218 Biographer of FransJiam, 
people concede to theologians, the less 
can persecution he practicable tlirough 
iheir inffuence. If, therefore, the lite¬ 
rature of pliilosopliy lias atiy effect at all; 
if it acts on one priest in a myriad, or on 
ten laynaen in a thousand, it cannot but 
have these effects. The proposition ar¬ 
raigned may indeed be empty and tauto- 
logous, but it is irrefragable. 
A peroration follows, in which Chris- 
lianus confidentiy .appeals to the New 
Testament to decide, whether a zeal for 
Christianity, as there represen.ted, would 
proijidte a spirit of persecution, or not. 
lie'declares himself to be an enemy of 
persecution. So was John Fransham. 
But Fransham did not think that any 
feinceie Christian could consistently he 
tlie enemy of persecution ; seeing that the 
Christian church is commanded to pu- 
Tiish heresy and apostacy with death, and 
■with death hy fire, in the following pas¬ 
sages. Hebrews x, 2S, and 29. He that 
despised Moses^ law, died vvicimut mercy 
under two or three witnesses: of how 
rnuch sorer punishment shall be be thouglit 
isorthy, who hath trodden under foot the 
son of God ? John xv. 6. if a man abide 
rmt in me, he is cast fiv^tit as a branch, 
and is withered; and men gatlier theMu, 
and cast them into the fire, and they me 
burned.—Out of these texts, Fransham 
■would observe, grew- ih.e cruel punish- 
pient of iieresy b 3 / the faggot; and, as the 
practice was copied from the catholic by 
the calvinist, it was not the reformation, 
hut the progress of scepticism, in Europe 
which had humanized tiie magistrate. 
Christianus can perhaps becomingly ex¬ 
pound these passages; they aroused the 
abhorrent indignation of Fransham; they 
puzzle his biographer. 
Christiaeus next examines the phrase 
in which it is observe'd, that “pei haps 
the literature of infidelity was thought to 
>ncuicate the natural atid expedient doc¬ 
trine of the military and literary classes-; 
inasmuch as it unlocks the chambers of 
pleasure, bairishes the fear of death, be¬ 
stows frankness and niorai courage, 
strengthens the vigour, and enlarges the 
dominion of iutellectJ^ 
There was no occasion for ^perhaps in 
tins sentence: two great statesmen, Fre¬ 
deric II, of. Prussia, and Montesquieu, 
having so lliought, and having recorded 
this to he their opinion. In great part it 
must be the opinion of Christianus iiim- 
self, wiio in his fii st column observes, tliar, 
the literature ofinfideiity not having been 
trowned down at the court of Charles il, 
tUs consequence lesuUed, that it was the 
in reply to Christianus. [Sept* 
most debauched and profligate of * any 
court recorded iu the Bfiti^h annals. 
What is this but saying in other words: 
it unlocks the chambers of pleasure? 
And in his second column, Christianus 
complains, that the literature ofinfideiity 
nnyiermines the fear of posthumous retri¬ 
bution.- Now why does pie savage man 
every where meet death so calmly, and 
the Christian vinth such prominent timi¬ 
dity ; but because the apprehension of 
j-udgment to come, habitually forms a 
chief part of the prospect contemplated 
by the civilized man, and thus augments 
his alarm. Is not this again allowing in 
otlier words: it much banishes the fear 
of death? These are not advantages, 
but facts; still in the facts, which these 
clauses imply, we are agreed. 
And now is it not also true, that tliese 
facts, these properties, these qualities, 
adapt the literature of infidelity for the 
military order. Can thirty thousand 
cha,ste wives be embarked w^iih every 
tJiirty thousand soldiers forwarded to 
Portugal? Unless every man has his- 
companion, can promiscuous intercourse 
be prevented? ' Dues not Christianity 
expressly declare against ail extra-matri¬ 
monial gratification? Does it not threaten 
to all such violators of chastity, (1 Co¬ 
rinthians vi, 9 and 10 ) a perpetual 
hopeless exclusion from future bliss? Is 
the spirit and obedience of the military 
order compatible with their attention to 
such denunci-ations? 
Tiial courage, as well as lust, may not 
be indulged, is (Matthew v, 39,) equally 
* Not so : the court of Charles II. gave a 
pernicious fashion to adultery ; but tlie court 
of James I. was yet more profligate, for it also 
gave a fashion to missexual intercourse. It 
w'ai.matter of competition arr-ong the nobi¬ 
lity of King James L to transfer a cinadus to 
the king. Now, as James I. was a pious and 
Christian, though somewhat credulous,- prince, 
who not only received the deemonic mira¬ 
cles, but the connected doctrine of wicchcra 't ; 
it is evident,' that to the personal character 
of the sovereign, and not to t'le quality of the 
opinions sanctioned by him, is to be ascribed 
the corruption of the court. 
There is no necessary, but there is a lite¬ 
rary, conne.xion .between libertinism and in¬ 
fidelity : the antichristian philosophers rnighc 
have taught austerity, but they have net: 
done so j Bayle and Voltaire, Hume and 
Gibbon, Wieland and Goethe, are loose 
writers. And it is this which renders t'- e 
literature of infidelity an inexpedient doctrine 
for the married and feminine classes of so¬ 
ciety. Every thing in its place, but a place 
for every thing. 
clear. 
