that the imputation, in general, lies against human passions; and now, keeping in mind the distinction which I mentioned in my first lecture, and which I consider most important, between Christianity and the religion of Christ-that which is prevalent in the world and that which is found in the gospel histories, I proceed, lastly, to consider whether the religion of Christ affords a sanction to bigotry and intolerance. What is the real question? It is simply this,-does the religion of Christ authorize me to employ force, to make you think as I think? Now, I at once deny the possibility of any such authority. If the religion of Christ bade me persecute, the only legitimate consequence would be, the supercession of its own authority, not the devolution of authority on another. Any system stands selfcondemned, which interferes with the rights of conscience. The divinity of its origin is contradicted by the fact of its authorising persecution. You cannot prove its divinity to me, by any evidence superior to my in-born right to think and speak with entire freedom.

Again; should it even appear that Jesus himself was a persecutor,-what then? How do I get to the conclusion, that I have a right to persecute? Are his circumstances and mine the same? Can I call forth the dead to attest the divinity of my mission? Have I the breadth and depth of light which illuminated his mind? Is his benevolence mine? In other words, Am I he, or one with like authority?

Once more:-Suppose that he inflicted penalties on disbelief, is that any sanction why I should force the profession of my creed on a fellow-man? What guarantee can I have that my creed is the creed of Christ? I may so consider it but am I infallible? And if I saw eye to eye with Jesus, how does it follow that I am to do as he did in regard to matters of belief? Even if you succeed in proving that he commanded the apostles to employ compulsion, you are scarcely advanced a step over the immeasurable space which separates him from me.

The errors to which I have now alluded spring from a prolific source-from that parent error, that whatever is found in the histories of Christ is common to all men of all ages. Now, the truth is, that in them there is little that is common, and almost every thing peculiar-peculiar in its strict, full, and proper meaning, to the individuals themselves in connection with whom it first occurred. To them, and for them, was the word; to, and for us, is the spirit. But in gathering up that spirit, we must separate from it every thing of an individual, local, and transient nature; and, in an especial manner, all those functions which Jesus exercised, in virtue of his extraordinary character, peculiar circumstances, and divine commission.

But I altogether deny that the religion of Christ gives any encouragement to bigotry and intolerance. I have argued that it could not, in the nature of things, afford a sanction to persecution; and now I maintain as a fact, that it does not interfere with, but guarantees, the rights of conscience.

Among its highest duties stands the service of God; of God, I say, in contradistinction to the service of man. What is that service? In general, the surrender of the whole of our being to his will; and, specifically and essentially, the gift of the heart. Hence religion is a

concern which lies exclusively between the individual and his God. The right of human control is, in consequence, excluded. Conscience is the domain of religion-and who but God has access or power there? The essence of true religion is in its spirituality, It is a power within-not an external show, nor an external reality. It consists in certain states of the mind, which force can neither form nor crush. Religion, then, lies beyond the province of human power. Its seat is placed within the breast by him who is its author; and who, by the very fact, has guaranteed its safety from all the appliances of compulsion; and so has it been found that laws and penalties are utterly powerless to make men religious ;-professors, hypocrites, martyrs, they may create, but not one truly religious emotion can they produce. Spontaneousness is the essential attribute of religion. It is a natural sentiment, an instinct; and you may as well try to make a mother love her child by force, as think to excite or change a religious feeling by per

secution.

Besides, the religion of Jesus, in its application to us, is faith. But faith in what? Faith not in articles and creeds and catechisms. Jesus himself proposed none, has left none. But faith in himself; faith, that is, in the qualities which formed his character-faith in devotedness to the will of God and the service of man-faith in the efficacy of truth and the power of love; in other words, it is trust towards our Heavenly Father, and benevolence towards our brethren of mankind. The faith of the gospel histories is of a moral nature, consisting in the practical acknowledgement of the worth and efficacy of the several human emotions which distinguished, adorned, and blessed the life of Jesus. Its faith, therefore, is confidence in God, and love to man; it is fidelity to our own nature, our own opportu nities, our own convictions. And, if any thing can be→

such a faith is far beyond the reach of human control, and all the appliances of force. And thus, God the author of the religion of Jesus, has guaranteed its security. Can a prison make me devout? Will the rack create the love of human kind? If I am insensible to the charities and sympathies which filled the breast and glowed in the life of Christ, is it in your power to open my heart to them by menace, or fire, or sword? What have these material instruments to do with feelings which are essentially and purely moral in their origin, their developement, and their expression?

You allege that Jesus threatened damnation on those who did not believe? And if he did, what right have I to do the same? But in truth, Jesus did not threaten, he simply declared a fact. His words are not minatory, but declaratory. And what do they declare? Not that even the men of his own day--much less others differently circumstanced, would be consigned to the regions of woe for an intellectual error, but that condemnation would ensue, as a natural consequence, on that moral condition which was the reverse of his own. He himself has given the commentary-and this is the condemnation that though light has come into the world, men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.' (John iii, 19.) And if men, through an evil heart of unbelief, prefer the slavery of sense to the adoption of the sons of God, prefer revenge to forgiveness, and hatred to love, what can ensue but misery?-what can their state be, but one of condemnation-self-condemnation, for their own hearts condemn them; and condemnation on the part of every mind, whether in the visible or invisible world, which loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity, and is therefore pledged to the furtherance of the one and the extirpation of the other? In other words-and words which, perhaps, will convey the truth more exactly and more intelligibly, at least to the