of

     man

    , and

     true Christianity tolerated

    ; private

     judgment

    would be really exercised; and men would be allowed to have suffered to follow their consciences, over which God only is supreme:...

    2. Secondly, that nothing but the

     law of nature

    , (the observance whereof is absolutely necessary to society)

    and what can be built thereon, should be enforced by the civil sanctions of the magistrate:...

      [11]

   There is very little in this statement to offend modern readers. Yet the orthodox in Collins’s own time had reason to be angry with him: his arguments were inflammatory and his rhetoric was devious, cheeky, and effective. Those contesting him underscored his negativism, imaging him as a destroyer of Christianity eager “to proselyte men, from the Christian to no religion at all.”

     [12]

   Certainly it is true that he aimed to disprove a Christian revelation which he judged fraudulent and conspiratorial. In place of ecclesiastical authority he offered the rule of conscience. For

    orthodoxy

   he substituted “a Religion antecedent to Revelation, which is necessary to be known in order to

    ascertain Revelation

   ; and by that Religion [he meant]

 Prev. P 7/245 next