reflect on these things, and the causes of them; and from the changes that have taken place, they will not be surprised at any others of the same kind, as great and as sudden.

SECTION VIII.

The Impolicy of checking the natural Expression of Men's Sentiments.

So many lessons as history holds out to us of the kind, I cannot help expressing some surprise, that the pretended friends of our government should endeavour to suppress the natural ebullition of men's minds by speaking, writing, or public entertainments. No attempts of this kind can prevent men's thinking. Nay, these measures have never failed to make men think the more, and the sooner to have recourse to other methods of expressing their sentiments, infinitely more hazardous to the public peace.

What did the late government of France gain by the most rigorous measures of this kind, restraining all liberty of the press, and preventing, as far as power could do it, all the usual modes of expressing men's sentiments? In these circumstances, prohibited books did infinitely more mischief, as it would be called, than any that could have been published; and private conversation, in this state of restraint, did more mischief than any books whatever. For the Revolution, as is evident, found the whole nation, those who could not read as well as those who could, fully ripe for the change; while to those who were unacquainted with the natural progress of things, there seemed to be an instantaneous, and almost miraculous, transition from idolizing their kings to a contempt and detestation of kingly government, till, on farther reflection, they acquiesced in the present medium.

On the other hand, Englishmen, being used to write and to speak freely, and to have convivial meetings whenever they please, are generally content with giving vent to their sentiments in these ways, and never think of any thing farther; but if this outlet to their natural feelings be shut, they will certainly find some other, much more alarming

cious, had just displayed: Well, gentlemen,' answered he, what do you complain of? Is he not dead? In a word, the surname of Louis le désiré, which was unanimously decreed to his successor, was undoubtedly the most bitter satire that could be made upon the reign of Louis le bien-aimé." See "The Private Life of Lewis XV.," 1781, IV. pp. 281, 282.

than dinners, toasts and songs. It may be like the stopping the mouth of a volcano, the consequence of which would be the convulsion of all the country. If there is to be a revolution in this country, similar to that which has taken place in France, (though our situation is such as by no means to require it,) attempts to deter men by illegal violence from doing what the law does not forbid, will, I am confident, bring it on in half the time. Men, who do not like to be insulted, will at length be prepared to resist violence by violence; and from such accidental and inconsiderate sparks as these, a civil war may be lighted up, and consequences may follow which the wisest among us cannot foresee.

They who take any serious umbrage at such meetings as those for the celebration of the French Revolution, throw the greatest reflection on the present reign, and most endanger the present happy tranquillity of it; for it is to represent it as no better than the reign of Tiberius, a reign of universal suspicion, and of real dangers arising from imaginary ones. That government must be conscious of its extreme weakness, or be actuated by the most wanton cruelty, that can seriously resent such trifling insults as these, admitting, what is by no means true, that they were intended for insults.

The wisest, and in all respects the best method, is to indulge men in the freest expression of their natural sentiments, and even to encourage the fullest discussion of all topics, of a civil as well as of a religious nature, in order that one opinion and one reason may combat another, and that all truth, religious, philosophical, or political, may prevail and establish itself without obstruction. By this gentle and generous proceeding, no convulsion will ever happen in any state. The public opinion will thus be formed gradually, and have its natural and easy operation, producing changes as they are wanted; and grievances will not be permitted to accumulate, till the mass shall be so great as to force its way through all opposition.

This maxim is equally true with respect to the church or the state. If the clergy made no opposition to the increasing light of the age, but would themselves speculate freely on every subject relating to their own situation and that of the country, nothing would ever hurt any individual of them: Should the consequence of this free discussion and gradual change in the public mind, be the abolition of tithes, they would not be losers by it; because, if they themselves should heartily concur in the measure, some better, and no

less ample provision would be made for them. Should they allow a revision of the public creeds, articles, and liturgy, the present subscription might be dropped, and any other alteration made without affecting their revenues or the general system.

Should the clergy proceed a step farther, and acknowledge that the seat of the bishops in the House of Lords (which has no other origin than the now antiquated feudal system) was unsuitable to their spiritual character, and of their own accord withdraw themselves from parliament, it would be with a dignity which would establish them in the good-will of the people, and preserve their rank in other respects for ages.

But by proceeding on their present plan of a dread of all innovation, and altering nothing, notwithstanding the increasing light of the age, they lead many persons to conclude, that they are determined to hear no reason, and that, from a regard to their temporal honours and emoluments only, they wilfully shut their ears to the clearest voice of truth.

By this means the whole system of the civil establishment of Christianity will be suspected to be irreconcilable to the cause of religious truth and civil liberty; and on the first great change in the state of public affairs, there will be some hazard of the country rejecting it as a nuisance, without substituting any thing in its place.

It is easy to make similar remarks with respect to the system of civil government. A more equal representation of the commons in parliament is most evidently wanted; and if this, and other necessary reforms, be long withheld, the whole system will be endangered, though it is not easy to foresee in what manner the danger will come, or how far the evil attending a sudden change of system, in a situation so critical and complicated as ours, will extend.

SECTION IX.

Considerations relating to Persecution, and the Consequences of it.

MANY of the friends of the church, as they are called, freely indulge themselves in rejoicing at the calamities of the Dissenting sufferers at Birmingham, without having any idea of their being actuated by a spirit of persecution. This spirit, it is something remarkable, all who have ever perse

cuted have disclaimed; thinking their conduct abundantly justified by the disposition and behaviour of the sufferers; and it has almost always been pretended, that these have been punished not for their opinions, but for disturbing the

state.

This was constantly alleged by all the Heathen persecutors. Though the Christians were the most innocent and peaceable of men, they were considered as enemies of the Roman government, and punished as for civil offences. The Catholics also, at the time of the Reformation, treated heresy as a thing that was dangerous to the civil power, and thus were influenced by political as well as religious considerations. Both Philip II. and Lewis XIV. thought Protestants to be bad subjects, whose aim it was to make disturbance in the state; and this is precisely the character under which the zealots of the Church of England are continually exhi biting the Dissenters. Though it is unquestionable, that the Dissenters in the late reigns were the best friends of the family on the throne, and the clergy in general disaffected to it, wishing, and not very secretly, for the re-establishment of the Stuarts, they now have the assurance to charge us with disaffection. And with the idea, however absurd, that what they do is purely defensive, and merely to prevent injury to themselves, (who they must know are placed far beyond the reach of our power, if it was our wish, to hurt them,) many of them would, without remorse, be guilty of every outrage upon our property, and our persons too, that the Heathens and Catholics ever gave into.

Our Saviour apprised his disciples, [John xvi. 2,] that they who killed them would think they did God service. Paul thought that he did right in persecuting the Christians, even unto death; and the bigotted Jews in general persecuted through ignorance. But were they, therefore, innocent? And did not the just judgments of God overtake that infatuated nation on this very account? There is a kind of ignorance that is highly criminal, arising not only from neglect of making inquiry, which itself arises from criminal prejudice, but from a secret malignity of temper which conceals itself under the notion of zeal for religion.

That persons frequently mistake the real motives of their own conduct, and thereby form a wrong judgment of their own characters, is notorious. What man ever thought himself to be covetous, though all the world saw him to be so in the extreme? Or, what man ever thought himself proud; and yet pride is certainly not banished from the world?

Nay, did ever any man, except in reflecting on his conduct afterwards, think himself a bad husband, a bad father, or a bad master? And yet there certainly are such characters. Men always find excuses for their own conduct.

Can we wonder, then, that no man ever thought himself to be a persecutor? And is it not, therefore, very possible, that the Church of England may be in a high degree intolerant and persecuting, without acknowledging, or even seeing it. But the question is, whether, notwithstanding this good opinion of herself, she be not truly so, and whether she be not liable to the just judgments of God on that account. Let the members of this church examine themselves on this head; and for this purpose I shall take the liberty to furnish them with a few queries, arising from the present circumstances of things.

Did they not, previous to the Riots in Birmingham, wish myself, and other opposers of the doctrine of the Trinity, to be silenced by other means than by argument? Several of those who engaged in public controversy with me on this subject, gave sufficient intimation of their wish for the interposition of the civil power, and, I doubt not, lamented that the circumstances of the times were unfavourable to such a mode of silencing us. And what is persecution but the application of force in the place of argument?

Did those who exclaimed the most against us so much as read our writings? It is well known that, when the question has been put to many of them, they have not only answered in the negative, but have even expressed a kind of horror at the proposal, and have strongly dissuaded others from reading. Now, what is this but a proof of extreme bigotry? And is not bigotry the natural parent of intolerance and persecution?

Did not great numbers of the clergy express a real satisfaction in the Riots, when they heard that the meetinghouses, and every thing belonging to myself, were destroyed; and would they have been sorry if I had perished too, manifestly illegal and unjust as this method of obtaining their end was? The clergyman who openly expressed the satisfaction that he should have in burning me alive was, I am informed, one of the weaker of his brethren, but, I doubt not, he expressed the real sentiments of many others. Now,

How far the ideas of some persons went on this occasion may be seen in the following paper written in a large print-hand, and found at Beaconsfield: "It is confidently reported from Birmingham and London, that should the Dissenters attempt any thing farther against the king, church, or state, they will provoke the