RELIGION. 



ihcnt fuppofes it : the very notion of a national religion • i- 

 cludcs that of a tcil. But the ncccflily of a ted has fur- 

 nilhed to almoll every church a pretence for extending, mul- 

 tiplying, and continuing fucli tells beyond what the occailon 

 juitilied. For though fome purpoles of order and tran- 

 quillity may be anfwered by the cllablifliment of creeps and 

 confeflions, yet they are at all times attended with ferious 



prince, the fcntence of the judge, cannot afFeft my falra- 

 tion ; nor do they, without tlie mod abfurd arrogance, 

 pretend to any fuch power : but tliL-y may deprive me of 

 liberty, property, aiid even of life itfelf, on account of my 

 religion ; and however I may complain of the injuftice of 

 the fentence, by which I am condemned, I cannot allege 

 that the magitlrate has tranfgrefLd the boundaries of Ins 



inconveniences. They check inquiry ; they violate liberty ; jurifdicr.ion ; bccaufe the property, the liijcrty, and the life 



of the fubjeft, may be taken away by the authority of the 

 laws, for any reafon, whicli, in the judgment of the legifla- 

 turc, renders fuch a nieafure necefi'ary to the common wcU 

 fare. Moreover, as the precepts of religion may regulate 

 all the offices of lif,-, or may be fo conllrued as tt> extend to 

 all, tlie exemption of religion from the control of human 

 laws might aflord a plea, which would exclude civil govern- 

 ment from every authority over the con-dudl of its fulijeils. 

 Religious liberty is like civil liberty, not an immunity from 

 reilraint, but the benig roilrained by no law, but what in a 

 greater degree conduces to the public welfare." 



By way of qualifying this reafoning, which may be 

 thought exceptionable. Dr. Paley obferves, that " dill it 

 is right to obey God ratiier than man." — " When human 

 laws intcrpofe their dircftion in matters of religion, by dic- 

 tating, for example, the objeft or the mode of divine wor- 

 (liip ; by prohibiting the profedion of fume articles of faith, 

 and by i xecuting that of others ; they are liable to clalh 

 with what private perfons believe to be already fettled by 

 precepts of revelation, or to contradiil what God himfelf, 

 they think, hath declared to be true. In this cafe, on 

 whichever fide the midake lies, or whatever plea the date 

 may allege to judify its cdift, the fubjeft can have none 

 to excufe his compliance. The fame confideration alfo 

 points out the didinftion, as to the authority of the date 

 between temporals and fpirituals. The magidate is not to 

 be obeyed in temporals more than in fpirituals, where a re- 

 pugnance is perceived between his commands, and any 

 creditL-d manifedations of the divine w:ll ; but fuch repug- 

 nancies are much lefs likely to arife in one cafe than in 

 the other." The general propofition laid down by our 

 author is as foDows : " That it is lawful for the magidrate 

 to interfere in the affairs of religion, whenever his inter- 

 ference appears to him to conduce, by its general tendency, 

 to the public happinefs." To others this propofition will 

 appear to be in many refpefts exceptionable. The ma- 

 gidrate of courfe is to be the judge, what are the occafions 

 in which he may interfere ; and thefe occafions will occur 

 whenever he pleafes. Dr. Paley has therefore endeavoured 

 to guard it againlt mifapprehenfion and mifapplication. 

 Having dated, that it is the general tendency of the mea- 

 fure, or, in other words, the edefts which would arife from 

 the meafure being generally adopted, that fixes upon it the 

 charafter of rectitude or injudice, he then proceeds to in- 

 quire what is the degree and the fort of interference of 

 fecular laws in matters of religion, which are likely to 

 be beneficial to the public happinefs. In fettling this 

 point he premifes two maxims ; the fird is, that any form 

 of Chridianity is better than no religion at all ; and the 

 fecond is, that of different fydems of faith, that is tlie 

 bed which is the trued:. From the fird propofition it is in- 

 ferred, that when the date enables its fubjects to learn 



they enfnare the confeiences of the clergy, by holding out 

 temptations to prevarication ; and in procefs of time, they 

 contradift the opinions of the church, whofe doiSlrines they 

 profefs to contain ; and they otten perpetuate the piofcrip- 

 tion of fedls and tenets, from which any danger has long 

 ceafed to be apprehended. Although teds and lubfcriptions 

 may not be abolillted, they ihould be made as ealy and 

 fimple as poffible. They fliould be adapted from time to 

 time to the varying fentiments and circumdances of the 

 church in which they are received ; nor diould tliev at any 

 time advance one ttep farther than fome fubfiding necefiity 

 requires. Promifes of ccmformity to the rites, liturgy, and 

 ofli-ces of the church, if fufhcient to prevent confufion in 

 tlie celebration of divine wordiip, diould be accepted in the 

 place of dritler fubfcriptions. It any agreements, not to 

 preach certain doftrines, nor to revive certain controverfies, 

 dcnomin>ted articles oi peace, would exclude indecent alter- 

 cations amongd the national clergy, and alio fecure to the 

 public teaching of religion as much of uniformity and quiet 

 as is neceffary to edification ; then coRfeffions of faith ought 

 to be converted into articles of peace. In a word, it ought 

 to be held, fays Dr. Paley, a fufiicient reafon for relaxing 

 the terms of fubfcription, or for dropping any or all of the 

 articles bo be fubfcribed, that no prefent necedity requires 

 greater driftnefs. 



It is a quedion that has been long agitated in the re- 

 formed churches of Chridcndom, whether a parity amongd 

 the clergv, or a didindtion of orders in the minidry, be 

 more conducive to the general ends of the inditution ? Our 

 author is inclined to the latter alternative, for realons which 

 he has dated. 



In difcufiing the fubjeft of a national eltablidiment of re- 

 ligion, the riglit of the civil magidrate to interfere at all in 

 matters of religion offers itfelf to confideration ; and al- 

 though this right may be acknowledged whild he is em- 

 ployed folely in providing means of public iudruftion, it 

 may be quedioned whether he diould inflift penalties, and 

 impofe redraints or incapacities on the account of religious 

 didindlions. Our author, deducing the authority of civil 

 government from the will of God, and inferring that will 

 from public expediency alone, concludes that the jurifdic- 

 tion of the magidrate is limited by no confideration but that 

 of general utility ; or that whatever be the fubjeft de- 

 manding regulation, it is lawful for him to interfere, when- 

 ever his interference, in its general tendency, appears to be 

 conducive to the common hitered. Our author conceives, 

 that there is nothing in the nature of religion, d^sfuch, which 

 exempts it from the authority of the legidator, when the 

 fafety or welfare of the community requires his interpofition. 

 To the objettion, that religion, pertaining to the intereds 

 of a life to come, lies beyond the province of the civil go- 

 vernment, the office of W'hich is confined to the affairs of this 



life. Dr. Paley replies, that when the laws interfere even fome form of Chridianity by didributing teachers of a re- 

 in rehgion, they interfere only with temporals ; their effefts ligious fyllem througiiout the country, and by providing 

 terminate, their power operates only upon thofe rights and for the maintenance of thefe teachers at the public expence ; 

 intereds, which confed'edly belong to their difpofal. He that is, when the laws edablidi a national rehgion, they 

 proceeds to oblerve, probably without fatisfying the ob- exercife a power and interference, which are likely, in their 

 jeftor, " that the atls of the legidator, the edi^tls of the general tendency, to promote the iatercd of mankind. 

 Vol. XXIX. 4 O But 



