tion against that doctrine. I will not give heathens the glory of a doctrine which I consider the best part of Christianity. The honourable gentleman must recollect the Roman law that was clearly against the introduction of any foreign rites in matters of religion. You have it at large in Livy, how they persecuted in the first introduction the rites of Bacchus; and even before Christ, to say nothing of their subsequent persecutions, they persecuted the druids and others. Heathenism, therefore, as in other respects erroneous, was erroneous, in point of persecution. I do not say, every heathen, who persecuted, was therefore an impious man: I only say he was mistaken, as such a man is now. But, says the honourable gentleman, they did not persecute epicureans. No; the epicureans had no quarrel with their religious establishment, nor desired any religion for themselves. It would have been very extra ordinary, if irreligious heathens had desired either a religious establishment or toleration. But, says the honourable gentleman, epicureans entered, as others, into the temples. They did so; they defied all subscription; they defied all sorts of conformity; there was no subscription to which they were not ready to set their hands, no ceremonies they refused to practice; they made it a principle of their irreligion, outwardly to conform to any religion. These atheists eluded all that you could do; so will all freethinkers for ever. Then you suffer, or the weakness of your law has suffered, those great dangerous animals to escape notice, whilst you have nets that entangle the poor fluttering silken wings of a tender conscience.

The honourable gentlemen insists much upon this circumstances of objection, namely, the division among the dissenters. Why, sir, the dissenters by the nature of the term are open to have a division among themselves. They are dissenters, because they differ from the church of England; not that they agree among themselves. There are presbyterians, there are independents, some that do not agree to infant-baptism, others that do not agree to the baptism of adults, or any baptism. All these are however tolerated under the acts of King William, and subsequent acts; and their diversity of sentiments with one another did not, and could not, furnish an argument against their toleration, when their difference with ourselves furnished none.

But, says the honourable 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 VOL. II.-29

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, becauso 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 favour, 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 œconomy either of religion or government.

The honourable 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 which 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 honourable 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 honourable gentleman quotes, in tolerating those who have none. I am not over fond of calling for the secular arm upon these misguided or mis

guiding 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 which drive them into the bondage of impiety. What figure do I make in saying, I do not attack the works of these atheistical writers, but I will keep a rod hanging over the conscientious man, their bitterest enemy, because these atheists may take advantage of the liberty of their foes, to introduce irreligion? The best book that ever perhaps has been written against these people, is that in which the author has collected in a body the whole of the infidel code, and has brought the writers into one body to cut them all off together. This was done by a dissenter, who never did subscribe the thirty-nine articles-Dr. Leland. But if, after all, this danger is to be apprehended, if you are really fearful that Christianity will indirectly suffer by this liberty, you have my free consent; go directly and by the strait way, and not by a circuit in which in your road you may destroy your friends, point your arms against these men, who do the mischief you fear promoting; point your arms against men, who, not contented with endeavouring to turn your eyes from the blaze and effulgence of light, by which life and immortality is so gloriously demonstrated by the gospel, would even extinguish that faint glimmering of nature, that only comfort supplied to ignorant man before this great illumination-them, who, by attacking even the possibility of all revelation, arraign all the dispensations of vidence to man. These are the wicked dissenters you ought to fear; these are the people against whom you ought to aim the shaft of the law; these are the men to whom, arrayed in all the terrours of government, I would say, you shall not degrade us into brutes; these men, these factious men, as the honourable gentleman properly called them, are the just objects of vengeance, not the conscientious dissenter; these men, who would take away whatever ennobles the rank or consoles the misfortunes of human nature, by breaking off that connection of observances, of affections, of hopes and fears, which bind us to the divinity, and constitute the glorious and distinguishing prerogative of humanity, that of being a religious creature; against these I would have the laws rise in all their majesty of terrours, to fulminate such vain and impious wretches, and to awe them into impotence by the only dread they can fear or believe, to learn that eternal lesson-Discite justitiam moniti, et non temnere Divos.

pro

At the same time that I would cut up the very root of atheism, I would respect all conscience, all conscience that is really such, and which, perhaps, its very tenderness proves to be sincere. I wish to see the established church of England great and powerful; I wish to see her foundations laid low and deep, that she may crush the giant powers of rebellious darkness; I would have her head raised up to that Heaven to which she conducts us. I would have her open wide her hospitable gates by a noble and liberal comprehension; but I would have no breaches in her wall; I would have her cherish all those who are within, and pity all those who are without; I would have her a common blessing to the world, an example, if not an instructer, to those who have not the happiness to belong to her; I would have her give a lesson of peace to mankind, that a vexed and wandering generation might be taught to seek for repose and toleration in the maternal bosom of Christian charity, and not in the harlot lap of infidelity and indif ference. Nothing has driven people more into that house of seduction than the mutual hatred of Christian congregations. Long may we enjoy our church under a learned and edifying episcopacy. But episcopacy may fail, and religion exist. The most horrid and cruel blow that can be offered to civil society is through atheism. Do not promote diversity; when you have it, bear it; have as many sorts of religion as you find in your country; there is a reasonable worship in them all. The others, the infidels, are outlaws of the constitution; not of this country, but of the human race. They are never, never to be supported, never to be tolerated. Under the systematic attacks of these people, I see some of the props of good government already begin to fail; I see propagated principles, which will not leave to religion even a toleration. I see myself sinking every day under the attacks of these wretched people-How shall I arm myself against them? by uniting all those in affection who are united in the belief of the great principles of the Godhead that made and sustains the world. They who hold revelation give double assurance to the country. Even the man who does not hold revelation, yet who wishes that it were proved to him, who observes a pious silence with regard to it, such a man, though not a Christian, is governed by religious principles. Let him be tolerated in this country. Let it be but a serious religion, natural or revealed, take what you can get ; cherish, blow up the slightest spark. One day it may be a pure and holy flame. By this

proceeding you form an alliance, offensive and defensive, against those great ministers of darkness in the world, who are endeavouring to shake all the works of God established in order and beauty. Perhaps I am carried too far; but it is in the road in to which the honourable gentleman has led me. The honourable gentleman would have us fight this confederacy of the powers of darkness with the single arm of the church of England; would have us not only fight against infidelity, but fight at the same time with all the faith in the world except our own. In the moment we make a front against the common enemy, we

have to combat with all those who are the natural friends of our cause. Strong as we are, we are not equal to this. The cause of the church of England is included in that of religion, not that of religion in the church of England. I will stand up at all times for the rights of conscience, as it is such, not for its particular modes against its general principles. One may be right, another mistaken; but if I have more strength than my brother, it shall be employed to support, not to oppress his weakness; If I have more light, it shall be used to guide, not to dazzle him.

I NEVER govern myself, no rational man ever did govern himself, by abstractions and universals. I do not put abstract ideas wholly out of any question, because I well know that under that name I should dismiss principles; and that without the guide and light of sound well-understood principles, all reasonings in politics, as in every thing else, would be only a confused jumble of particular facts and details, without the means of drawing out any sort of theoretical or practical conclusion. A statesman differs from a professor in an university; the latter has only the general view of society; the former, the statesman, has a number of circumstances to combine with those general ideas, and to take into his consideration. Circumstances are infinite, are infinitely combined, are variable and transient; he who does not take them into consideration is not erroneous, but stark mad-dat operam ut cum ratione insaniat-he is metaphysically mad. A statesman, never losing sight of principles, is to be guided by circumstances; and judging contrary to the exigencies of the moment, he may ruin his country for ever.

* This motion was made by Mr Fox; and was chiefly grounded upon a petition present. ed to the house of commons by the unitarian society.

I go on this ground, that government, representing the society, has a general superintending controul over all the actions, and over all the publicly propagated doctrines of men, without which it never could provide adequately for all the wants of society; but then it is to use this power with an equitable discretion, the only bond of sovereign authority. For it is not perhaps so much by the assumption of unlawful powers, as by the unwise or unwarrantable use of those which are most legal, that governments oppose their true end and object; for there is such a thing as tyranny as well as usurpation. You can hardly state to me a case to which legislature is the most confessedly competent, in which, if the rules of benignity and prudence are not observed, the most mischievous and oppressive things may not be done. So that after all, it is a moral and virtuous discretion, and not any abstract theory of right, which keeps governments faithful to their ends. Crude unconnected truths are in the world of practice what falsehoods are in theory.

A reasonable, prudent, provident, and moderate coercion, may be a means of preventing acts of extreme ferocity and rigour; for by propagating excessive and extravagant doctrines, such extravagant disorders take place as require the most perilous and fierce corrections

tion which has given rise to this proceeding. I confine myself to that, because, in my opinion, its merits have little or no relation to that of the other laws which the right honourable gentleman has with so much ability blended with it. With the catholics, with the presbyterians, with the anabaptists, with the independents, with the quakers, I have nothing at all to do. They are in possession, a great title in all human affairs. The tenour and spirit of our laws, whether they were restraining or whether they were relaxing, have hitherto taken another course. The spirit of our laws has applied their penalty or their relief to the supposed abuse to be repressed, or the grievance to be relieved; and the provision for a catholic and a quaker has been totally different, according to his exigence; you did not give a catholic liberty to be freed from an oath, or a quaker power of saying mass with impunity. You have done this, because you never have laid it down as an universal proposition, as a maxim, that nothing relative to religion was your concern, but the direct contrary; and therefore you have always examined whether there was a grievance. It has been so at all times; the legislature, whether right or wrong, went no other way to work but by circumstances, times and necessities. My mind marches the same road; my school is the practice and usage of parliament.

Such

Old religious factions are volcanoes burnt out; on the lava and ashes and squalid scoriæ of old eruptions grow the peaceful olive, the cheering vine, and the sustaining corn. was the first, such the second condition of Vesuvius. But when a new fire bursts out, a face of desolation comes on, not to be rectified in ages. Therefore, when men come before us, and rise up like an exhalation from the ground, they come in a questionable shape, and we must exorcise them, and try whether their intents be wicked or charitable; whether they bring airs from heaven or blasts from hell. This is the first time that our records of parliament have heard, or our experience or history given us an account of any religious congregation or association known by the name which these petitioners have assumed. We are now to see by what people, of what character, and under what temporary circumstances, this business is brought before you. We are to see whether there be any, and what, mixture of political dogmas and political practices with their religious tenets, of what nature they are, and how far they are at present practically separable from them. This faction (the authors of the petition) are not confined

to a theological sect, but are also a political faction. 1st. As theological, we are to shew that they do not aim at the quiet enjoyment of their own liberty, but are associated for the extress purpose of proselytism. In proof of this first proposition, read their primary association. 2d. That their purpose of proselytism is to collect a multitude sufficient by force and violence to overturn the church. In proof of the second proposition, see the letter of Priestley to Mr. Pitt, and extracts from his works. 3d. That the designs against the church are concurrent with a design to subvert the state. In proof of the third proposition, read the advertisement of the Unitarian Society for celebrating the 14th of July. 4th. On what model they intend to build, that it is the French. In proof of the fourth proposition, read the correspondence of the Revolution Society with the clubs of France; read Priestley's adherence to their opinions. 5th. What the French is with regard to religious toleration, and with regard to, 1. Religion-2. Civil happiness-3. Virtue, order, and real liberty-4. Commercial opulence-5. National defence. In proof of the fifth proposition, read the representation of the French minister of the home department, and the report of the committee upon it.

Formerly, when the superiourity of two parties contending for dogmas and an establishment was the question, we knew in such a contest the whole of the evil. We knew, for instance, that Calvinism would prevail according to the Westminister catechism with regard to tenets. We knew that presbytery would prevail in church government. But we do not know what opinions would prevail if the present dissenters should become masters. They will not tell us their present opinions; and one principle of modern dissent is, not to discover them. Next, as their religion is in a continual fluctuation, and is so by principle and in profession, it is impossible for us to know what it will be. If religion only related to the individual, and was a question between God and the conscience, it would not be wise, nor in my opinion equitable, for human authority to step in. But when religion is embodied into faction, and factions have objects to pursue, it will and must, more or less, become a question of power between them. If, even when embodied into congregations, they limited their principle to their own congregations, and were satisfied themselves to abstain from what they thought unlawful, it would be cruel, in my opinion, to molest them in that tenet and a consequent practice. But we know that they not only entertain these opinions, but entertain