the fairest chance of being brought to perfection, in which there is opportunity of making the most experiments and trials, and in which there are the greatest number and variety of perfons employed in making them. Hiftory and experience fhow, that, cæteris paribus, thofe arts have always, in fact, been brought the fooneft, or the nearest to perfection, which have been placed in thofe favourable circumftances. The reafon is, that the operations of the human mind are flow, a number of falfe hypothefes and conclufions always lead to the right one; and in every art, manual or liberal, a number of awkward attempts are made, before we are able to execute any thing which will bear to be shown as a master-piece in the art; so that to establish the methods and proceffes of any art, before it have arrived to a state of perfection (of which no man can be a judge) is to fix it in its infancy, to perpetuate every thing that is inconvenient and awkward adhering to it, and to cut off its future growth and improvement.'

To fhew this fcheme of an eftablifhed method of education in a clearer point of light, let us imagine, fays Dr. Priestly, that what is now propofed had been carried into execution fome centuries ago. For no reason can be affigned for fixing any mode of education at prefent, which might not have been made ufe of, with the fame appearance of reafon, for fixing another approved method a thousand years ago. Suppofe Alfred, when he founded the university of Oxford, had made it impoffible, that the method of inftruction ufed in his time could ever have been altered. Excellent as that method might have been, for the time in which it was instituted, it would now have been the worst method that is practifed in the world, Suppofe the number of the arts and fciences, with the manner of teaching them, had been fixed in this kingdom, before the revival of letters and of the arts, it is plain they could never have arrived at their prefent advanced ftate among us. We fhould not have had the honour to lead the way in the most noble discoveries, in the mathematics, philofophy, aftronomy, and I may add divinity to. And for the fame reafon, were fuch an eftablishment to take place in the present age, it would prevent all great improvements in futurity.'

With refpect to the fecond point, our Author obferves, that the great object of civil fociety is the happiness of the members of it, in the perfect and undisturbed enjoyment of the more important of their natural rights; for the fake of which, we voluntarily give up others of lefs confequence to us. But, fays he, whatever be the bleffings of civil fociety, they may be bought too dear. It is certainly poffible to facrifice too much, at least more than is neceflary to be facrificed for them, in order to produce the greateft fum of happinefs in the community. Elfe why do we complain of tyrannical and oppreffive governments? Is it

not

not the meaning of all complaints of this kind, that, in fuch governments, the fubjects are deprived of their most important natural rights, without an equivalent recompenfe; that all the va luable ends of civil government might be effectually fecured, and the members of particular ftates be much happier upon the whole, if they did not lie under those restrictions/

Now, of all the fources of happiness and enjoyment in human life, the domestic relations are the most conftant and copious. With our wives and children we neceffarily pass the greatest part of our lives. The connections of friendship are flight in comparison of this intimate domestic union. Views of intereft or ambition may divide the nearest friends, but our wives and children are, in general, infeparably connected with us, and attached to us: with them all our joys are doubled, and in their affection and affiduity we find confolation under all the troubles and difquietudes of life. For the enjoyments which refult from this moft delightful intercourse, all mankind, in all ages, have been ready to facrifice every thing; and for the interruption of this intercourfe no compenfation whatever can be made by man. What then can be more juftly alarming to a man who has a true taste for happiness, than, either that the choice of his wife, or the education of his children fhould be under the direction of perfons who had no particular knowlege of him, or particular affection for him, and whofe views and maxims he might utterly diflike? What profpect of happiness could a man have with fuch a wife, or fuch children?

It is poffible, indeed, that the prefervation of fome civil focieties, fuch as that of Sparta, may require this facrifice; but that civil fociety must be wretchedly conftituted to stand in need of it, and had better be utterly diffolved.'

In difcuffing the third article, our Author joins with Dr. Brown, in his encomiums on the British conftitution, when it is compared with that of any other in the world. But, though he thinks it the beft actual scheme of civil polity, he conceives there are many imperfections in it, and would be forry to fee them made perpetual.

Dr. Brown, fays he, will urge me with the authority of Plutarch, who largely extols the regulations of Egypt and of Sparta, and cenfures the Roman legiflators for adopting nothing fimilar to them. But I beg leave to appeal from the authority of Plutarch, and of all the ancients, as by no means competent judges in this cafe. Imperfect as the fcience of government is at prefent, it is certainly much more perfect than it was in their time; elfe, the world has grown fo much older to little purpofe. On the authority of the ancients, Dr. Brown might as well contend for another inftitution of the famed Egyptians ; viz. their obliging all perfons to follow the occupations of their

fathers,

fathers, and perhaps this might be no bad auxiliary to his pre fcribed mode of education, and prevent the fpringing up of fac tion in a state. It would likewife favour another object which the Doctor has profeffedly in view, viz. checking the growth of

commerce.

Suppofing this wife fyftem of perpetuation had occurred to our ancestors in the feudal times, and that an affembly of old English Barons, with their heads full of their feudal rights and fervices, had initated the wife Spartans, and perpetuated the fevere feudal inftitutions; what would England at this day have been (with the unrivalled reputation of uniformity and conftancy in its laws) but the most barbarous, the weakest, and moft diftracted ftate in Europe? It is plain from fact, that divine providence had greater things in view, in favour of these kingdoms, and has been conducting them through a series of gradual changes (arifing from internal and external caufes) which have brought us to our prefent happy condition, and which, if fuffered to go on, will probably carry us to a pitch of happiness of which we can yet form no conception.

Had the religious fyftem of our oldeft forefathers been eftablished on these wife and perpetual foundations, we had now been pagans, and our priests druids. Had our Saxon conquerors been endowed with the fame wisdom and forefight, we had been worfhipping Thor, and Woden; and had our ancestors threet centuries ago catched this fpirit, we had been blind and priestridden papifts.'

There are fome things in civil fociety, indeed, which our Author admits, require in their own nature to be eftablished, or fixed for a confiderable time; but these fhould be rendered as few and fmall as poffible: it being an univerfal maxim, that the more liberty is given to every thing which is in a state of growth, the more perfect it will become. Dr. Priestley does not pretend to define what degree of establishment is neceffary for religion; but thinks it very clear that education requires none. For our part, however, we conceive that the affair of religion is fo momentous, and fo intimately connected with the bufinefs of education, that our Author fhould have been a little more explicit on this head. For if education requires no establishment at all, we do not conceive how religion can require any. Dr. Priestley, indeed, goes fo far, in another part of his work, as to affert pofitively, that though political principles may require penal fanctions, religious and moral principles require none.' How! Is it a matter of indifference what immoral principles are propagated in fociety? It is true, we readily admit with him, that, in regard to religious and fpeculative principles, the connection and gradation of opinions are fuch, that, if once we admit there are fome which ought to be guarded by civil penalties, it will be

6

ever impoffible to diftinguifh, to general fatisfaction, between those which may be tolerated, and thofe which may not. But we imagine, on the other hand, that with regard to moral principles in general, people of different fects and perfuafions are pretty well agreed. We are no lefs zealous than Dr. Priestley for freedom of thinking; but cannot help, at the fame time, making a wide diftinction between a liberty of fpeculation, and a liberty of reducing fpeculative principles to practical. Of what confequence would be the fyftems of faith, or the religious opinions of any man, to fociety, if they did not affect his moral fentiments or motives of action? And, whatever may be thought in general to the contrary, the connection between religion and morals is by no means fo clofe and intimate as is imagined. Common experience affords us inftances of individuals, and hif tory of whole nations, differing very widely in regard to the one, and agreeing very nearly with refpect to the other. This confideration fhould make a greater diftinction than is usually made by political writers, between religion and morals: it should also have its weight with those who think it needful to lay a restraint on free enquiry. As to our Author, he confeffes he thinks it would be far better policy to remove the difficulties which lie in the way of free-enquiry, than throw fresh ones into it. Infidels, fays he, would then be deprived of their most successful method of attacking Chriftianity, namely, infinuation; and Christian divines might, with a more manly grace, engage with champions of deifm; and, in fact, engage with more advantage, when they both fought on the fame equal ground. As things are at prefent, I fhould be afhamed to fight under the fhelter of the civil power, while I faw my adverfary expofed to all the severity of it.' It must be confeffed, that all this has the appearance of courage and generofity; but is it not a kind of bravado, intimating that the champion is induced to fight more for his own honour than for the cause he efpouses? There is fome kind of inconfiftency also in fuppofing that a perfon would be engaged to more advantage, if his hands were untied and at liberty, than if they were tied behind him. But the truth is, all these pompous pretenfions of giving fair play to the adversary, are for the most part mere parade. Dr. Brown and Bifhop Warburton have made equal offers of this kind; and have extolled the liberty of the press in fuch extravagant terms, that their opponents could not poffibly forbear thinking themselves laughed at. Our Author hath very juftly expofed thefe pretended advocates for the privilege of thinking; quoting a paffage or two from Dr. Warburton's famous addrefs to the deifts; on which he leaves Peter Annet (if he dare) to write a comment. So far, says Dr. Priestley, are Deifts from having free liberty to publish their fentiments, that even many Christians cannot fpeak out with.

fafety.

fafety. In prefent circumftances, à Chriftian divine is not at liberty to make ufe of thofe arguments which, he may think, would supply the best defence of Chriftianity. What are with many the very foundations of our faith are in a ruinous condition, and must be repaired before it will be to any purpose to beautify and adorn the fuperftructure; but the man who fhould have the true courage and judgment to go near enough to fuch rotten foundations would be thought to mean nothing less than to undermine them, and entirely deftroy the whole fabric. His very brethren would ftand off from him, and think him in league with their adversaries; and, by an ill-judging zeal, might call in the help of the ill-directed civil power to ftop his hand. In confequence of which, notwithstanding his moft laudable zeal in favour of our holy religion, he might ftand upon the fame pillory, and be thrown into the fame prifon with poor and harmless infidels.'

The harmless infidels, however, are not the only fet of people that seem to have recommended themfelves to our Chriftian champion. In the following paffage he endeavours to do justice to the tolerating principles of a very refpectable fect of protestant diffenters:

To the honour of the Quakers be it fpoken, that they are the only body of Chriftians who have uniformly maintained the principles of Chriftian liberty, and toleration. Every other body of men have turned perfecutors when they had power. Papifts have perfecuted the Proteftants, the Church of England has perfecuted the Diffenters; and the Diffenters, in lofing their name, loft that fpirit of Christian charity, which feemed to be effential 'to them; fhort was their fun-fhine of power, and thankful may Britain, and the prefent diffenters be, that it was fo. But the Quakers, though established in Penfylvania, have perfecuted

This glorious principle feems fo intimately connected with the fundamental maxims of their fect, that it may be fairly prefumed, the moderation they have hitherto shown is not to be afcribed to the fmallness of their party, or to their fear of reprifals. For this reafon, if I were to pray for the general prevalence of any one fect of Chriftians (which I fhould not think it for the intereff of Chriftianity to take place, even though I fhould fettle the articles of it myself) it should be that of the Quakers; becaufe, different as my opinions are from theirs, I have fo much confidence in their moderation, that I believe they would let me live, write, and publifh what I pleafed unmolefted among them. And this I own, is more than I could promife myself from any other body of Chriftians whatever; the Prefbyterians, perhaps, leaft of all excepted.'

Our Author fays, it is unquestionable, that there are more atheists and infidels of all kinds in Spain and Italy, where reli