ty of others are to be found in Livy's hiftory of the

Romans.

It has been objected by fome, that legal and religious inftitutes do not ftand on the like ground of truth; becaufe the former are the progeny of reafon, and the latter of illufion, as they are pretended to have been fent from heaven. Lycurgus, in forming the Spartan government, declared that he received his inftructions from Apollo. Was not this origin, offered to the faith, as truely adapted to establish those laws, as the laws themfelves were to the foundation and fupport of civil government? on that account, ought they to be lefs confidered as the result of reafon? Were they not even on that account, more eminently diftinguished to have proceeded from that faculty? The legislator knew that the envy of man to man, which frequently precludes the reception of the best conftructed laws; might have, otherwife, fuperfeded the most juft and reasonable inftitutes, he could offer from himfelf. But the imagination, that they were dictated by a divinity, obviated all that reluctance, which springs in the bofom of the envious, to acknowledge in another man, an understanding fuperior to his own.

Numa, from a like knowledge of human nature, and for the fame reafons, promulged that he received inftructions from the nymph Egeria. Were his intitutes the lefs reasonable on that account? The Roman hiftory. evinces, that Rome was more indebted, for her greatness, to that pacific king, than to all the reft. He kindled that fire of religious enthufiafm, and added that energy to the force of arms, which, inceffantly actuating their hearts, rendered them irrefiftible. By this alone, the Roman warfare was raised to a fuperiority over all the other nations with whom they were engaged in battle, during several centuries: for, in military skill and perfonal bravery, they were equalled by others of the Italian

nations.

But there remains another objection, which is offered to any right which the legislature can poffefs, of establishing a national religion, as the guide of all mens faith; and this is the right, to which every man is entitled of ferving God in his own way, and thereby to E 4

obtain

L

obtain his own falvation; and this is called, liberty of“ confcience. But, if any man's own way contain fuch doctrines, as fubvert the very ends for which religion is established, as an aid to the imperfect power of morality and the laws; will they not diminish the virtues, the happiness, and the welfare of the people? If an individual cannot be precluded from entertaining fuch opinions; is he to be indulged with impunity, to promulge fuch doctrines, because they are his own? Certainly, the confcience which expects fuch indulgence, is not a confcience that ought to be indulged. Suppose a man fhould claim a right of forming laws for himself, because his confcience will not permit him to obferve those which are already inftituted; is he to be indulged? But the falvation of an immortal foul is a ferious confideration. It is indeed! But falvation depends not on every man's acting according to his own confcience; but according to thofe precepts which are contained in religion. And, if his own opinions are fuch, as oppofe or enfeeble the doctrines, on the obedience to which his faluation depends, is he to be indulged with a liberty of following them, because his confcience tells him they are right; and thereby promote not only his own eternal perdition, but that of all others whom he may feduce? Can this be a right method of ferving God, and feeking his own falvation? Such an indulgence would be nothing less than a liberty to damn himself and others, according to his own way: and to this I have no objection, refpecting himself. It fhall never be imputed to me, that I refufe diffenters that liberty of confcience. Liberty of confcience, ferving God in their own way, and, thereby feeking their own 'falvation, are founds, which delude the unthinking, and contain no real argument. Legislature muft, therefore, inftitute an univerfal guide in religion, and a national confcience, in order, as much as poffible, to preferve the subjects in unanimity; to be influenced by the fame motives; to be under the fame obligation to act uprightly; and to fupport the ftrength of the ftate by that unity of mind, the bounds of which whoever exceeds in action, becomes the juft object of lawful reprehenfion.

66

66

Having, in this manner, delivered my fentiments on the preceding fubject, I will now tranfcribe Dr. Price's definition of religious liberty, and examine how far it coincides with what has been said. 66 Religious liberty," fays he, p. 3, "fignifies the power of exercifing, without moleftation, that mode of religion, which we "think beft; or of making the decifions of our own "confciences, refpecting religious truth, the rule of our conduct, and not any of the decifions of others. "The force, that ftands opposed to the agent's own will "is human authority in religion, requiring conformity to particular modes of faith and worship, and fuperfeding private judgement, and which, as far as it operates, "produces fervitude It would seem to be amazing that any man could utter fuch a definition of religious liberty, if the cause of it were not, manifeftly, a defign to let the fubjects loose from all thofe ties, which bind them to good manners, to the obfervation of the laws, to their duty to their fovereign, and to each other. It is, undoubtedly, an obligation on every legiflature, to bring, as far as it is practicable, every fubject under the fame coertion to be honeft, and, therefore, not to indulge mankind in "making the decifions of their own con"fciences the rule of their conduct." Let me, by way of elucidating this matter, introduce the decisions of Dr. Price's friend, Priefly's confcience, refpecting religious truth, as the rule of his conduct, which is, that he thinks the foul is not immortal *. And this explains a paffage

in

Jofeph Priestly, in his introductory effay to Harley's Theory of the Human mind, fays, p. 28, he rather thinks that the "whole man is of fome uniform compofition, and the property "of perception, as well as the other powers that are termed "mental, is the refult, whether neceflary or not, of such an or"ganical ftructure as that of the brain; confequently, that the "whole man becomes extinct at death, and that we have no hope "of furviving the grave, but what is derived from the scheme of "revelation

Hence it refults, that Jofeph Priestly is not only a materialift, who denies the foul to be of a different nature from the body, but that it is, alfo, not immortal; and our hope of furviving the grave is derived from the general refurrection of the dead. According to his doctrine, therefore, there is no fuch exiflence as a foul, be

tween

66

in his Effay on the first principles of government, p. 39. "To mention thofe religious and moral principles, "which Dr. Brown produces, as the moft deftructive 66 to the well-being of fociety, namely, that there is σε по God. So far am I from being of his opinion, that "it is neceffary to guard against this principle, by fevere penalties, and not to tolerate those who do maintain it, that I think, of all opinions, furely, fuch as these "have nothing formidable or alarming in them." And true it would be, if his doctrine, that "the foul is not "immortal," were alfo true, there could be no neceffity to guard against that principle, that there is no God. For, if the foul do not furvive the body, all religious obligation neceffarily disappears. What can there exift, to be hoped or dreaded, in another world, from infinite power, by a nonentity? and yet, I will rifque my life on the event of this opinion, that there are no fmall number of men, who, on the doctrine of no immortality, with liberty to propagate and maintain that there is no God, could eafily inflame the populace to deftroy the city of London, by one general conflagration, and to fill the ftreets with rapine and with blood. The effects of this doctrine, although

Had

tween the hour of death and the day of judgment, at which time the man refumes the fame organical structure of the brain. Previous to the revelation of the chriftian religion, which is the revelation, I prefume, he would be understood to fignify, the foul was deemed to be immortal, in the religions of various nations. thofe, who profeffed fuch religions, no hope of furviving the grave, because they knew not, what was not at that time to be known, the revelation of Chrift? but that revelation confiders the foul to be a diftinct being from the body, to exift after death in a feperate ftate, and to be re-united therewith at the refurrection. From revelation, then, there can be derived no hope of furviving the grave, if the foul becomes extinct with the body. This mode of Jofeph Priestley's decifion, according to his own confcience, is, confequently, nothing less than a defpicable evafion of directly pronouncing, that he believes the foul is not immortal. And is not the expreffion of this man, that the revelation is "a fcheme," a project, which all christians believe to be fent by God, to improve their morals on earth and thereby to inherit immortal happiness, repugnant to every idea of that decency with which the established religion of all countries ought to be treated? is he to be indulged in publishing fuch opinions, as annihilate all religion, and leffen the force of moral obligation?

although they muft inevitably deftroy the well-being of fociety, may, nevertheless, be confentaneous with the principles and defigns of the faid Priestley. But will human authority, fuperfeding his private judgement, made public to the world, be "a force," although it ftand oppofed to his will, that would reduce him to fervitude? if Dr. Price, or any man of his confederates, were to be tried for his life, does he imagine a witness, subpoena'd on his trial, who difbelieved the immortality of the foul, and fwore on that book which is held facred by all that do believe it, and has its principles founded on that immortality, would be under an equal awe and restraint, from delivering a perjured teftimony, with him who does believe it? are men fo very honeft, that fuch an obligation to pronounce the truth may fafely be abolished? to affert the contrary, would be to deftroy all difference. between believing and not believing. And, as, on the evidence of men, life, tropery, liberty, reputation and all that is dear to man, muft depend, is the disbelief of the foul's immortality, a religious truth, that ought to rule the conduct of any man, and, therefore, the propa gation of it to be exercised without moleftation? and now let me turn one minute towards that Jofeph Prieftly. In his addrefs to proteftant diffenters, &c. in order to incite them to oppofe all thofe candidates for feats in parliament, who had fhewn their zeal for their Country in oppofition to the American rebellion in the preceding parliament, he tells them, p. 1, "religious liberty is the "immediate ground on which they ftand." What horrible felf-contradiction does this proceeding include! he first refcinds immortality, the ground on which all religion must stand, and then exhorts them to ftand up for that religion, which he has virtually pronounced can have no existence. Is he not, therefore, an impoftor? Will any one, hereafter, give the minuteft credit to the integrity of this man, fince he has been guilty of fo flagitious an impofture? will not thofe, who liften to his principles, become the voluntary difciples of iniquity, or dupes to the promotion of his abominable defigns? is he not an admirable preceptor, to train up youth in the knowledge of their duty to God and to their country? if Dr. Price be the confederate of this man, that alone would be fufficient

to