whom, or of what it will. It is not worth while therefore to pursue these sophisms any farther. All that would say. any thing to purpose, should show a just reason why a liberty claimed by one man, and allowed to him, should be denied to another

man.

Let it not appear strange, if it be affirmed, that there is not a man in England, if he professeth to be of any religious party, but must of necessity be guilty of sophistry, if he denies the right of private judgment to the petitioners. All religions in the world consist of principles and practices, and the last are founded on the first. There is a God, is a principle of natural religion. That God is to be worshipped, is a practice arising from, and supported by that principle. Now is it not plain to a demonstration, that if a man of any religion in the world was to offer these two propositions to be received by another, he would profess to have examined them himself, appeal to the reason of the other, and offer to give evidence? That this is the only just and natural ratio of mankind is clear, and it is equally clear, that when they depart from this they plunge into sophistry.

Consider four facts. 1. All men claim reason for their own sentiments; their own reason; not a magistrate's, nor a priest's, nor any body's else. If any man can make good this claim for himself, is it not sophistry to deny it to another? 2. No man ever tried by the power of magistracy, to make a believer of an infant, an ideot, or a mad

· Ι

.

man. Why not? have creeds!

They have carcases and you Yes, but reason is absent. Well,

but where's the difference between an ideot in whom reason is absent, and a man of sense in whom reason is present, if the right of private judgment be denied to both? All the difference is, one CANNOT reason, the other MUST NOT. As well then make a believer without it. Lay by the sword to both, else you play the sophister. 3. The most bloody persecutors have pretended to reason heretics into truth, and have affected only to draw the sword when reason could not prevail. Hence the english reformers were first disputed at Oxford in public and afterward burnt. Hence all the parade of priests and friars, and bishops to confute and convert the martyrs in their cells, before they were brought out to execution. If religion be not received by examining, judging, and self-determining, why dispute? and if it be, why burn and destroy? Is not this cruelty and sophistry both? 4. It sometimes happens that the chief magistrate, the king, who should preserve the creed of his subjects, does not believe it himself. In such a case, who but a madman would dare to insult royalty with the thought of any corporal punishment? Whether a tyrant who tramples on the people's privileges may be resisted, is one question: but whether an heretic, who deprives no subject of a right, only does not believe as his subjects believe, may be resisted, is another. Now if mere heresy ought not to dethrone a king, how, without the help of sophism, can it be proved, that it ought to dis

franchise a subject? An hereditary right to seven acres is as inalienable as an hereditary right to seven provinces, or to seven kingdoms; and in many respects more so; seeing the latter was originally granted to a reigning family for services to be rendered to the state; and the former descended from father to son free from such obligations. When that detestable monster James Clement assassinated Henry III. of France; when Ravillac, that execrable regicide murdered Henry IV. when several pretended to justify those wretched criminals by urging the heresy of these unfortunate princes; did not all Europe shudder at the thought?

To trace all these facts would be too tedious, let the first only be recalled, and for five minutes reexamined; all men claim the right of private judging, and are sophistical in denying it to their fellow creatures.

Paganism presents to view none greater than Socrates. He studied and taught philosophy in both its branches, natural and moral. The first is expressed in Plato's Ζητων τα τε υπο γην και τα επουρανια ; and the last in Xenophon's Σκοπων τι ευσεβες, τι άσεβες τι δικαιον, τι αδικον, &c. In settling his own notions he paid no regard to magistracy but to his damon, which, in all probability was that philosopher's term for right reason. In communicating it to others, he paid no regard to the sophists of the age, nor much, if any, to his own persuasion; all his aim was to set a young gentleman a thinking for himself, and to give a right turn to a habit of reasoning;

to rear the tender thought,

To teach the young idea how to shoot.

For he sum

In all this he followed NATURE, and so he did when he praised Homer for calling Agamemnon THE SHEPHERD of his people ποιμένα λαών. med up all the regal virtues in one, rendering their subjects happy.

that was, the Cicero's good

sense was so delighted with his method of establishing truth, that he says he chose the dialogue way for this very reason; here, says he, every doubt may be proposed, and answered. This, adds he, is vetus et Socratica ratio contra alterius opinionem disserendi.* Now all this is incompatible with force, and no pagan can can receive these principles and employ force without falling into sophistry. Plato however is guilty of this in his tenth book de legibus.

Pass from Paganism to Judaism. The first of that nation is undoubtedly Jesus Christ: To him the Sadducees once proposed a question relative to the doctrine of the resurrection, a doctrine which Jesus believed and taught, but which they denied. Remark how the Saviour dealt with Heretics. He derives their error from their ignorance of two things, the scriptures and the power of God. Had they examined the evidences of God's power, they would have known he could, and had they attended to the meaning of scripture, they might have known he would raise the dead. If ignorance produccth

*This is the ancient method which Socrates used to disprove an opposite opinion.

error, heresy can be removed by knowledge only. Jesus Christ therefore asks have ye not read? urges a text, and goes to reasoning about it. It is nothing to say the Jewish church tolerated such people, Jesus Christ himself only reasoned with them. When Saul, that glory of the Jewish nation, proposed to cast down reasonings, and every high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of God, and to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, what weapons did he use? I Paul myself BESEECH YOU, BY THE MEEKNESS AND GENTLENESS OF CHRIST. This, you will say, is proof to christians, but not to Jews. Be it so. Hear that famous Rabbi Abarbanel, on the end of sacrificing. He says that there are three sorts of sacrifices established in the book of Leviticus, and he assigns to each a different end. The end of the burnt-offering was that man might fix his attention on the divine nature, and might perceive the immortality of his own soul; that the action of the fire, seperating the parts of the animal, and causing them to ascend, properly represented the ascent of the sacrificer's soul to God after its desolution; that it was burnt whole on altars dedicated to God, to express the return of the whole soul to God from whom it was derived; that for this reason, their wise men said that burntofferings related only to the thoughts of the mind; that Rabbi Levi had proved this from Job i. 5. Job offered burnt-offerings according to the number of his children, for he said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God IN THEIR