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.”

“That immoral tendency of doctrines, which has been urged as a
reason against allowing the public discussion of them, may be
either avowed and direct? or only a consequence with which they
are charged. If it is avowed and direct, such doctrines certainly will
not spread; the principles rooted, in human nature will resist them,
and the advocates of them will be soon disgraced. If, on the
contrary, it is only a consequence with which a doctrine is charged,
it should be considered how apt all parties are to charge the
doctrines they oppose with bad tendencies. It is well known that
Calvinists and Arminians, Trinitarians and Socinians, Fatalists and
Free-Willers, are continually exclaiming against one another's