It proves that the professors of and believers in it, are not themselves convinced of its truth and divine nature. But a system of things being established, of which these persons form apart, in which they live, move, and have their being, _they wish it to be true_. They themselves take it for granted, and live very comfortably under that system of machinery of which it is a wheel, and so their interest and indolence combine in prompting them to wish every one else to have the same belief. There are people, however, who cannot, and will not, believe what appears to their judgements to be false; but, should they go farther than this, and consciously wishing their fellow-creatures to perceive the truth, endeavour to shew by writings on what grounds they cannot, and others ought not, to believe in falsehood and impositions, then, in default of counter argument, or refutation by the same instrument of reason, courts of law and armed authority are called on, _to compel_ those unbelievers either to believe, and of course such belief would be against their consciences, or to hold their tongues. In former ages, shooting, stabbing, burning, and flaying alive, were the means used for propagating religion for the good of men's souls; now they are imprisonment, fine, pillory: but these remnants of barbarity are also fast sinking into disgrace and disuse, and I cannot help thinking that you are destined to give the finishing blow, in this country at least, to the cruelties of bigotry. Now, as inspiration or direct revelation from Heaven is not believed even by Christians (at least the more rational) of this day, though in the early and middle ages of Christianity priests and monks would have sworn that God communicated with them every day, let me suggest that, in the course of your defence, you ask the Jury trying your guilt or innocence as a _libeller_ of that religion, whether _they_ believe it to be founded on _truth?_ And since it would be to insult them, you can add, to suppose they should profess belief of a subject doubtless considered by them of the highest importance to their present and future welfare, without having thoroughly examined it, again ask--whether in their hearts and consciences they think that any sophistical reasoning, which every thing contrary to it they must deem so, could shake their principles thus established on the basis of demonstration? If so established, what can hurt it--what can be a libel on it? Unless their religion be capable of _demonstration_, it is at best but _doubtful_, and may, therefore, be at least _susceptible_ of confutation. If, in spite of the objections and attacks to which it has been exposed, it can be shewn to be the true religion after all, such discussion, instead of doing harm, must do good, inasmuch as it fixes the religion on a firmer basis. On a subject where so many men of the most acute intellect and most respectable character differ in opinion, you, as a humble inquirer