which is offensive to a person of your Lordship's known judgment and integrity; who have also expressed so much kindness to me, beyond my desert or expectation.

I believe, (and think I may be positive,) that when I wrote those expressions, (preface, page 4.) I had no regard to a demand made by any one, of a punishment on Mr. Woolston for his writings. I only intended to disown, in plain terms, which might not be mistaken, the principles of persecution, which he had charged upon so many of his adversaries. As when I men

tioned a reply without abusive terms, I had no reference to any reply written in that way; (for I have seen no such, nor has he complained of any thing of that nature, that I know of, besides his being called an infidel, whereas, he says he is a christian ;) so, when I wished his conviction without pains and penalties, Í had no reference to any demand made of them. But I do own, that, in the first paragraph of page 11, I had a reference to a demand, which I thought had been made for punishing him for his writings. And, I suppose, if he should be punished it will be for writing against christianity, and not for his manner of doing it.

I am far from thinking that Mr. Woolston has written in a grave and serious manner and I have strongly expressed my dislike of his manner in the latter end of page 11, and page 12.

Your Lordship freely declares, he ought not to be punished for being an infidel, nor for writing at all against the christian religion; which appears to me a noble declaration. If the governors of the church and civil magistrates had all along acted up to this principle, I think, the christian religion had been before now well-nigh universal. But I have supposed it to be a consequence from this sentiment, that if men have an allowance to write against the christian religion, there must be also considerable indulgence as to the manner likewise. This has appeared to me a part of that meekness and forbearance, which the christian religion obliges us to; who are to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all long-suffering. The proper punishment of a low, mean, indecent, scurrilous way of writing seems to be neglect, contempt, scorn, and general indignation. Your Lordship has observed (in my opinion) extremely well, that this way of writing is such as may justly raise the indignation and resentment of every honest man, whether christian or not. This punishment he has already had in part, and will probably have more and more, if he should go on in his rude and brutal way of writing. And if we leave all further punishment to Him, to whom vengeance belongs, I have thought it might be much for the honour of ourselves, and of our religion. But if he should be punished farther, the stream of resentment and indignation will turn; especially if the punishment should be severe; and it is likely, that a small punishment will not suffice to engage to silence, nor to an alteration of the manner of writing.

f

I truly think, that the christians of this nation are at present under a great trial; and I heartily wish we may behave so under it, as may be most for the lasting honour of our religion. It seems to me much better for us, as christians, to err somewhat (if it be an error) on the side of tenderness and meekness, rather than on the side of severity; nothing having done the christian cause greater prejudice, than the severities practised by some who have borne the name of christian. It has seemed to me (as I have said) to be a consequence of permitting men to write against christianity, that we must also show indulgence toward the manner, in some measure. But no one is to be allowed to say any thing injurious to men's characters; this is properly a breach of the peace. I am persuaded, that no man has been more sensibly grieved and offended than myself, at the abusive treatment that has been given to men of the highest order, and greatest merit in the church. And if any thing of this kind has been said, cognizable by the laws, no man can complain of a just punishment.

I have, my Lord, freely represented my sentiments, which are submitted to your Lordship's consideration with the greatest humility and deference. I hope I have nothing more at heart, than the general interest of the christian religion. And if I have declared in favour of too great lenity, it has been purely because I have supposed it would be in the end most for the advantage of that good cause.

I HAVE received yours of the 22d, and am very well satisfied with the explication you have been pleased to give me of your meaning in those passages in the 4th page of your preface, which, upon the first reading, seemed to me to have a more particular view than you now declare they had; and I can very readily believe what you now assert to be true, and should indeed beg your pardon for my mistake, (though it was by no means a wilful one,) if the candour that appears in every part of your letter did not tempt me to think you have granted it without my asking.

I don't see that you and I are likely to differ much as to any other points touched upon in your letter; our general principles, with respect to the true method of propagating and defending our holy religion, are, I believe, the same; and I wish as heartily as you can do, that no other had ever been followed by ecclesiastical or civil governors; but still I am at a loss how to understand what you are pleased to say, That there must be likewise 'considerable indulgence allowed as to the manner of writing against the christian religion.' I am not sure whether, if Mr. Woolston heard this, he would not say, it is all the indulgence he desires; for he has declared, that he cannot write otherwise 'than he has done already;' and if for that reason, because he cannot write otherwise, he must be indulged in writing in his own way, there is no doubt but that he will go on in writing after such a manner, as you seem to think may justly raise the indignation and resentment of every honest man, whether christian or not; and for which I cannot, I own, think that bare contempt is a sufficient punishment; considering the great mischief such a way of writing must do, and daily does in the world: I am willing to indulge such writers as far as ever christian meekness and charity require me to go; but I would just beg leave to ask, what opinion you think St. Paul, or any other truly primitive christian, would have had, of any person writing in those days (and that while he still professed himself a christian) in such a manner as Mr. Woolston does in these? what do you imagine their conduct would have been? whether they would have carried the christian principles of meekness and tenderness so far as to have indulged him in such a manner of writing, in hopes of working his conviction in that way? It does not appear, by those instances we have in the epistles of the exercise of christian discipline in those days, that they were then indolent in matters of such consequence to the christian religion; nor do I think we are under any obligation to do so now, and therefore I should be unwilling to give any indulgence at all to such a manner' of writing, much less a ' consider'able one,' as your words (considering the occasion on which they are used, and to which they must refer) seem to imply that we should. You, indeed, add afterwards, 'That no man is to be allowed to say any thing injurious to men's characters, and that if any thing of this kind has been said, no man can complain of a just punishment, for this is properly a breach of the peace.' Now no one who has read Mr. Woolston's books or prefaces can surely have the least doubt upon his mind, but that he is in this respect guilty to the highest degree; and therefore, in your opinion, deserves a just punishment; but besides this, I think a sincere christian may and ought to go farther; he may very justly be concerned for the honour of his blessed Saviour, and have some real stirrings in his breast for preventing such abuses of that holy name as have no sort of argument in them to persuade and convince; cannot be the result of any fair reasoning against the chris

tian religion, but must necessarily proceed from a spirit fit to be abhorred by all mankind, and can never be a humane way of ' propagating truth,' whether for or against christianity. These, dear Sir, are my free and impartial thoughts upon that particular passage in your letter, which mentions the considerable indulgence' that ought to be made as to the manner' of writing against christianity. And I hope, upon the whole, that you and I don't differ so much even on this point, as we may seem to do. What punishments are proper for such a manner of writing, or whether it may be looked upon as a breach of the peace in a christian society,' and so by your own allowance punishable by the civil magistrate, are points I shall not enter into now, any farther than to declare freely my opinion, that such a writer ought to be punished by the ecclesiastical censure of the church, and declared excommunicate by a proper authority; and if he could be farther restrained from writing on in the same 'outrageous manner' by the civil magistrate, (with a liberty still to use reason instead of railing,) I don't see how this could be any prejudice to the christian religion, any contradiction to the true forbearing spirit of it, any injury to the just liberties of mankind, or any injustice to the writer himself, but in my poor opinion the greatest kindness that could possibly be done him. I heartily thank you, good Sir, for the present you have made me of your additions to your former excellent book, which, I am sure, I shall read with a great deal of profit, as well as pleasure, as soon as they come to hand. You will be so good as to excuse me in not transcribing this long letter, which indeed (considering the many corrections in it) I should do, but such compliments between friends will, I hope, not be expected, nor am I sure if I should attempt it, not to commit again as many faults as I mend. I am, therefore, without any more ceremony, and with the greatest sincerity and respect,

Reverend Sir,

Your very faithful Friend,

and humble Servant,

EDWARD CHICHESTER.

My Lord,

Mr. Lardner answered:

December 2, 1729.

I HAVE the favour of your letter of the 25th of November, which, I hope, your Lordship will permit me to say, is a pattern of condescension and goodness; nor can I help esteeming it an honour to me, that my sentiments are so agreeable to that truly christian spirit expressed in your letter.

The reasons of my saying that it was a consequence of permitting men to write against the christian religion, 'that there

'must be likewise considerable indulgence as to the manner of writing,' were chiefly these that the permission of writing against the christian religion contained in it so much, that the 'manner of it also should be borne with, in a considerable degree : and secondly, the cause of those who oppose christianity is so bad and desperate, that they who argue against it are naturally, and almost necessarily, led into an unfair way of arguing. If men are so weak, or so wicked, as to write against christianity, I expect to see them make use of some bad arts to support their cause. The fact has been agreeable to this supposition. The writers in the defence of christianity have actually exceeded their adversaries, not only in their arguments and reasons, but also in the manner of arguing and reasoning.

If what Mr. Woolston says, that he cannot write otherwise,' be true, it farther confirms this supposition, and is a shameful truth for him and his cause, publicly acknowledged by himself.

To your Lordship's question, What I think would have been the conduct of St. Paul, and other primitive christians, in a like case? I readily answer, my Lord, that, I believe, they would have pronounced a sentence of excommunication, and it would, in my opinion, be justly pronounced upon Mr. Woolston. The sentiments advanced by him, and his manner of defending them, do both together, and each of them singly, deserve that sentence.

Mr. Woolston has writ in a most abusive and injurious manner to men's characters, but I did not know that he had been prosecuted for it, though I thought he well deserved it.

I have also the honour to agree with your Lordship, that we ought to have a very great zeal and concern for the honour of our blessed Saviour, and an abhorrence of all ways, ' not humane, of propagating truth, whether for or against christianity; or that have a plain tendency to destroy a sense of religion and virtue in men's minds.

I conclude with humbly acknowledging your Lordship's goodness in communicating to me your sentiments upon these matters in so kind and friendly a manner.

I am, my Lord,

Your Lordship's

most obliged, most humble,

and obedient Servant,

N. LARDNER.