[priests Are] The Pretenders To Power And

There Has Been A Controversy Started Of Late, Much Better Worth Examination, Concerning The General Foundation Of Morals; Whether They Be Derived From Reason, Or From Sentiment; Whether We Attain The Knowledge Of Them By A Chain Of Argument And Induction, Or By An Immediate Feeling And Finer Internal Sense; Whether, Like All Sound Judgement Of Truth And Falsehood, They Should Be The Same To Every Rational Intelligent Being; Or Whether, Like The Perception Of Beauty And Deformity, They Be Founded Entirely On The Particular Fabric And Constitution Of The Human Species.

All Sentiment Is Right; Because Sentiment Has A Reference To Nothing Beyond Itself, And Is Always Real, Wherever A Man Is Conscious Of It. But All Determinations Of The Understanding Are Not Right; Because They Have A Reference To Something Beyond Themselves, To Wit, Real Matter Of Fact; And Are Not Always Conformable To That Standard.

We Need Only Reflect On What Has Been Prov'd At Large, That We Are Never Sensible Of Any Connexion Betwixt Causes And Effects, And That 'tis Only By Our Experience Of Their Constant Conjunction, We Can Arrive At Any Knowledge Of This Relation.

No One Can Doubt, That The Convention For The Distinction Of Property, And For The Stability Of Possession, Is Of All Circumstances The Most Necessary To The Establishment Of Human Society, And That After The Agreement For The Fixing And Observing Of This Rule, There Remains Little Or Nothing To Be Done Towards Settling A Perfect Harmony And Concord.

The Rules Of Morality Are Not The Conclusion Of Our Reason.