to the good of fociety, the fubject may think to be wrong and hurtful to it."

If Dr. Priestley here means, by the term magiftrate, the fupreme legislative power of the ftate, from what has already been faid, it will clearly appear, that the subject is bound and concluded by the act of his own trustees and delegates; and fuch are the three eftates of our legislature, as I fhall hereafter more particularly observe. It is not poffible, therefore, in the present fyftem of the British conftitution, for the fubject (if by the term fubect is meant the majority of the community) to think that wrong and hurtful, which the representatives of the community, who must be supposed to speak the language of the real majority, think to be just and conducive to the good of the fociety. But although the minority of the community should think fo differently of the act of the majority, their difapprobation or confideration of the meafure will neither invalidate the act, nor justify any resistance against it, when it has once acquired the force of a law: for *« every is a direct emanation of the fovereignty of the people," confequently must be taken for the act of the majority.

law

Macintosh, p. 297.

The civil magiftrate nothing to do

with the truth of religion.

But if by the term magiftrate, he means that executive magiftratical power, which by the constitution is vefted in the king or fupreme executive power of the ftate, and from him is derived to all fubordinate civil magiftrates throughout the realm, the obfervation is perfectly abfurd and irrelevant: for the executive magiftrate has no legiflative power; and he is equally bound by his duty and truft to enforce the laws, which make or which concern the civil eftablishment of religion, as any other laws whatsoever, which is very pointedly noticed by Dr. Priestley himself in another part of his works. *«The civil magiftrate has nothing to do with the truth of religion, being obliged to provide for that, which is profeffed by the majority of the fubjects, though he himself should be of a different perfuafion. Thus the king of Great Britain muft maintain epifcopacy in England and prefbyterianism in Scotland, whether he be a prefbyterian as king William, a Lutheran as Geo. I. or a true churchman as his prefent Majefty."

t "Others have the moderation and good fenfe to admit the reasonablenefs of perfons

* Letters to Mr. Burke, Lett. vi. p. 51.

+ Priefiley's Effays on the Firft Principles of Government, p. 145.

being allowed to judge for themselves, and to think, as they please in matters of religion, and even to exercise whatever mode of religion their confciences approve of; but they will not admit of any thing, that has a tendency to increase the obnoxious fect, no publication of books, or other attempts to make profelytes, nor even a reflection upon the established religion, though it be necessary to a vindication of their own. But what fignifies a privilege of judging for ourselves, if we have not the neceffary means of forming a right judgment, by the perufal of books containing the evidence of both fides of the queftion? What fome diftinguish by the names of active and passive opposition to an established religion, differ only in name and degree. To defend myself, and to attack my adversary, is, in many cafes, the very fame thing, and the

one cannot be done without the other."

This affumption of a right to reprobate and refift the civil establishment of religion appears to be founded upon the prefumption, that it is equally competent for every individual of the community to form his own mind upon the fubject of religion. So fays Dr. Priestley to Mr. Burke, "It is no un

* Dr. Priestley's Letters to Mr. Burke, Let. vi.

P. 51.

stituted by Dr. Priestley upon false grounds.

common thing for what appears to be profound and extenfive wifdom to one man, to appear the extreme of folly to another; and unfortunately, owing perhaps to the difference of our education and early habits, this is precifely the difference between you and me. What you admire I despise; and what you think highly ufeful, I am perfuaded is highly mischievous." Now were The difpute in this a matter of mere perfonal variance between Dr. Priestley, and Mr. Burke upon a point of controvertible matter, thofe, who might think it worth their while to take the point of difference under their confideration, would either decide upon it by the degree of deference and authority, which they would allow to the contesting parties, or by the internal merits and evidence of the question in difpute. But in the prefent cafe the queftion is, how far any one individual is authorised to oppose the folemn and formal act of the majority of the community. Mr. Burke has expreffed the known and avowed fentiments of the majority of this community, who have for fome centuries thought proper to apply a part of their power and authority, in fupporting that religious fyftem, which was the refult of their own free election. - Dr. Pricftley on behalf of himself, and of fome diffenters

diffenters and fub-diffenters from this religious eftablishment, (though avowedly the minority of the community) not only fets up his own judgment in defiance and contradiction to the moft folemn act of the majority, but he also treats it as an act of extreme folly and mischief.

The reafons and legiflators in

motives of the

paffing laws, no juftification of those who

As the legislative power does not attempt to fubject the intellects of individuals to the propriety or rectitude of its acts, but only to enfure their external and peaceable fubmiffion to them when once enacted; the want of reafon, or even depravity of motive in enacting the laws, can never justify a public or external oppofition or refiftance against refift them. them. I do not precisely know the proportion, which the number of diffenters of all denominations in this country bears to that of the establishment; but for argument fake I will fuppofe, that three out of nine millions are diffenters: there will remain fix millions, who certainly have individually as much right, and collectively more right to give civil fanction to their religion, than the three millions have to object against it. For by their making fuch an establishment, they do not enforce nor impofe the belief of their religion upon the minds and confciences of individuals; but prefuming, as the fact is,