In the fecond page of his Confiderations we have the following paffage :

• Religion is fometimes confidered as of a perfonal, and fometimes as of a political nature. In fome meafure, indeed, every thing that concerns individuals muft affect the focieties which they compofe, but it by no means follows that it is, therefore, right, or wife, for societies (ie. mankind collectively taken) to intermeddle with every thing, fo as to make laws, and appoint fanctions concerning every thing; becaufe, in numberlefs cafes, more confufion and inconvenience would neceffarily arise from the interference, than from the want of it; fince individuals are, in many refpects, better fituated for the purpose of judging and providing for themselves than'-than what?, why, than magiftrates, as fuch, can be.'

Now, with what propriety magiftrates are introduced here, we cannot poffibly conceive, as no mention was made of them in the former part of the fentence. As the Doctor has expreffed himself, it muft, furely, appear a strange reason why focieties fhould not intermeddle with every thing, fe as to make laws concerning every thing, because individuals are, in many respects, better fituated for the purpose of judging and providing for themfelves than magiftrates can be.-But it is no unufual thing for writers against church-authority to introduce the civil magiftrate upon almost every occafion, proper or improper.-The Doctor proceeds as follows:

Magiftrates are the fervants of the public, and therefore the use of them may be illuftrated by that of fervants. Now let a man's fortune or his incapacity be fuch, that his dependance on fervants is ever fo great; there must be many things that he will be obliged to do for himself, and in which any attempt to affift him would only embarrass and distress him; and in many cafes in which perfons do make use of fervants, they would be much more at their ease, if their fituation would allow them to do without their affistance. If magiftrates be confidered in the more refpectable light of representatives and deputies of the people, it should likewife be confidered, that there are many cafes, in which it is more convenient for a man to act in perfon, than by any deputation whatever.

Thefe, and many other reafons, lead me to confider the business of religion, and every thing fairly connected with it, as entirely a perfonal concern, and altogether foreign to the nature, object, and use of civil magiftracy.'

There must be many other reafons, indeed, befides thefe, to induce any rational enquirer to look upon religion, and every thing fairly connected with it, as entirely a personal concern; for what we have laid before our Readers has, certainly, very little if any weight in it.-But to go on with the Doctor:

It is, indeed, impoffible to name any two things, about which men are concerned, fo remote in their nature, but that they have fome connections and mutual influences; but were I asked what two things I fhould think to be in the leaft danger of being confounded, and which even the ingenuity of man could find the leaft pretence for

involving

involving together, I should say the things that relate to this life, and thofe that relate to the life to come?'

Now the Doctor allows that religious confiderations are an excellent aid to civil fanctions, (his own words, p. 43.) and that there is hardly any branch of Chriftian knowledge but is more or less of a practical nature, and fuggefts confiderations that are of use to mend the heart and reform the life. If so, the things that relate to this life, and those that relate to the life to come, are naturally and neceffarily connected; and fo far is it from being true that there is not the leaft pretence for connecting, or, as he expreffes it, involving them together, that they can scarce be separated, at least, have a very close and intimate connection.

• Defining the object of civil government, continues he, in the moft extenfive fenfe, to be the making provifion for the fecure and comfortable enjoyment of this life, by preventing one man from injuring another in his perfon or property; I fhould think the office of the civil magiftrate to be in no great danger of being incroached upon by the methods that men might think proper to take, to provide for their happiness after death.'

It is obvious to remark upon this, that the object of civil government is not here defined, in the most extenfive fenfe. But to lay no stress upon this particular, every one who is acquainted with the hiftory of religious fects and parties, knows perfectly well that many of them, whilft they pretended to be working out their falvation, and making a provifion for their happiness after death, have been guilty of the moft flagrant enormities, and, thereby, rendered the interpofition of the civil magiftrate abfolutely neceffary.

• There is fomething,' fays the Doctor, in the nature of religion that makes it more than out of the proper sphere, or province of the civil magiftrate to intermeddle with it.'

The Reader will naturally expect that what immediately follows fhould point out this fomething, and fhew us what it is. Hear then what the Doctor fays in the next fentence :

I he duties of religion, properly understood, feem to be, in fome measure, incompatible with the interference of the civil power. For the purpose and object of religion neceffarily fuppofe the power of individuals, and a refponfibility which is the confequence of those powers; fo that the civil magistrate, by taking any of thofe powers from individuals, and affuming them to himself, doth so far incapacitate them for the duties of religion.'

This is fo vague and inaccurate, that we are really forry to fce it come from the pen of Dr. Priestley, who, we well know, is capable of writing in a very different manner, if he will only allow himself a little more time. He has himself told us that his remarks upon Dr. Blackstone's fourth volume were, literally, the production of a day, and we cannot help fufpecting that

the

the Confiderations now before us were likewife the production of a day. Be this, however, as it may, the Doctor, we hope, will excufe this intimation of our fufpicions. There are few perfons, of whofe genius and abilities we have a higher opinion than of Dr. Priestley's, and we believe he has too much. candour and good fenfe to be offended with our hinting, in this public manner, what we know to be the fentiments of his beft friends and warmeft admirers, viz. that his productions are, in general, much too hafty and inaccurate.

But our Readers will expect a particular account of what is contained in his Confiderations. They are divided into fix fec-. tions; the first of which is an introductory one, and contains animadverfions on fome diftinctions that have been made on the fubject of religious liberty, which the Doctor thinks have introduced confufion into our ideas concerning it.-In the fecond fection he confiders the extent of ecclefiaftical authority, and the power of civil governors in matters of religion.-The third fection contains what he calls prefumptive evidences, from the Scriptures, concerning the extent of ecclefiaftical authority, and the power of the civil magiftrate in matters of religion.—The fourth fection treats of the neceffity, or utility, of ecclefiaftical. eftablishments.

We fhall present our Readers with fome extracts from this laft. fection:

The friends and advocates for church-power,' fays the Doctor, generally found their fyftem on the neceflity of eftablishing fome religion or other, agreeably, they fay, to the custom of all wife nations. This being admitted, it was evident, they think, that the fupreme civil magiftrate must have the choice of this religion, and being thus lodged in the hands of the chief magiftrate, it is easily and effectually guarded. Thus the propriety of a moft rigid intolerance, and the moft abject paffive obedience are prefently, and clearly inferred; fo' that the people have no right to relieve themfelves from ecclefiaftical oppreffions, except by petition to their temporal and spiritual governors, whofe intereft it generally is to continue every abuse that the people can complain of.

But before this admirably-connected fyftem can be admitted, a few things fhould be previously confidered. And I am aware that, if they had been duly attended to, the fyftem either would never have taken place, or it would have been fo moderated, when put into execution, as that it would never have been worth the while of its advocates to contend fo zealously for it.

1. All the rational plea for ecclefiaftical establishments, is founded on the neceffity of them, in order to enforce obedience to civil laws; but though religious confiderations be allowed to be an excellent aid to civil fanctions, it will not, therefore, follow, as fome would gladly have it underfood, that, therefore, the bufinefs of civil government could not have been carried on at all without them. I do not know how it is, that this pofition feems, in general, to have paffed without difpute or examination; but, for my own part, I fee no reafon to

think that civil fociety could not have fubfifted, and even have fubfifted very well, without the aid of any foreign fanctions. I am even fatisfied that, in many countries, the junction of civil and ecclefiaftical powers have done much mischief, and that it would have been a great bleffing to the bulk of the people, if their magiftrates had never interfered in matters of religion at all, but had left them to provide for themselves in that refpect, as they do with regard to medicine.

"There are," fays the bishop of Gloucefter," a numerous fet of duties of imperfect obligation, which human laws could not reach. This can only be done by an ecclefiaftical jurifdiction, intrufted by the state with coercive power. And indeed the fupplying that defect, which these courts do fupply, was the original and fundamental motive of the state feeking this alliance." But I would ask, Are not ecclefiaftical officers men, mere human beings, poffeffed of only a limited power of difcernment, as well as civil officers? Will they not, therefore, find themfelves under the fame difficulty in enforcing the duties of imperfect obligation, that the civil officers would have done, notwithstanding the coercive power they receive from the state for that purpose? In fhort, I do not fee what an ecclefiaftical court can do in this cafe, more than a civil court of equity. Is not this, in fact, confeffed by this author, when he allows, p. 87, that "there must be an appeal from thefe courts to the civil, in all cafes." For, if the civil courts be qualified to judge of thefe things by appeal, why could they not have done it in the first inftance?

2. If the expediency of ecclefiaftical eftablishments be allowed, it is allowed on account of their utility only; and therefore, as there are infinite differences in the coercive power of these establishments, this reafon will not justify their being carried to a greater extent than the good of fociety requires. And though it may be productive of, or, at leaft, confiftent with the good of fociety, that the civil magiftrate fhould give fome degree of countenance to the profeffors of one fect of religion (which, with me, however, is extremely problematical) it were a grofs perverfion of all reasoning and common fenfe, to infer from thence, that the people fhould not have free liberty to diffent from this religion of their civil governour, or even to ufe any honeft and fair method of gaining converts to what they should think to be the truth. Because whatever utility there may be in ecclefiaftical eftablifhments, there is certainly utility in truth, especially moral and religious truth; and truth can never have a fair chance of being difcovered, or propagated, without the most perfect freedom of inquiry and debate.

3. Though it may be true, that there never was any country without fome national religion, it is not true that thefe religions were always adopted with a view to aid the civil government. It appears to me that, with refpect to the ftates of Greece, and other barbarous nations (for the Greeks were no better than their neighbours in this refpect) motives of a,very different nature from thefe; motives derived from nothing but the most blind and abject fuperftition, and the most groundlefs apprehenfions, were thofe that really induced them to make fuch rigid provifion for the perpetuity of their feveral religions. Their laws have not, in fact, any fuch intermixture of civil and religious matters, as is n curd in the fyftems of European states. We do REV. Nov. 759.

Bb

not

not find in them, that duties properly religious are enforced by civil fanctions, nor duties properly civil enforced by religious ones, in the fenfes in which we now ufe thofe terms, as if these things had, natu-` rally, fo neceflary a connection. But in thefe ignorant and fuperstitious ages, men fancied there was what we should call an arbitrary connection between the obfervance of certain religious rites, and the continuance of certain states; and that the gods, who were particularly attentive to their prefervation, would withdraw their protection, upon the difufe of thofe ceremonies.

4. Though there may be no Chriftian country in which fome fpecies of Christianity is not, more or lefs, established, i. e. more or lefs favoured by the government; yet there are countries in which lefs favour is fhown to the prevailing mode than in others, and in which much lefs care is taken to guard it, as in Holland, Ruffia, Penfylvania, and I believe others of our American colonies. Now, let an inquiry be made into the state of these countries, and fee whether the result of it will be favourable, or unfavourable to establishments. What tendency to inconvenience has there been observed in those states in, which church-government is molt relaxed, and what fuperior advantages, in point of real happiness, are enjoyed in thofe countries in which it is firained to the highest pitch. I have no doubt of the refult of fuch an inquiry turning out greatly in favour of the relaxation of religious establishments, if not of their total fuppreffion. A juft view, of all the real evils that attend the ecclefiaftical establishment in England, with refpect to knowledge, virtue, commerce, and many other things with which the happiness of flates is connected, but more efpe'cially with refpect to liberty, would be fufficient to deter any new legiflator from introducing any thing like it into a new state; unless, without thinking at all, he took it for granted that there was no doing without one, or was fo weak as to be frighted by the mere clamour of bigots.

5. Though it may be true, that inconvenience would arise from the immediate fuppreffion of religious eftablishments, it doth not therefore follow, that they were either neceffary or expedient; that the nation would have been in a worfe ftate if they had never exilted; and that no meafures ought to be taken to relax or diffolve them. Were the religion of Mahomet abolished every where at once, no doubt much confufion would be occafioned, yet what Christian would, for that reafon, with for the perpetuity of that fuperstition? The fame may be faid of popery, and many other kinds of corrupt religion. Customs, of whatever kind, that have prevailed fo long as to have influenced the genius and manners of a whole nation, cannot changed without trouble. Such a fhock to men's prejudices would neceflarily give them pain, and unhinge them for a time. It is the fame with vicious habits of the body, which terminate in difeafes and death; but muft they be indulged, and the fatal confequences calmly expected, because the patient would find it painful and difficult to alter his method of living? Ecclefiaflical establishments, therefore, may be a real evil, and a disease in civil fociety, and a dangerous one too, notwithstanding the arguments for the fupport of them, derived from the confufion and inconvenience attending their diffolution; fo far is

be