prime minifter, whofe tranfcendant abilities are fo much admired by Mr. Madan) in a celebrated speech which he made in the house of Lords in favour of the Diffenters, faid, "We have a popish liturgy, a calvinistic creed, and an Ar"minian clergy."

You will naturally fay that, as your clergy do subscribe these articles, it must be in some fenfe or other. But as bishop Burnet justly said long ago, "the greater part sub"fcribe without ever examining them, and others do it be"cause they must do it, though they can hardly fatisfy their "confciences about fome things in them." Indeed, my friends, your clergy are trained to this business of subscription much too early, and before they are qualified to judge about it; but having done it once, and feeing others do the fame every day, they come to make as light of it as too many perfons in trade do of a customhouse oath, as if they thought that it implied no obligation at all. But in the very fame manner thieves and pickpockets may be trained to their dishonest practices, and follow them through life, without ever reflecting on the wickedness of them.

However, your clergy, having fubfcribed to these articles. (which they generally do without ever thinking about the matter) have sometimes found it neceffary to allege fomething or other in juftification of their conduct; and you will naturally have some curiofity to know what it is that they çan say. Now, there have been no less than thirteen different reasons affigned by your clergy for their fubfcribing willingly and ex animo, to the literal truth of thofe articles, which at the fame time they openly profefs not to believe at all. I fhall not trouble you with all the excuses, some of which exceed the ingenuity of a Jefuit, but I will just mention a few, that you may have fome idea how very clever your clergy are, and with what dexterity they can split hairs.

Many say that they fign thefe articles "as far as they "are agreeable to the word of God." But, if that had been fufficient, why were the articles compofed at all? Would it not have been fufficient to require a fubfcription to the Scriptures themselves? The fubfcription to these articles

"

articles, if it have any meaning at all, must be a folemn declaration, that they contain the true fenfe of the fcriptures.

Very many of your clergy have faid that they fubfcribe the articles not as articles of faith, but as articles of peace, meaning, I fuppofe, that they will not publicly controvert them. But had this been the meaning of the compilers, they certainly would not have required a subscription to them, but only a folemn promife, that the clergy would not publicly impugn them. This fubfcription to the articles as articles of peace, will give no peace to the mind of an honest man. The preface to the articles fays that they were compiled for avoiding diverfities of opinion, and for eftab"lishing of consent touching true religion.' But how does this kind of subscription prevent diverfity of opinion? Many your clergy not only hold, but publish, and earnestly contend for, very different opinions, on the most important articles of religion.

of

Mr. Paley, archdeacon of Carlisle, maintains that any person may subscribe the articles who does not belong to any of the three claffes of men originally intended to be excluded from the church by them, viz. Papists, Puritans, and Anabaptifts. Now, Mr. Paley's writings being in very high repute, and publicly taught to the youth at the Univerfities, this new idea of his concerning fubfcription is very likely to become prevalent. But can you think that this was the idea of the compilers, or of the legislature, at the time that this fubfcription was enjoined? If nobody was intended to be excluded from the church befides Papifts, Puritans and Anabaptifts, would not the tenets of these people have been particularly marked? And why are a variety of articles inferted to which they could all fubfcribe? None of these three claffes of men were Socinians, and therefore, according to Mr. Paley, they may fafely subscribe these articles ; though the very first of them fays that "in the unity of "the godhead there be three perfons, of one substance, power and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy "Ghoft." But should not I, who disbelieve this doctrine,

be

be a great rascal, if I should subscribe it, in order to get preferment in your church?

Many perfons, I am informed, think themselves juftified in fubfcribing the articles of the church of England though they do not believe them, because it is well known to those who receive their fubfcriptions, that they do not, and therefore they say that they deceive nobody. But can you think that a falfhood is rendered innocent, by its being accompanied with impudence? What should we fay of any man, who should take an oath that was known to be false by the magiftrate who administered it? Would not the tranfaction cover both the parties with infamy? And furely we should not be lefs fcrupulous in an affair of religion, from which oaths derive all their obligation, than we are in civil matters. Besides, all strangers, who know nothing about the perfons who receive fubfcription, will naturally conclude that the man who folemnly subscribes to any thing, really believes it, and will never imagine that he thought to impofe upon the world, and himself too.

Laftly, there are many who fubfcribe the articles as a mere form of admiffion into an office; thinking that they thereby only engage to do certain things, and recite certain forms of words, which the legislature requires, for a certain falary; but that their belief of what they are required to pronounce is not at all neceffary. One of your clergymen has even faid in print that when he is in the desk, he only fays what the law appoints him to fay, and pays him for faying, but that in the pulpit he fpeaks for himself, and is anfwerable for the truth of what he delivers. But do you think that nothing more is required of your clergy than of a public cryer, or a town clerk, who must read whatever is put into his hands? Public criers are not required to subscribe to the truth of every thing that, in their office, they recite aloud. On this principle, your clergy might juft as well conform to the church of Rome, profefs mahometanifm, or do any thing elfe, for a fufficient falary; and I fear that there are too many of them who would not fcruple to do it;

because

because what they would do then, would be no greater violation of their confciences than what they do now. Common sense will tell you that no man ought to subscribe what he has not well confidered, and what he does not firmly believe.

Instead of merely fubfcribing their names to these articles, as the clergy now do, I wifh the experiment was made of making them declare upon their honour, that they believe them, as they are required to do, in the obvious, literal and grammatical sense of the words, and that they make this declaration as the fettled principle and conviction of their heart, as they bope for mercy from the God of truth. This new mode would at least make many of your clergy think a little more upon the subject than they appear to have done at prefent; and your teachers, though believing what I have clearly shewn to be exceedingly abfurd, and manifeftly unfcriptural, would at least be honeft.

I am, &c.

LETTER XVI.

Of Mr. Madan's Idea of Unitarianifm.

My Friends and Neighbours,

You have heard a good deal of late about Socinianism,

or Unitarianism, and fome of you may not know much about the matter, except that you have been led to conceive that it is fomething of a very alarming nature, fomething offenfive to God, and highly dangerous with respect to its confequences in another world. But Mr. Madan has advanced fomething quite new on the fubject; more than intimating that it is dangerous with refpect to the ftate, as much fo as any thing in popery. "To juftify this affertion, it is "neceffary" he says, p. 9, " to remark that the principles "of the Socinian doctrine in this place are evidently gain"ing ground among the Presbyterians; and certainly those "principles are not more confiftent with the doctrine of the

tr

" established

"established church, and no lefs dangerous to the state, "than any of the tenets of popery."

As Mr. Madan does not tell you what this Socinianifm, (which he describes as fo very dangerous both to church and state) is, it is neceffary that I give you fome information on the subject, and then you wili judge for yourselves, how far it is dangerous. Now Socinians believe that Chrift is not God equal to the Father, as your church maintains, but they say that he was a man inspired of God, or a prophet; that he was fent of God to teach men the true way to eternal life, and especially to preach the doctrines of an universal refurrection, and a future judgment; that in order to enable him to teach thefe great doctrines with effect, he was impowered by God to work many miracles; that he was crucified, died, and was buried; but that God raised. him from the dead, and took him up into heaven; where he is to continue till, in God's appointed time, he will come again to raise all the dead, to judge the world, and to give unto every man according to his works.

This account of Socinianifm, or more properly Unitarianifm, is what I am fure you perfectly understand, much better, I am well perfuaded, than you do your own church. doctrine of three perfons in one God, and of one of these perfons becoming incarnate, in order, by his fufferings and death, to fatisfy the juftice of another of these three perfons, for the fins of men. I am ready to acknowledge that this. Unitarian doctrine is very contrary to that of your church, more fo, indeed, than any thing in the fyftem of popery. For with refpect to every thing of this nature, the doctrines. of your church are exactly those of popery. They were those that Luther and others had been educated in the belief of, and which, without any particular examination, they left as they found. But that such a doctrine as I have described to you has any thing in it hoftile to the state, is what I have never heard before, except that whatever is hostile to the church, must, of course, be hostile to the state also.

Popery, I believe to be a very innocent thing with respect to the state at present, though it was not always fo. Then, however,