# Thoughts on civil liberty, on licentiousness, and faction/Section 4

SECT.IV.
Unassisted Laws no permanent Foundation of Civil Liberty.
THESE Remarks are obvious; and clear to every Man possessed of the common Degrees of Understanding. Let us now consider, "What are the permanent Foundations of civil Liberty:" That is, in other Words, "What are the effectual Means by which every Member of Society may be uniformly sway'd, impelled, or induced, to sacrifice his private Desires or Appetites, to the Welfare of the Public."—This is a Subject, which deserves a particular Elucidation, because in our own Country, and our own Times, it seems to have been much and dangerously mistaken.
It hath been affirmed as a first Principle by certain Writers, and hath been artfully or weakly suggested by others, "that the ​coercive Power of human Laws is sufficient to sustain itself: That the Legislator or Magistrate hath properly no Concern with the private Opinions, Sentiments, or Operations of the Mind: And that Actions alone fall under the legal Cognizance of those in Power."
The Author of the Fable of the Bees hath boldly laid down this; which, as a ruling Principle, pervades his whole Work. He professes himself the Friend of Liberty: He derides private Virtue, as the Offspring of Flattery, begotten upon Pride: He discards Religion, as a political Fable; he treats the Principle of Honour, as an empty Chimera; he recommends private Vices as public Benefits; and having thus level'd the whole Fabric of Manners and Principles; what, do you think, is the grand Arcanum of his Policy, for the Prevention of such Crimes as would indanger the Grandeur and Stability of the State? Why;—" ​severe Laws, rugged Officers, Pillories, Whipping-Posts, Jails, and Gibbets."
This Principle, of the Sufficiency of human Laws to sufsain their own Efficacy and Power, without Regard to the Opinions or Principles of Men, hath been, at least, indirectly held forth by other Writers.
An Author, who although a sincere, was certainly an imprudent Friend of Liberty, 'peaks in the following ambiguous Stile; which, if not designed to impress the Principle here called in Question, is at least very liable to be interpreted into it. "It is foolish to say, that Government is concerned to meddle with the private Thoughts and Actions of Men, while they injure neither the Society, nor any of its Members. Every Man is in Nature and Reason, the Judge and Disposer of his own domestic Affairs; and according to the Rules of Religion and ​Equity, every Man must carry his own Conscience: So that neither has the Magistrate a Right to direct the private Behaviour of Men; nor has the Magistrate, or any Body else, any Manner of Power to model People's Speculations, no more than their Dreams. Government being intended to protect Men from the Injuries of one another, and not to direct them in their own Affairs; in which no one is interred but themselves, it is plain, that their Thoughts and domestic Concerns are exempted entirely from its Jurisdiction: In Truth, Men's Thoughts are not subject to their own Jurisdiction."— "Let People alone, and they will take Care of themselves, and do it best: And if they do not, a suificient 'Punishment will follow their Neglect, without the Magistrate's Interposition and Penalties. It is plain, that such busy Care and officious Intrusion into the personal Affairs, or private Actions, Thoughts, and Imaginations of Men, has in it more Craft than ​Kindness:—To quarrel with any Man for his Opinions, Humours, or the Fashion of his Cloaths, is an Offence taken without being given."—"True and impartial Liberty is therefore the Right of every Man, to pursue the natural, reasonable, and religious Dictates of his own Mind: To think what he will, and act as he thinks, provided he acts not to the Prejudice of another.
These Expressions are crude, inaccurate, and ambiguous; leaving the thoughtful Reader at a Loss for the Author's precise and determined Meaning. For, first, they may possibly imply, "that the Magistrate hath no Right to violate the Laws of what is commonly called religious Toleration or christian Liberty; but that every Man hath an unalienable Right to worship God in that Manner which accords to the Dictates of his own Conscience."—In this Sense they are rational and true: ​And to this Truth the Writer hath more than once born public Testimony.
But, secondly, they may imply, "that Thoughts, Speculations, Opinions, Principles, however received and imbibed by the Mind of Man, have no Connexion with his Actions; at most, no Connexion so necessary and strong as to give the Magistrate a Right to regulate them by any Means whatever. That no Direction is to be given either to the grown or the infant Mind; that as every Member of Society hath a Right to hold what Opinions and Principles he pleaseth, so he hath the same Privilege to communicate them to his Family and Children: That they are to think what they will, because Thoughts and Opinions are a private and personal Affair: That the Magistrate is only concerned to regulate their Actions."
​This is not only a possible Interpretation, but in all Appearance, the more natural of the two. For it is not here once suggested by this Author, that Opinions have any Influence on Actions; but rather, that they concern nobody but Him who holds them. 'Tis true, he speaks of them as being reasonable, and religious: But if they be the mere Result of private and fortuitous Thought, unaided by the Regulations of civil Policy, I see not why they may not more probably be unreasonable and irreligious: Because they are more likely to be model'd by ruling Appetites than rational Deduction.
At the same Time, it is but Justice to this Author to say, that he certainly meant not (like the Author of the Fable of the Bees) to discard all moral Principles as groundless and chimerical; whatever his Intentions were with Regard to Religion. But his Expressions are ambiguous, and have been laid hold of by Men of the most libertine Opinions: Therefore in ​whatever Sense they were written, it is necessary to oppose them, in that Sense in which they have been received.
And farther, this is certain: That the Principle implied in this second Interpretation hath passed into a general Maxim in this Kingdom, among those who pique themselves on unlimited Freedom of Thought. These Men have long and openly derided every Regulation of Opinion and Principle; have discarded all moral and religious Instruction, under the despised Idea, of Prejudice of Education; have laid it down as their fundamental Maxim, "that you are to think what you will: Only to act honestly." Not attending to that essential Connexion which subsists between Thoughts, Opinions, Principles, and Actions.
Doubtless, any Society of Men, aiming at the Establishment of civil Liberty, have a Right to unite themselves on what Conditions they please. But it is the Purpose of this Essay, to prove, by Reasonings confirmed by Facts, that a free ​Community built on the Maxims above delivered, cannot be of long Duration: That the mere coercive Power of human Laws is not sufficient to sustain itself: That there is a strong and unalterable Connexion between Opinions and Actions: That a certain Regulation of Principles is necessary to check the selfish Passions of Man; and prevent Liberty from degenerating into Licentiousness: And that "a certain System of Manners and Principles, mutually supporting each other, and pervading the whole Community, are the only permanent Foundation on which true civil Liberty can arise."
The natural Appetites, Passions, and Desires of Man, are the universal Fountain of his Actions: Without the Impulse which he receives from those, he would be at once unfeeling and inactive. Consequently, according to the State and Character of his Desires, his Actions will naturally be good or evil; innocent, useful, or destructive.
​Were these Desires universally coincident with the Welfare and Happiness of others, no coercive Power would be wanting, as the Means of producing and securing perfect Liberty.
But the acknowledged Necessity of penal Laws affords an incontestable Proof, that the unbridled Desires of Man are utterly inconsistent with the Welfare and Happiness of his Fellow Creatures.
Whatever Means, therefore, are most effectual in curbing and subduing the selfish Desires of Man, are the most effectual Means of regulating his Actions, and establishing civil Liberty on its most permanent Foundations.
The mere coercive Power of human Laws, without an assistant Regulation of the Passions and Desires, is utterly inadequate to the great Ends either of private Happiness or public Liberty.
It cannot produce private Happiness to the Individual, because while it leaves his Mind open to be infested by every unruly ​Passion that may arise, it forbids him the Gratification: Thus it sets the distracted Soul at Variance with itself. The best Consequence that can be hoped for, is a continued Conflict of Fear and Appetite; of a Dread of human Laws, warring with inordinate and selfish Passions.
It cannot be a permanent Foundation of public Liberty; because while the Passions are thus left without an inward Controul, they will often be too strong for Fear, even where a legal Punishment is the certain Consequence: For as they are suffered to subsist in their full Vigour, and when kindled in the Soul are blind and headlong, they will often carry away the whole Man; will bear him down in their Gratification, even to unavoidable Destruction.
Still farther, and chiefly: Human Power cannot penetrate the secret Recesses of the Soul, nor reach the dark Intentions of the Heart of Man, nor always be of Weight to combat the Strength of ​Individuals: Hence Cunning will often evade, and Force will often defy, the coercive Power of the best-formed Laws. Thus public Wisdom must give Way to private Gratification, the Innocent must become a Prey to the Guilty; that is, in other Words, Liberty must be destroyed, and Licentiousness must triumph.
* ↑ Fable of the Bees, passim.
* ↑ Essay on Charity Schools.
* ↑ Cato's Letters, No. 62.
* ↑ See Vol. of Sermons, Serm. 4, 5, 12.