vilege, which cannot be denied to him, or taken from him."

It would far exceed the intended bounds of this publication, were I to undertake the confideration of all the reasons for and against the propriety and advantages of the civil adoption of a religious establishment. Very folid and fubtle arguments are produced by the oppofite partizans; and it would require a very long treatise indeed, to digeft the fubftance, analyze the reasoning, and elucidate the conclufions of the hiftorical, political, philofophical, and theological writers upon this fubject. The application of the fimple principles, that I have already endeavoured to establish, will perhaps, conduct the mind more clearly and immediately to the true point, than the most elaborate, minute, and impartial inveftigation of all the reafons and arguments, that have been written upon the fubject. It muft Many reafona be allowed, that in the present fituation of hu

man affairs, many very cogent arguments may be alledged against the adoption of fuch an establishment in a new government, which do not in the least weaken the neceffity of maintaining and preserving it, when once establifhed in an old one. As the latter cafe alone affects our conftitution, I fhall drop every confideration of the former.

for not making a civil eftablishment in a new

government

which do not

justify the abolition of it in an

old one.

1

Man ought not

to be punished

for fpeculative

opinion of religion.

The community will not

judge any ac tion that tends to fubvert government to be

dictated by re

ligion

In the English, as well as every other community, each individual member of it has the fame right, duty, and obligation to follow the dictates of a fincere confcience. As long, therefore, as in this he does nothing to injure nor offend the community, fo long ought he not in any manner to be punished or chaftifed for differing either in doctrine or difcipline from that religious fociety, which has received. the civil fanction of the state. "Therefore, fays Dr. Priestley, in his Effay on the First Principles of Government, *" as a being capable of immortal life (which is a thing of infinitely more confequence to me, than all the political confiderations of this world) I muft endeavour to render myfelf acceptable to God, by fuch difpofitions and fuch conduct as he has required, in order to fit me for future happiness. For this purpose, it is evidently requifite, that I diligently use my reafon, in order to make myself acquainted with the will of God; and also, that I have liberty to do whatever I believe he requires, provided I do not moleft my fellow creatures by such affumed liberty.”

In vain will any individual attempt to palliate or justify an action, that is offensive or injurious to the community, by the plea or defence of its being directed or enjoined by

his religion; for as it is by the particular ordination of Almighty God, that fociety is neceffary for man, and fociety cannot fubfift without government; and as Almighty God left the particular form of goverment to the option of each community, and has in the most exprefs manner enjoined and commanded the individuals of every community to fubmit to, and obey that government, which in exercife of the liberty, which he had granted them, they have formed for themselves, it is evident, that the community is fully warranted in judging, that no action, which tends to difturb or fubvert the end or preservation of the government, can have been directed or enjoined by that deity, whose justice and confiftency are equal with all his other infinite perfections. Thefe falfe pretences or calls of confcience to difapprove, refift, or oppose the religion fanctioned or established by the ftate, are more pointedly reprobated by the learned divine, whom I have fo often quoted. *« A pretence of confcience for oppofing the right of the magiftrate (or fupreme fovereign power) to eftablish any religion at all, cannot be supported by the plea of a fpecial miffion from

God; becaufe a doctrine fo abfurd and destructive to human fociety, reafon cannot admit to be from God: and he, who pretends to come from God with fuch a meffage, brings with him fuch an internal difproof of his miffion, as would overrule any outward proofs of it; and he may as well pretend a revelation, requiring him to tell us, there is no God."

Every man is prefumed to be affected towards his religion, in proportion as he thinks, and feels, that it is the pure effect of his own voluntary choice*. From hence arise the love and reverence, which the majority of the English nation bear to their church; and from hence alfo is redoubled the obligation upon all diffenters from that church, to submit unto, because they are supposed to join and concur in all the acts of the legislature, by which the church receives the civil fancThe confciences tion of the ftate. Nor can their confciences

of individuals

not concerned be in any manner affected by such concur

in the truth of

the religion which receives the civil eftabbihment.

Mr. Burke, a profeffed member of the national church, fpeaks, as all other fuch members feel about it. "First, I beg leave to fpeak of our church establishment, which is the first of our prejudices; not a prejudice deftitute of reafon, but involving in it profound and extenfive wisdom. I speak of it first. It is the first, and laft, and midft in our minds." Reflections on the Revolution in France, p. 136.

rence,

rence, although they should disapprove of, or condemn the tenets of that church; fince, as Dr. Rogers obferves, a religion becomes not one jot the more true for being established. The difference, therefore, is great between the fubmiffion, which, upon the principles. of all civil government, we are bound to fhew generally to the civil fanction or estab. lishment, which the ftate gives to any religious fyftem, and the intellectual adoption of the peculiar tenets and doctrines, which diftinguish that particular fociety from any other. The toleration, which the legislature grants to thofe, who differ from the established religion, is the only proof that needs be alledged, that they do not mean to force or impofe the belief of their religious tenets upon the consciences of any member of the fociety. For "what can be more juft and equitable, than to leave every person at full liberty to act according to his own underftanding, in matters which regard none but himself?"

Before I leave this fubject, it will be proper to say something upon the nature of church lands, or ecclefiaftical property, concerning which many erroneous notions are

*Noodt's Difcourfe on Liberty of Confcience,

P. 97, 98.

H 3

conceived