and enabled to get the means of a living. This is my wish, and let every other man who belongs this nation express his wish, and I am willing to abide by the decision of the majority. The property of the nation, called church property is immense, and if formed into Communities, would be a relief to the country not to be calculated. It would instantly put an end to all beggery and want, and these being the leading-strings to crime, crime would be almost unknown. Where is the intellect and rationality of this nation, that this is not done? Would it not be better to do this, than to allow droves of priests to be swallowing up this immense wealth, under the pretence of deterring people from crime, by preaching nonsense about heaven and hell; and after all not abating crime in the least. What is the object of priests? To make people virtuous. Here then their object is accomplished without them. Did priests succeed in effecting their object, that is to say, did they make people virtuous, we might let them remain undisturbed, but since they totally fail in effecting it, we have a double inducement why we should make this change. We have the inducement arising from the fact, that they are preaching to the people a religion that is falsehood and nonsense from beginning to end, and also the inducement that they are unable to effect the object for which they were established, and that we can effect this object without them. As one of the nation then, I desire that this change be made, and that as speedily as possible.

Incapable of thought and discrimination indeed! Well may the Whigs refuse to grant the working classes the franchise, when they have this conception of their intellects. They are in ignorance as to the mental condition of the working classes, and their duty ought to be to exercise thought and discrimimation themselves, and come amongst the working classes, and ascertain the amount of intelligence amongst them, before they presume to make such statements. I hope that the work

ing classes will shortly show their thought and discrimination, by making such a demand for the franchise that neither the Whigs, nor any other Government, will dare to refuse it. I do not wish them to use violence; I hope they have more thought and discrimination; moral means are sufficient to effect what they desire, if properly applied; and moral means alone are becoming the character and dignity of rational men.

The Attorney-General talks about the evil tendency of Letters to the Clergy. I have shown that their tendency is to induce the people of this country to withdraw from the Priesthood the immense wealth that is now wasted upon them, and apply it to purposes for the relief of all the destitute in the land, and therefore his assertion is false. He then talks about the Jury, and men in their class of life, being furnished with an antidote to the poison. What offensive nonsense! Poison! and tends to relieve all the destitute in the land! And they are furnished with an antidote to the poison. I should like to see it. I have read and thought perhaps as much as many of the Jury, "and men in their class of life," and I have never yet been able to come across this antidote. What is it? Or where is it? Why did the Attorney-General not mention it, or point to it, that I and others might be furnished with the antidote also? Is it to be found in the works of your most celebrated advocates of Christianity? I have read and examined their works, and I have not been able to find it. In fact, instead of me finding antidotes to my "poison," I find antidotes to the Attorney-General's own poison, and to your lordship's poison; for I imagine I have as much right to call your religion poison, as you have to call mine; and I expect, before I close this Letter, to give your lordship an antidote or two of this description. Where then is this antidote of yours? Alas! it is no where to be found but in the dull and barren brains of men who could pronounce Mr. Hetherington guilty of blasphemy, before they examined the qusstion,

whether the Bible was the word of God or not; and blasphemy could only follow upon its being proved to be the word of God. They not only did not examine the question, but they never so much as asked for any evidence in relation to it. So that they decided a question without considering the question. Yet the Attorney-General talks about the education of these sort of men, and their thought and discrimination! A dozen of blocks of wood would have manifested less stupidity. Had the Jurymen been men of sense, they would either have given an immediate verdict of Not Guilty, or they would have called for all the evidence that the Church possessed, in support of the proposition that the Bible was the word of God, and also all the evidence that the opposing party possessed in support of the opposite proposition, and after a careful and diligent examination, they would have given a verdict according to the preponderance of evidence on either side. But instead of this, what do they do? They give a verdict according to the nod of the Attorney-General, without at all considering the question, upon the affirmative decision of which, blasphemy can only follow. And these are the men who are capable of thought and discrimination, and competent to send Members to Parliament !

I shall only notice another sentence of the AttorneyGeneral's, and then I shall proceed to give him an antidote or two to his poison. If he keeps his antidotes a secret, I shall not keep mine. The sentence is as follows:

"If there were persons so unfortunate as to disbelieve the Scriptures, which were the foundation of our holy religion, the law did not interfere with them so long as they kept their opinions to themselves, ard did not publicly attack the authenticity of the Bible."

So then if I see my fellow-creatures in error, and suffering in consequence of that error, I am not to tell them of it, nor endeavour to put them right, but allow them to

grope on in that error, notwithstanding the miseries they suffer in consequence. Upon my word but this is a pretty doctrine to be preached in the nineteenth century; and that too, by men who profess to desire the extension of useful knowledge! To correct people's errors is the most useful knowledge that one human being can impart to another, and here the Whigs are opposed to it. I can look on, says the Attorney-General, and see my fellowcreatures groping and suffering, but if I speak, then the law interferes. Your laws are as stupid as your religion, and you are all irrational together, or you would consign to oblivion such barbarous and abominable nonsense. The Attorney-General talks about our holy religion. Where did he get his holy religion? Was it from the practice of the doctrine he here preaches? Did Christ look on, and see his fellow-creatures in error, and suffering in consequence of that error, and not speak because the law would interfere ? Did Christ keep his opinions to himself? A pretty character this to talk about the working classes being incapable of thought or discrimination! Had Christ, and all the great men that have lived, acted upon this doctrine, "our holy religion" would have been unknown, and the Attorney-General, instead of being a pious Christian, would have been a wild savage roaming about the woods.

And now for the antidote to the Attorney-General's poison. I shall follow the example of Christ, and correct the errors of my fellow-men, and the Attorney-General can follow whose example he please. The antidote which I am about to diffuse amongst the people, in the way of useful knowledge, relates to that part of the "foundation of our holy religion" called Revelation, believed to be written by St. John; and it is to be found, not in the works of Infidels, but in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, without which, says Du Pin, we should scarcely have any knowledge of the history of the first ages of the Christian Church. The antidote, therefore comes from yourselves, and how it affects the "foun

dation of our holy religion," we shall now see, book 7, chapter XXIV:—

"Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, [who lived in the third century] writeth thus of the Revelation of St. John. Divers of our predecessors have wholly refused and rejected this book, and by discussing the several chapters thereof, have found it obscure and void of reasons, AND THE TITLE FORGED."

The title forged, my Lord. Is this no antidote? Is this no useful knowledge Owing to your preachings, millions of my fellow-creatures believe that this is the genuine word of God, and here, according to the declarations of divers Bishops in the first ages, it is a forgery and an imposition. And if it was not the word of God in the first ages, is it the word of God now? Did this also become the word of God "by its antiquity and the use that the churches made of it," as we saw in my last Letter that some other books of the Bible did? Give me

time and liberty, and I will give you antidotes in abundance. And this is really useful knowledge, for it not only corrects people's errors, but it rescues them from the grasp of ravenous and interested men, who get a living by deceiving people. Bishop Dionysius proceeds with his remarks upon Revelation :

66

They said it was not John's, nay it was no revelation, which was so covered with so gross a veil of ignorance, and that there was none either of the Apostles, or of the Saints, or of them which belonged to the Church the author of this book, but Cerinthus the author of the Cerinthian heresy, intituling this as a figment under the name of John, for further credit and authority."

Cerinthus then, the Heretic, according to these Bishops, (and I imagine they knew more about this book than either your lordship or the Attorney-General, they' having lived at, or near the time, that it first made its