prefs or can otherwife look upon any attempt that way, than as the greatest impiety, the cruelleft, the wickedeft, the moft irreligious thing that can be imagined. Would it not be facrilegioufly robbing God of the only worship he delights in, "the worfhip of the heart and understanding?" Can there be Religion or Virtue without Reafon, Thought, and Choice? Or can Reafon, Thinking, Knowledge, and Choice, fubfift without the only conceivable means of making men wife and and understanding, rational, and virtuous? What is the kingdom of CHRIST? doth not our Saviour delight in calling it Light, and a Kingdom of Light? And what did he come to deftroy but the kingdom of darkness? darkness? And can there be a kingdom of light, without the liberty, the unconstrained liberty, of diffufing light and knowledge? What is the Reformation, or what does it mean, but the Liberty, the abfolute and perfect Liberty of correcting and refuting errors, and of undeceiving mankind? What is it that we call PROTESTANTISM, but a refolution ftedfaftly and undauntedly to oppofe all encroachments upon rational Liberty, the Liberty of the judgment and underftanding; and to maintain it as our most valuable treafure, our greateft and nobleft privilege, in comparison of which, all other rights are mean and trifling, and hardly deserve the name of bleffings and advantages? A free Proteftant Country, P 4 Country, without the Liberty of the Prefs, is a contradiction in terms; it is free flavery, or inchained Liberty. Light and Darkness are not more opposite than Liberty and the Deprivation of the means of being rational. Who, that loves mankind, is not forry that any thing is ever published tending to confound men's understanding, mislead their judgments, or deprave their morals? But is there any more likely method, for sense to prevail against abfurdities, than leaving her at full liberty to paint them in their native colours? Can truth be better armed against error than with the mighty blade of uncontrouled Reafon? Or virtue more furely triumph over immorality, than by the the vigorous execution of the truly wholefome laws purposely framed for her fupport? I hate all calumny and defamation, as I hate the corruption of heart, from which alone it can proceed; and do with the utmost zeal deteft those prophaners of Liberty, who pretending to be friends to it, have recourfe to fuch black diabolical methods. But I take the laws already in force amongst us to be a more than fufficient prefervative (at least as far as human prudence is able to provide) against all the abufive overt-acts I am now expreffing my abhorrence of: and as fuch we have reason to esteem them very valuable fecurities of our Liberties and reputations. But because wicked wicked things are publish'd must there be no publishing? I know it is objected that there is a medium between an abfolute Liberty of the Prefs, and an abfolute Suppreffion of it. Which I admit; but yet aver the medium (by which either Licenfing or nothing at all is meant) is far worfe on all accounts than either extreme. For though we are indeed told, that Licenfers would serve us with wholesome goods, feed us with food convenient for us, and only prevent the diftribution of poifon; fure fuch cant was never meant to impofe on any, but those who are afleep, and cannot fee one inch before them. Let no True Briton therefore be deceived by fuch fallacious fpeeches, but confider the neceffary confequences |