i

times; in France, where, at the same time, the people boasted of being the most polite and polished of all Europe? In the reign of Louis the fourteenth, while Queen Anne was upon the throne of England, the cruelties committed upon Protestants were of many kinds, vying with each other in diabolical excess. The lower rooms of houses were filled with the poor creatures, while kettle drums were beat and all sorts of terrible noises made over their heads, until they were driven to madness; until the brain was actually destroyed in their skulls. Houses were filled with them, and then set on fire, and were surrounded with Soldiers, who, under the command of the Priests, shot or sabred those that attempted to escape! And all this, let it be observed, on an accusation of blasphemy, and as was pretended, for the honour of God, and for the preservation of that religion which Jesus Christ had founded on the principle of Peace and Good Will!

There is another circumstance suggested by the history of the murder of NABOTH, proceeding, as it did, from a charge of blasphemy; and that is, that this charge has, for the most part, been preferred, not only from motives of plunder, but by persons of the most profligate characters and lives; and, for the far greater part, by those who were, themselves, most impious. We find this same JEZEBEL, this accuser of NABOTH, an idolatress, and a bitter enemy of the Prophet ELIJAH. We find her plotting the destruction of the Prophet, and only missing her aim by the flight of the Prophet. We find her a most profligate person in all the walks of life; setting at defiance every rule of decorum, and even of decency

We shall, too, if we look into History, of more modern date, find, that, in general, the first to prefer accusations of blasphemy are persons, who, themselves, have not the smallest sense of religion. The Cardinal de RICHELIEU, who was Prime Minister of France as well as a Cardinal of Rome, was a man notorious for his profligacy; notorious even for his privately scoffing at religion; but not less notorious for his cruelties inflicted on pretended blasphemers. Upon one occasion this horrible hypocrite had been satirised in a little poem by a Parish Priest in the South of France. He was too cunning to proceed against the man as having written a libel on him. That would not have answered his purpose. It would have exposed him to jest, or have spread the jest wider. He found a more effectual mode, through a charge of blasphemy, of answering his ends. The astonished Priest found himself all of a sudden called upon to answer for a crime which had never entered his imagination; and, at last, after a series of proceedings, the iniquity and flagrancy of which make us shudder as we read, the man was brought to the stake, and burnt to ashes amidst the plaudits of the people, wha seemed, the history tells us, to enjoy his cries and his groans!

This is a very poor compliment to human nature but, thus it is. For the reasons before stated, the hypocrite has only to persuade the people that he is actuated by pious motives, and that the punishment he is inflicting is for the support of religion; he has only to take care of these two things, and he may almost skin his victim alive in the presence of the

populace. Good, gentle, kind, most benevolent and most humane persons; persons who shudder at the thought of cruelty under all other circumstances, are, in cases like this; in cases where religion is concerned; in cases where blasphemy is the charge preferred; in such cases, they are furious as beasts of prey; or, at best, unfeeling as stocks and stones.

But, is such the conduct to be expected of good men ? Is such the conduct to be expected of men who found their hope of salvation in being followers of him who taught the sacred duties of forbearance and benevolence? Such persons may endeavour to reconcile their conduct to their consciences by affecting to believe, that their cruelty, or their approving of cruelty, towards persons who are called blasphe mers, may have a tendency to prevent blasphemy. But, it is pretty clear, that, in this, they deceive themselves; and that they will find, that' they ought not to indulge in speculations upon what may be, or what may not be, the effect of their conduct. Every line of that Gospel, by which they profess to regulate their conduct, teaches the duties of forbearance in judging as well as in acting; and, above al things, forbids man to commit deliberate cruelty, whether in word or in deed.'

The Chrisitan's duty, when a charge of blasphemy is preferred against his neighbour; a charge so difficult to define, and so easily made; the Christian's duty, in such a case, and, indeed, in every other case where a charge is preferred against his neighbour, but more especially in this case, is, to divest himself wholly of all

self love, of all the considerations which would make him a party in the question, before he attempt to pass judgment on his neighbour. "Judge not, that ye be "not judged," says the Gospel." In righteousnes "shalt thou judge thy neighbour," says the Law. Law and Gospel in every line forbid unjust judgment. They forbid even hasty judgment; and the man who will at once join in the cry of blasphemy against his neighbour, will find it difficult to convince any reasonable person that he would not have joined in the stoning of NABOTH to death, and that he would have been the last amongst those, who cried out for the saving of BARRABAS and for the sending of Jesus himself to the Cross! Such a man may quiet his own conscience, perhaps; but he will find it difficult to persuade the upright amongst mankind that he is worthy of respect; and, as to his account with God, all that we know is, that he cannot there deceive by means of hypocrisy.

Has such a man forgotten, that JESUS CHRIST himself was accused of blasphemy? Has he forgotten that the hypocrites accused him of being a blasphemer? How they bellowed out, "now you have heard his blasphemy?" Has such a man forgotten that blasphemy was the general charge preferred against CHRIST and his Apostles? And from what motive? Only because their teaching tended to put a stop to the plunder of the hypocrites of that day. Those whose gainful fraud. CHRIST and his Apostles detected and exposed, took care, like the Nobles and Judges of Samaria, not to complain of this detection and exposure. They affected not to have those in their eye,

any more than the Judges of Samaria had the Vineyard of NABOTH in their eye. It was, however, the exposure in the one case, as it had been the Vineyard in the other, which constituted the real offence. But blasphemy was the efficient accusation: that seized hold of popular feeling: that hardened the hearts of the people against the pretended offenders; and thus hypocrisy indulged it's love of plunder under the garb of zeal for religion.

Is it not then our duty; is it not, with all these instances, all these lessons, all these admonitions of God himself, before us, our bounden duty to watch well our conduct; to keep a strict guard as to our actions, and even as to our words and thoughts, when our neighbour› is exhibited unto us under the hateful name of blasphemer? Does any Christian believe that the history of the abominations of JEZEBEL was put upon record by the command of God, without being intended to serve us as a guide in cases where charges of blasphemy shall be preferred? Does any man calling himself a Christian, look upon the 21st Chapter of the 1st Book of Kings, and upon the 9th Chapter of the 2d Book of Kings, as containing the beginning and the sequel of a sort of tragical fable, given to us for our diversion or amusement? No: he looks upon them as given to us for our instruction, to be sure; to caution us against acting as the people of Jezreel did; that is to say, against lending a ready ear to falsehoods preferred against our neighbour; and against joining in causing his destruction when we ought to come to his assistance and support.