PREFACE

The celebrated Dr. Price, in his valuable “Observation on the Importance of the American Revolution,” addressed to the people of the United States, observes that, “It is a common opinion, that there are some doctrines so sacred, and others of so bad a tendency, that no public discussion of them ought to be allowed.  Were this a right opinion, all the persecution that has ever been practised would be justified; for if it is a part of the duty of civil magistrates to prevent the discussion of such doctrines, they must, in doing this, act on their own judgments of the nature and tendency of doctrines; and, consequently, they must have a right to prevent the discussion of all doctrines which they think to be too sacred for discussion, or too dangerous in their tendency; and this right they must exercise in the only way in which civil power is capable of exercising it—­’by inflicting penalties upon all who oppose sacred doctrines, or who maintain pernicious opinions.’  In Mahometan, countries, therefore, magistrates would have a right to silence and punish all who oppose the divine mission of Mahomet, a doctrine there reckoned of the most sacred nature.  The like is true of the doctrines of transubstantiation, worship of the Virgin Mary, &c. &c., in Popish countries; and of the doctrines of the Trinity, satisfaction, &c., in Protestant countries.  All such laws are right, if the opinion I have mentioned is right.  But, in reality, civil power has nothing to do in such matters, and civil governors go miserably out of their proper province, whenever they take upon them the care of truth, or the support of any doctrinal points.  They are not judges of truth, and if they pretend to decide about it, they will decide wrong.  This all the countries under heaven think of the application of civil power to doctrinal points in every country, but their own.  It is indeed superstition, idolatry, and nonsense, that civil power at present supports almost every where under the idea of supporting sacred truth, and opposing dangerous error.  Would not, therefore, its perfect neutrality be the greatest blessing?  Would not the interest of truth gain unspeakably, were all the rulers of states to aim at nothing but keeping the peace; or did they consider themselves bound to take care, not of the future, but the present, interest of man; not of their souls and of their faith, but of their person and property; not of any ecclesiastical, but secular, matters only?”

“All the experience of past time proves, that the consequence of allowing civil power to judge of the nature and tendency of doctrines, must be making it a hindrance to the progress of truth, and an enemy to the improvement of the world.”

“I would extend these observations to all points of faith, however sacred they may:  be deemed.  Nothing reasonable—­can suffer by discussion.  All doctrines, really sacred, must be clear, and incapable of being opposed with success.”