But, says the honorable gentleman, if you suffer them to go on, they will shake the fundamental principles of Christianity.  Let it be considered, that this argument goes as strongly against connivance, which you allow, as against toleration, which you reject.  The gentleman sets out with a principle of perfect liberty, or, as he describes it, connivance.  But, for fear of dangerous opinions, you leave it in your power to vex a man who has not held any one dangerous opinion whatsoever.  If one man is a professed atheist, another man the best Christian, but dissents from two of the Thirty-Nine Articles, I may let escape the atheist, because I know him to be an atheist, because I am, perhaps, so inclined myself, and because I may connive where I think proper; but the conscientious Dissenter, on account of his attachment to that general religion which perhaps I hate, I shall take care to punish, because I may punish when I think proper.  Therefore, connivance being an engine of private malice or private favor, not of good government,—­an engine which totally fails of suppressing atheism, but oppresses conscience,—­I say that principle becomes, not serviceable, but dangerous to Christianity; that it is not toleration, but contrary to it, even contrary to peace; that the penal system to which it belongs is a dangerous principle in the economy either of religion or government.  The honorable gentleman (and in him I comprehend all those who oppose the bill) bestowed in support of their side of the question as much argument as it could bear, and much more of learning and decoration than it deserved.  He thinks connivance consistent, but legal toleration inconsistent, with the interests of Christianity.  Perhaps I would go as far as that honorable gentleman, if I thought toleration inconsistent with those interests.  God forbid!  I may be mistaken, but I take toleration to be a part of religion.  I do not know which I would sacrifice:  I would keep them both:  it is not necessary I should sacrifice either.  I do not like the idea of tolerating the doctrines of Epicurus:  but nothing in the world propagates them so much as the oppression of the poor, of the honest and candid disciples of the religion we profess in common,—­I mean revealed religion; nothing sooner makes them take a short cut out of the bondage of sectarian vexation into open and direct infidelity than tormenting men for every difference.  My opinion is, that, in establishing the Christian religion wherever you find it, curiosity or research is its best security; and in this way a man is a great deal better justified in saying, Tolerate all kinds of consciences, than in imitating the heathens, whom the honorable gentleman quotes, in tolerating those who have none.  I am not over-fond of calling for the secular arm upon these misguided or misguiding men; but if ever it ought to be raised, it ought surely to be raised against these very men, not against others, whose liberty of religion you make a pretext for proceedings