ted_ for the express purpose of proselytism. In proof of this
first proposition, read their primary association. 2nd, That their
purpose of proselytism is to collect a multitude sufficient by force and
violence to overturn the Church. In proof of the second proposition, see
the letter of Priestley to Mr. Pitt, and extracts from his works. 3rd,
That the designs against the Church are concurrent with a design to
subvert the State. In proof of the third proposition, read the
advertisement of the Unitarian Society for celebrating the 14th of July.
4th, On what _model_ they intend to build,--that it is the _French_. In
proof of the fourth proposition, read the correspondence of the
Revolution Society with the clubs of France, read Priestley's adherence
to their opinions. 5th, What the _French_ is with regard to religious
toleration, and with regard to, 1. Religion,--2. Civil happiness,--3.
Virtue, order, and real liberty,--4. Commercial opulence,--5. National
defence. In proof of the fifth proposition, read the representation of
the French minister of the Home Department, and the report of the
committee upon it.

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 opinion