queftion, and, confequently, could not be deemed competent judges of them. To this it was anfwered, that the objection was the weakest which could be devised in the prefent cafe; as no sentence was immediately craved, but merely an inquiry propofed. For fuch a purpose a general fama of the pernicious tendency of the writings, and the information of thofe members who had perused them, were, by the laws of the church, abundantly fufficient.

2. It was repeatedly maintained, that the inquifition could ferve no good purpofe, and that it was not to be fuppofed, that profecution or cenfure would convince Mr. Hume, or make him change his opinions, in which he feemed to be fo firmly rivetted.-The fupporters of the overture infifted, on the contrary, that it was a prefumptuous limitation of Almighty power to affirm, that any man was incapable of being reclaimed; and that difcipline, even carried the length of excommunication, being one mean appointed in fcripture for this purpose, ought to be tried. Befides, reclaiming offenders, they obferved, was far from being the only, and, perhaps, was not even the chief end of the infliction of discipline; which was, doubtlefs, principally intended to preserve others from infection, and deter them from offending.

3. It was faid by fome, that it would be a tedious and difficult inquiry, and would lead to the difcuffion of many philofophical opinions. They

reminded

reminded the committee of the many long and fierce debates, which had formerly agitated the Christan church, about fate, free-will, and the like; fo that the affair, if entered upon, might laft for many years, and become, in a manner, the fole business of the Affembly. In anfwer to this it was denied, that there could be any difficulty or intricacy in afcertaining the pernicious tendency of principles levelled against the very foundations of morality.

4. It was alleged, that the writings of Mr. Hume contained opinions, which every man of common fense detested, and which were fo grofs, and fo evidently falfe, that they could not poffibly occafion any harm. It would, therefore, be doing them too much honour to take fuch public notice of them. The friends of the motion endeavoured to fhew, that this objection was diametrically oppofite to the former. They obferved, that the grofsnefs and wickednefs of his affertions made it fo much the greater scandal to permit such a person to wear the chriftian name; and that, as human nature is exceedingly corrupt, forbearance, in the present instance, might tempt many to think lightly of the christian character, when they faw it proftituted, and left open to the poffeffion of thofe who were fo unworthy to bear it.

5. It was maintained, that however wrong his opinions were, his writings were mostly of an abftract and metaphyfical kind, unintelligible to the multitude;

multitude; and, therefore, as little danger could arife from them, liberty of judgment ought to be allowed. In fine, they were not proper objects of cenfure, which ought rather to be applied to practical errors, and cafes more immediately criminal. To this it was answered, that whatever metaphyfical turn Mr. Hume might have fhewn in fome of his writings, the paffages complained of were of the plaineft, as well as of the groffeft kind. Liberty of judgment in doubtful matters was very neceffary in the present state of human nature; but it was ftrange, that any one could not fee the abfurdity of fuppofing, that a good thing cannot be fpoiled by excefs, or by being wrong applied. A man, it feems, might say the most immoral things, and even defend immorality; yet if it be only called an opinion, it must not be confidered as a crime. But why are visible crimes an object of cenfure or church difcipline? Is it not, because they are a proper evidence of a wicked heart? And is not an open profeffion of wickedness of heart also an evidence of it? Is an act of whoredom or of theft cenfurable in a profeffed christian ?—And is it not cenfurable to deride chastity, reject its obligation, and affirm that all justice is founded on power and conveniency? These are not metaphyfical or intricate opinions, but errors having the moft certain and immediate influence upon practice. Formerly it was thought fufficient to say, that forbearance was to be used in petty matters; but that to overthrow the great doctrines of morality, by which fociety fubfifts, demanded pu

nifhment even by the civil power. Now, however, they had lived to fee the groffeft immorality taught, published, and defended, as freedom of inquiry. It was added, that if people would reflect upon the nature of church difcipline, nothing could be more ridiculous than to confider it as any restraint upon liberty. The object of it was not to punish men in their bodies, nor even to hinder them from publifhing their opinions; but only to prevent them from injuriously poffeffing that to which they have no right, viz. the chriftian

name.

6. The opponents of the motion likewife objected, that it would highly gratify Mr. Hume himself, and promote the fale of the book. They related feveral anecdotes to fhew, how bookfellers had artfully folicited the authoritative condemnation of books, in order to get them off their hands. It was reprefented by fome as very dangerous to fpread fuch writings in this manner, and bring them into the hands of common or country people, who would not otherwife have looked into them; and the confequences of this were pointed out very ftrongly. To these arguments it was anfwered, that it would not perhaps afford much pleasure to the gentleman, if the inquiry fhould terminate with his excommunication publicly intimated, while his grofs affertions were stated to be the cause of it: neither was this likely to give farther circulation to his writings among any but those who were in the leaft danger of infection.

Some

Some of the members infifted, that Mr. Hume could, in no refpect, be deemed a chriftian; that he had openly and publicly thrown off the profeffion of it, and was therefore one of those who, in the language of fcripture, are without, and confequently not proper objects of chriftian difcipline.

Many of the supporters of the overture obferved in general, that feveral of the arguments urged against their propofal, contradicted

another. Whilst fome, they faid, pretended to foretel, that it would lead the Affembly into fo long and intricate a debate as would be almost endless; others affirmed, that the writings were fo grofs and evidently falfe, that they could do little or no harm. It had alfo been maintained, they remarked, that writings, thus reprefented as fo abftracted and metaphyfical, could have little connection with morals; while fome alleged, that we ought to beware of exciting curiofity, and spreading a very dangerous poifon :-all of which affertions could not be true, as they were mutually deftructive of each other.

Among other arguments the friends of the overture ftrenuously urged, that as they could produce not only the Confeffion of Faith, and Form of Process, but exprefs paffages of fcripture, requiring, under strong and awful fanctions, the exercife of discipline against the maintainers of falfe and pernicious opinions, nothing could be more weak

1