Formerly, when the superiority of two parties contending for dogmas and an establishment was the question, we knew in such a contest the whole of the evil.  We knew, for instance, that Calvinism would prevail according to the Westminster Catechism with regard to tenets.  We knew that Presbytery would prevail in church government.  But we do not know what opinions would prevail, if the present Dissenters should become masters.  They will not tell us their present opinions; and one principle of modern Dissent is, not to discover them.  Next, as their religion, is in a continual fluctuation, and is so by principle and in profession, it is impossible for us to know what it will be.  If religion only related to the individual, and was a question between God and the conscience, it would not be wise, nor in my opinion equitable, for human authority to step in.  But when religion is embodied into faction, and factions have objects to pursue, it will and must, more or less, become a question of power between them.  If even, when embodied into congregations, they limited their principle to their own congregations, and were satisfied themselves to abstain from what they thought unlawful, it would be cruel, in my opinion, to molest them in that tenet, and a consequent practice.  But we know that they not only entertain these opinions, but entertain them with a zeal for propagating them by force, and employing the power of law and place to destroy establishments, if ever they should come to power sufficient to effect their purpose:  that is, in other words, they declare they would persecute the heads of our Church; and the question is, whether you should keep them within the bounds of toleration, or subject yourself to their persecution.

A bad and very censurable practice it is to warp doubtful and ambiguous expressions to a perverted sense, which makes the charge not the crime of others, but the construction of your own malice; nor is it allowed to draw conclusions from allowed premises, which those who lay down the premises utterly deny, and disown as their conclusions.  For this, though it may possibly be good logic, cannot by any possibility whatsoever be a fair or charitable representation of any man or any set of men.  It may show the erroneous nature of principles, but it argues nothing as to dispositions and intentions.  Far be such a mode from me!  A mean and unworthy jealousy it would be to do anything upon, the mere speculative apprehension of what men will do.  But let us pass by our opinions concerning the danger of the Church.  What do the gentlemen themselves think of that danger?  They from, whom the danger is apprehended, what do they declare to be their own designs?  What do they conceive to be their own forces?  And what do they proclaim to be their means?  Their designs they declare to be to destroy the Established Church; and not to set up a new one of their own.  See Priestley.  If they should find the State stick to the Church, the question is, whether they love the constitution in State so well as that they would not destroy the constitution of the State in order to destroy that of the Church.  Most certainly they do not.