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.

The foundations on which obedience to governments is founded are not to
be constantly discussed. That we are here supposes the discussion
already made and the dispute settled. We must assume the rights of what
represents the public to control the individual, to make his will and
his acts to submit to their will, until some intolerable grievance shall
make us know that it does not answer its end, and will submit neither to
reformation nor restraint. Otherwise we should dispute all the points of
morality, before we can punish a murderer, robber, and adulterer; we
should analyze all society. Dangers by being despised grow great; so
they do by absurd provision against them. _Stulti est dixisse, Non
putâram_. Whether an early discovery of evil designs, an early
declaration, and an early precaution against them be more wise than to
stifle all inquiry about them, for fear they should declare themselves
more early than otherwise they would, and therefore precipitate the
evil,--all this depends on the reality of the danger. Is it only an
unbookish jealousy, as Shakspeare calls it? It is a question of fact.
Does a design against the Constitution of this country exist? If it
does, and if it is carried on with increasing vigor and activity by a
restless faction, and if it receives countenance by the most ardent and
enthusiastic applauses of its object in the great council of this
kingdom, by men of the first parts which this kingdom produces, perhaps
by the first it has ever produced, can I think that there is no danger?
If there be danger, must there be no precaution at all against it? If
you ask whether I think the danger urgent and immediate, I answer, Thank