otherwise gratify--this makes no alteration as to the NATURAL RIGHT
and OFFICE of conscience.

Let us now turn this whole matter another way, and suppose there was
no such thing at all as this natural supremacy of conscience--that
there was no distinction to be made between one inward principle and
another, but only that of strength--and see what would be the
consequence.

Consider, then, what is the latitude and compass of the actions of
man with regard to himself, his fellow-creatures, and the Supreme
Being? What are their bounds, besides that of our natural power?
With respect to the two first, they are plainly no other than these:
no man seeks misery, as such, for himself; and no one unprovoked
does mischief to another for its own sake. For in every degree
within these bounds, mankind knowingly, from passion or wantonness,
bring ruin and misery upon themselves and others. And impiety and
profaneness--I mean what every one would call so who believes the
being of God--have absolutely no bounds at all. Men blaspheme the
Author of nature, formally and in words renounce their allegiance to
their Creator. Put an instance, then, with respect to any one of
these three. Though we should suppose profane swearing, and in
general that kind of impiety now mentioned, to mean nothing, yet it
implies wanton disregard and irreverence towards an infinite Being
our Creator; and is this as suitable to the nature of man as
reverence and dutiful submission of heart towards that Almighty
Being? Or suppose a man guilty of parricide, with all the
circumstances of cruelty which such an action can admit of. This
action is done in consequence of its principle being for the present
strongest; and if there be no difference between inward principles,