and as only carrying their faith and their practice, unnecessarily and unreasonably, to the point of weak credulity and foolish scrupulosity. This view of the subject has a strong tendency to confirm the superstitious, and even to add to their number. They feel that if there is any doubt, they are surely on the safe side. Supposing I am in error on this or that point' (a man may say), 'I am merely doing something superfluous; at the worst I suffer some temporary inconvenience, and perhaps have to encounter some ridicule; but if the error be on the other side, I risk my salvation by embracing it; my present course therefore is evidently the safest-I am, after all, on the safe side.' -As if there were any safe side but the side of truth; and as if it could be safe to manifest distrust of a skilful physician by combining with his medicines all the nostrums of all the ignorant practitioners in the neighbourhood.

How far the superstition of any individual may be excusable or blameable in the sight of God, can be pronounced by Him alone, who alone is able to estimate each man's strength or weakness, his opportunities of gaining knowledge, and his employment or neglect of those opportunities. But the same may be said of every other offence, as well as of those in question. Of superstition itself, in all its various forms and degrees, I cannot think otherwise than that it is not merely a folly to be ridiculed, but a mischief to be dreaded; and that its tendency is, in most cases, as far as it extends, destructive of true piety.

"The disposition to reverence some superhuman Power, and in some way or other to endeavour to recommend ourselves to the favour of that Power, is (more or less in different individuals) a natural and original sentiment of the human mind. The great enemy of Man finds it easier in most cases to misdirect, than to eradicate this. If an exercise for this religious sentiment can be provided-if this natural craving after divine worship (if I may so speak) can be satisfied-by the practice of superstitious ceremonies, true piety will be much more easily extinguished; the conscience will on this point have been set at rest; God's place in the heart will, as it were, have been pre-occupied by an idol; and that genuine religion which consists in a devotedness of the affections to God, operating on the improvement of the moral character, will be more effectually

shut out, from the religious feelings of our nature having found another vent, and exhausted themselves on vanities of man's devising.'1

1

Too religious, in the proper sense of the word, we cannot be. We cannot have the religious sentiments and principles too strong, or too deeply fixed, if only they have a right object. We cannot love God too warmly-or honour Him too highlyor strive to serve Him too earnestly-or trust Him too implicitly; because our duty is to love Him with all our heart, and all our soul, and all our mind, and all our strength.'

But too religious, in another sense, we may, and are very apt to be; that is, we are very apt to make for ourselves too many objects of religious feeling.

Now, Almighty God has revealed Himself as the proper object of religion-as the one only Power on whom we are to feel ourselves continually dependent for all things, and the one only Being whose favour we are continually to seek. And, lest we should complain that an Infinite Being is an object too remote and incomprehensible for our minds to dwell upon, He has manifested Himself in his Son, the man Jesus Christ, whose history and character are largely described to us in the Gospels; so that, to love, fear, honour, and serve Jesus Christ, is to love, fear, honour, and serve Almighty God; Jesus Christ being 'one with the Father,' and 'all the fulness of the Godhead' dwelling in Him.

But as long as our characters are not like God's, and we are unwilling to have them made like his, we are naturally averse to being brought thus into immediate contact with Him; and we shrink from holding (as it were) direct converse, or walking with' God,-from making Him the object towards which our thoughts and affections directly turn, and the person to whom we come straight in our prayers, and in whose control and presence we feel ourselves at all times. Hence, men wish to put between themselves and God some other less perfect Beings, with whom they can be more familiar, and who (they hope) will 'let them off' more easily, when they sin, than He would.

Now, indulging this disposition is not merely adding to true

1 Errors of Romanism, 3rd edition, Essay I. § 3, pp. 34-37.

religion, but destroying, or going near to destroy it. For, when we have once made for ourselves such objects of religious feelings, they are objects so much more suited to our corrupt nature than God is, that we soon begin to let Him drop out of our minds entirely, whilst the inferior Powers engross all our serious worship. Thus the heathens, who began with adding the worship of other deities to that of the Supreme, ended with ceasing to worship the Supreme at all. Nor does it make so much difference, as one might at first suppose, whether we think of such inferior Beings as lords, having a direct control over us (as the Pagans commonly did), or as only influencing the Supreme through their favour with Him; as the Greeks and Romancatholics commonly profess to think of the glorified saints; because, he, from whom I expect happiness or misery, becomes the uppermost object in my mind, whether he give or only procure it. If an agent has such influence with the landlord, that the agent's friends are sure of favour, and his foes are sure of hard treatment, it is the agent, and not the landlord, that the tenants will most think about; though all his power comes really from the landlord. Hence we may see the danger of this kind of superstition, by which the heart which should be God's is forestalled, as it were, by other objects.

'Atheism did never perturb States.'

It may perhaps be inferred from this remark that Bacon entertained an opinion, held by some, that persons indifferent about all religions are the most likely to be tolerant of all, and to be averse to persecution and coercion. But this is a mistaken notion. Many persons, indeed, perhaps most, are tolerant or intolerant according to their respective tempers, and not according to their principles. But as far as principles are concerned, certainly the latitudinarian is the more likely to be intolerant, and the sincerely conscientious tolerant. A man who is careless about religious sincerity may clearly see and appreciate the political convenience of religious uniformity, and if he has no religious scruples of his own, he will not be the more likely to be tender of the religious scruples of others: if he is ready himself to profess what he does not believe, he will see no reason why others should not do the same.

N

'Mr. Brydone mentions in his Travels the case of an Englishman who attended mass at a church in Naples through curiosity (which I am far from justifying), and on the elevation of the Host, remained standing, while those around knelt: for this he was reproved by a gentleman near him, as a violation of the rules of delicacy and good breeding, in thus shocking the feelings of the congregation: he answered that he did not believe in the real presence; No more do I, sir,' was the reply; ' and yet you see I kneel?'

'Now, without attempting to vindicate the conduct of the Englishman (who was under no compulsion to be present at a service in which he scrupled to join), it may be remarked that the Neapolitan, or Mr. Brydone, would probably have been disposed, if entrusted with the government of any country, to compel every one's compliance, in all points, with whatever the feelings of the people required; not only to kneel before the Host, but to attend in processions the image of St. Januarius, &c., if their omitting it would be likely to give offence. The plea of conscientious scruple they would not have understood. 'I do not believe so and so,' would have been met by the ready answer, 'No more do I; and yet I kneel.'1

'As the Protestant is often inclined to look no further than to Romanism for the origin of persecution, so is the Infidel to regard Christianity as the chief cause of it. But both are mistaken. I am convinced that atheists, should they ever become the predominant party, would persecute religion. For it is to human nature we must trace both this and many other of those evils which each man is usually disposed to attribute to the particular system he is opposed to; and nearly the same causes, which generate especial hostility towards those who differ in faith from ourselves, would be found to exist for the atheists. They would feel themselves to be regarded by the Christians, not indeed as weak and credulous, but as perverse and profane their confidence again in their own persuasion would be as likely to be shaken by the Christian, as the Christian's, by them: all the human passions, in short, and all the views of political expediency, which have ever tempted the

1 Kingdom of Christ, Essay I. § 13, page 59, 4th edition.

Christian to persecute, would have a corresponding operation with them.

Not that I conceive most of them to have, themselves, any suspicion of this, or to be insincere in their professed abhorrence of persecution. As no one wishes to persecute, so, they probably do not anticipate (under the above-mentioned supposition) such a state of things as would seem to call for coercive measures. They imagine, probably, that when they had deprived christian ministers of endowments, had publicly proclaimed the falsity of the christian faith, and had taken measures for promoting education, and circulating books calculated to enlighten the people, the whole system of religious belief would gradually, but speedily, die away, and be regarded in the same light with tales of fairies. Such, doubtless, was the notion of some, whom I have known to express regret that Buonaparte did not employ the power he possessed in conferring so great a benefit on society as he might have done, by abolishing Christianity.' They were thinking, probably, of no more active measures than the withholding of the support and countenance of govern

ment.

'In such expectations, every one who believes in Christianity must feel confident that they would be deceived. At first, indeed, appearances probably would be such as to promise favourably to their views. For, most of those who profess Christianity merely for fashion's sake, or in compliance with the laws of their country, would soon fall away; and would be followed by many of such as wanted firmness to support ridicule, or the disfavour of those in power. But after a time the progress of irreligion would be found to have come to a stand. When the plants 'on the stony ground' had been all scorched up, those on the good soil' would be found still flourishing. Sincere Christians would remain firm; and some probably would be roused to exert themselves even with increased zeal; and some apostates would be reclaimed. Complaints would then be raised, that Christian preachers decried, as profane and mischievous, the works put forth by authority; and that they represented the rulers as aliens from God, and men whose example should be shunned. Those indeed who had imbibed the true spirit of the Gospel, would not fail to inculcate, after the example of the Apostles, the duty of loyal submission, even to