everlasting punishment to deter men from atrocious crimes, which they might otherwise commit in secret, had long been hackneyed in the hands of men in power, but without any warrant from reason or revelation. Reason, without the aid of revelation, gave no intimation of a state of retribution beyond the grave; and the gospel brought life and immortality to light: nor, said they, was it until the Christian church was illegally wedded to state policy, that men in power dared to hurl the thunders of the Most High, at those who offended against government. But, they added, should the point be maintained, that courts and juries are authorized to determine, whether the teacher of a religious sect is a teacher of morality, from his opinion either of the cause, mode, or state of men's happiness or misery in another world, or from his opinion of the nature, or proportion of the rewards for virtue, or the punishments for vice in a future state, no sect or denomination could be safe, it being a matter resting on opinion only, without any earthly tribunal having the ability or authority to settle the question. Suppose an Episcopalian teacher should have an action in his name to recover the money, paid by his hearers. Perhaps he might be one, who had subscribed and sworn to the thirty-nine articles, the truth of which is well supported by act of parliament: an objection might be made from one of the articles, that tells us, God from all eternity elected a certain number to happiness, and predestinated all the rest of the human race to everlasting misery; and this of his own sovereign will, without any regard to the merit of the one, or the demerit of the other. A jury might be found, who would decide at once, that this doctrine is subversive of all morality and good order; for, if the state of every man be unalterably fixed from all eternity, and nothing done by him can in any wise change the divine decree, why, then the elect may conceive themselves justified in seeking to injure those, whom God from eternity has consigned to perdition.
But, should an Arminian be in trial, and it appeared he taught his people it was within their own power to procure future happiness, a jury might not be able to distinguish between the prescience and the foreordination of God; and it might be called impiety to allege, that the infinitely wise Being did not from all eternity know the ultimate fate of all his creatures. It would at least be called derogatory to the honour of the Most High, to suppose any thing to be contingent with Him; and therefore a teacher of such principles might in the eye of some persons be viewed as a teacher of impiety and immorality. From these and various other considerations, the Gloucesterians humbly conceived, that religion was a matter between an individual and his God; that no man had a right to
