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 best 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 fections; 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 second 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 establishments.

We shall present our Readers with fome extracts from this last 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 cuftom 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 eafily 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 fpiritual 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 system 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 understood, 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 fan&tions. 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 jurisdiction, intrusted by the ftate with coercive power. And indeed the fupplying that defect, which thefe courts do fupply, was the original and fundamental motive of the state feeking this alliance." But I would afk, 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 purpofe? 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 these things by appeal, why could they not have done it in the firft inftance?

2. If the expediency of ecclefiaftical establishments 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 juftify 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 reafoning 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 use any honeft and fair method of gaining converts to what they fhould think to be the truth. Becaufe whatever utility there may be in ecclefiaftical eftablifhments, there is certainly utility in truth, efpecially 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 these religions were always adopted with a view to aid the civil government. It appears to me that, with refpe&t to the ftates of Greece, and other barbarous nations (for the Greeks were no better than their neighbours in this respect) motives of a very different nature from thefe; motives derived from nothing but the moft blind and abject fuperftition, and the most groundless apprehenfions, were thofe that really induced them to make fuch rigid provision 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. 15).

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 use those terms, as if these things had, naturally, fo neceffary a connection. But in thefe ignorant and fuperftitious ages, men fancied there was what we should call an arbitrary connection between the obfervance of certain religious rites, and the continuance of certain ftates; 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 less 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 ftate of these countries, and fee whether the refult of it will be favourable, or unfavourable to establishments. What tendency to inconvenience has there been obferved in those ftates in which church-government is moft 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 respect to knowledge, virtue, commerce, and many other things with which the happinets of ftates is connected, but more efpecially with refpect to liberty, would be fufficient to deter any new legiflator from introducing any thing like it into a new ftate; 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 exifted; and that no measures 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 Chriftian would, for that reafon, wifh for the perpetuity of that fuperftition? The fame may be faid of popery, and many other kinds of corrupt religion. Cuftoms, of whatever kind, that have prevailed fo long as to have influenced the genius and manners of a whole nation, cannot be changed without trouble. Such a fhock to men's prejudices would neceffarily give them pain, and unhinge them for a time. It is the fame with vicious habits of the body, which terminate in diseases and death; but must 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 confusion and inconvenience attending their diffolution; fo far is

this confideration from proving them to be things excellent or ufeful in themfelves.

Even the mifchiefs that might be apprehended from attempts amend or diffolve eftablishments, are much aggravated by writers. Much lefs opposition, I am perfuaded, wouid arife from the fource of real bigotry, than from the quarter of intereft, and the bigotry that was fet in motion by perfons who were not themfelves bigots.'

This Dr. Priestley is a bold man indeed! he is for fweeping away all ecclefiaftical eftablishments at once: away with all your fteeples, cathedrals, archbishoprics, bifhoprics, deaneries, &c. &c. they are hurtful to the interests of knowledge, virtue, commerce, and liberty. Only attend for a moment, fays he, and let us fee how matters ftand among us Diffenters:

I think it will not be denied, (p. 57.) that Diffenters, both clergy and laity, in proportion to their numbers, far excel the clergy and laity of the established church in religious and fcriptural knowledge. The fenfible and ingenious men among the clergy are, in general, any thing but divines; and the ignorance of the laity, especially where there are no Diffenters, is deplorable, and almoft beyond belief.'

Now, though we greatly admire the fortitude and magnanimity of Dr. Prieftley, yet we cannot poffibly commend his prudence and regard to his own fafety. Suppofe, now that the humour of PETITIONING is fo very ftrong in this country, that the good people of England, taking the hint from the work now before us, fhould, in great humility, PETITION their good and gracious Sovereign to diffolve the ecclefiaftical establishment, is there not great reafon to fear left fome bloody-minded parfon (for fome fuch there are, we are afraid, in all establishments) looking upon this fame Dr. Priestley with an evil eye, as an avowed enemy to the hierarchy, as not having a drop of Levitical blood in his veins, as a determined foe to the best conftituted church in Chriftendom, as a man of levelling principles, should, in an evil hour, form a defign against his life, and refolve upon fending him to the other world in a hurry, for the glory of God and the church? Not even his own electrical battery, we fear, would fufficiently defend him, in fuch a dangerous fituation. This friendly intimation, we apprehend, deserves due attention, and we hope the Doctor will think himself obliged to us for it.

The fifth fection contains a review of fome particular pofitions in Dr. Balguy's fermon, and his manner of reasoning on the fubject of church-authority. It is introduced in the following manner :

The principal of the confiderations mentioned in the preceding fections were fuggefted by the perufal of Dr. Balguy's fermon; and, I flatter myself, are fufficient to refute any arguments that he has produced in favour of church-authority. I fhall, however, just descant upon a few paffages in his performance, where we difcover the great hinges on which his whole fcheme turns.' Bb 2

The

The fixth fection contains obfervations on fome incidental matters in the Doctor's fermon; but we muft refer our Readers to the work itself.-Before we conclude, however, we cannot help obferving, that, though Dr. Priestley has evidently the advantage of the Bishop of Glocefter, Dr. Balguy, and other advocates for church-authority, whofe arguments in fupport of it feem to have little foundation either in reafon or fcripture, yet he appears to us to carry matters to a very dangerous extreme. All ecclefiaftical eftablifhments, we readily allow, are imperfect, and ftand much in need of reformation; but does it therefore follow, that they fhould all be diffolved, and that there fhould be no ecclefiaftical establishment? Nothing that relates to man is capable of perfection; and if every inftitution muft be abolished because of its imperfections and the evils arifing from it, human affairs must be in a ftrange fituation indeed. Dr. Priestley, and all the writers on his fide of the question, allow that fociety derives important advantages from religion; if fo, it naturally follows that every fociety fhould take care to make fome provifion for the fupport of it. What is the most effectual manner of fupporting it we cannot pretend to determine; confidering the nature of man, however, and the circumftances wherein he is placed, it seems to us fcarce poffible to fupport it in fuch a manner as to render it useful to fociety, without fome encouragement from fociety, fome provifion for its maintenance: whether this encouragement be called an establifhment or not, is of no importance; it is things, and not names, we are pleading for.

Dr. Priestley seems to think that people may be left to provide for themfelves in regard to religion, as they do in regard to medicine. We shall be entirely of his opinion, when we fee an equal folicitude in mankind for the acquifition of religious knowledge, and the cure of mental difeafes, pride, envy, avarice, &c. as we fee every day for the cure of the gout, ftone, or rheumatism.

It is a very eafy matter for almost any writer to declaim against religious establishments, to make petulant and illiberal attacks upon the principles and conduct of the clergy of any church; this is a very proper field for the difplay of a certain fpecies of wit and humour, but to point out, with accuracy and precifion, the advantages which fociety derives from religious knowledge, to illuftrate thefe advantages from the nature and hiftory of man, and to fhew how fuch advantages may be most effectually fecured, confittently with the natural rights and liberties. of mankind, is a tafk of a very different nature. We shall be glad to fee Dr. Priestley, or any other eminent writer against religious eftablishments, take this fubject into ferious confideration, and give the public his thoughts upon it: we scarce know any

fubject