bigotry of Catholics they hurl the fiercest denunciations; but if called upon to denounce as fiercely the bigotry of Protestants, they make us understand ’the case being altered, that alters the case.’  A Popish Inquisition they abhor, but see no evil in Inquisitions of their own.  Smithfield Auto da Fe’s, according to these consistent Christians, were wrong during the reign of Mary, and right during the reign of her pious sister, ‘Good Queen Bess.’  Such is the justice of superstition.  Its votaries knowing themselves the favoured of heaven, feel privileged to outrage and trample under foot the great principles of sense, propriety, and honour.  Between Catholics and Protestants as regards these principles there is little to distinguish; for in the race of abomination, they have kept pretty nearly neck and neck.  The author of this Apology has no sympathy with either, but of the two much prefers Popery.  There is about it a breadth of purpose, a grandeur, and a potency which excites some respect, even in the breast of an enemy.  Unreasonable it assuredly is, but Christians who object to it on that ground, may be told—­religion was never meant to be reasonable; and that an appeal to rational principles will as little avail one religion as another, as little avail Protestant as Roman Catholic faith.  All religion is unreasonable, and, moreover, to rationalize would be to destroy it.  Hobbes could discover nothing in superstition essentially different from religion, nor can we.  He deemed true religion as the religion which is fashionable, and superstition as the religion which is not fashionable.

So do we, so do all absolute Atheists.  The notion that false religion implies the true, just as base coin implies the pure, will have weight with those, and only those, who cannot detect the sophistry of an argument a rubii toto caelo differentibus; or in plain English, from things entirely different presumed to be similar.  Between coin and religion there is no precise analogy.  False coin implies true coin, because none are sceptical as to the reality of true coin, but false religion does not necessarily imply true religion, because the reality of true religion is not only questionable, but questioned.  It is not usual for money-dealers to be at issue as to the quality of their cash.  The genuine article will stand the test, and always passes muster.  A practised ear can easily decide between the rival claims of two half-crowns, one genuine, the other spurious, thrown upon a tradesman’s counter.  But where are the scales in which we can weigh to a nicety true and false religions?  Where is the ear so well practised and so delicately sensitive as to distinguish the true from the ’number without number’ of false voices raised in their behalf?  Where the eye so perfectly theologic, so sharp, piercing, and free of that film called prejudice, as to see which of our religions is the genuine article?  All are agreed as to the genuineness of current money.  All are at ’daggers drawn’ as to the genuineness of any one religion.  That Christianity is true no Christian denies, but which is the true Christianity has not and we think cannot be determined.