All the use he makes of his Jewish persuasion, is, but to palliate something what he knew was without excuse :- I obtained mercy, says he, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief: that is, because I persecuted in my unbelieving state of a Jew, and was kept, by the genius of the Mosaic law, from knowing and considering the general malignity of persecution. And that there may be some ground of mercy in this consideration, who can doubt, when we find the Son of God interceding for his very murderers on the same principle-Father, says he, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

There was this difference, you see, between a Jewish and a Gentile persecutor. The Jew was answerable for his not seeing that Jesus was the Messiah: The Gentile was to answer for that ignorance, and for his not seeing the general iniquity of persecution, on account of religion,

Paul, however, was certainly to blame; nay, he takes much blame on himself, for acting ignorantly against the name of Jesus, though his ignorance was of the former kind only.

2. But now another question, and a very important one, arises out of this state of the

case. Paul verily thought that the religion of Jesus was an imposture. Yet he was mistaken in thinking so; and, what is more, his mistake was highly criminal.

What then shall we say to those persons, who affirm, that, provided a man be persuaded of the truth of his opinions, he is not answerable for his mistakes? or, in other words, what becomes of that notion which many have taken up, concerning the innocency of error in matters of religion?

I understand what is generally alledged in support of this candid and conciliating opinion. But the text says expressly, that Paul verily believed he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus; and with all this firmness of belief Paul was the chief of sinners.

Men therefore conclude too hastily, when from the sole persuasion of their sincerity they infer the innocence of their errors.

"But what then would you require of poor unhappy man, whose reason is naturally so weak, and whose prejudices are often so strong?" Why, to use the force he has; to consider well whether he be indeed sincere (for to be firmly,

and to be sincerely persuaded, is not always the same thing); to employ his reason, such as it is, with care, and to controul his prejudices, what he can, by an impartial examination.

All this, it will be answered, is already done. It may be so. Let me then have leave to interrogate the sincere rejecter of Christianity, and try his good faith, of which he is so well assured, by the following questions.

"Has he cultivated his mind, and furnished himself with the requisite helps for religious inquiry? Has he studied the sacred volumes with care? Has he considered their scope and end? their genius and character? Has he fixed the boundaries of reason and of faith? Does he know where the province of the former ends, and where that of the second commences? Has he studied himself, his faculties and powers, his wants and necessities? Has he weighed the importance of the search, he is making into the will and word of God? Has he made that search with a suitable diligence and sobriety? Has he accustomed himself to the investigation of moral evidence? Has he collected, compared, and estimated, what is brought in evidence for the truth of the Christian religion? Has he, in short, (for I address

myself to capable inquirers only) omitted none of those means which reason requires, and employed all that industry, and thought, and application, which the sincere love of truth demands on so momentous an occasion?

7

"Still, I have other inquiries to make. Has he approached the sanctuary of religion with awe? Has he purged his mind from all gross, nay from all refined vices? Had he no interest to serve, no prejudice to sooth, no predominant passion to gratify, by a hasty conclusion concerning the truth of Christianity? Or, (not to suspect a philosophic mind of these vulgar illusions) had he no vanity to flatter, no capricious levity to indulge, by a short and disdainful rejection of it? Had he no spleen to divert, no regard of fashion, no partialities of acquaintance or education to mislead him, from conviction? Had he no secret wish or hope, which he scarcely durst tell to himself, that his inquiry would end in doubt at least, if not in infidelity? In a word, can he assure himself, that in these several respects, he had no bias on his mind, or did his best at least to have none, against a conclusion, to which an impartial love of truth might invite and compell him?"

Had St. Paul himself been questioned in this manner, concerning his sincere belief, that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus, he would hardly, I suppose, have said, that he had fulfilled all these conditions ;

But we know what he did say, to himself and to the world: He said, He was THE CHIEF

OF SINNERS.

So remote is persuasion from sincerity! and so little acquainted, many times, are innocence and error!

،

But these questions, it will be said, may be retorted on the believer; who may be neither more diligent, nor more impartial in his inquiries, than the unbeliever.'

Allow that they may; yet observe the immense difference of the two cases, in regard both to the danger incurred, and to the crime committed.

If I believe, on insufficient grounds, what do I lose? only what I can well spare; my unbelief and my vices. And what do I gain? that, which of all things is most precious to me; peace of mind, and the hopes of heaven. On the other hand, if I disbelieve, I lose all that is valuable in both worlds, and gain nothing