cute.

or by repealing a law, which, however well intended, is found to be of no use, and which they are ashamed to exeIs it not poffible to abrogate what is acknowledged to be wrong, without authorizing another wrong? What a poor legiflator would Mr. Madan be? You must certainly fee, though Mr. Madan cannot, that the repeal of the law of king William, by which we are now forbidden, under the penalty of confiscation of goods and imprisonment for life, to declare our disbelief of the doctrine of the trinity, would only give us the liberty of avowing our principles, and would by no means imply an approbation of them. Will Mr. Madan fay that the Act of Toleration implied any approbation of the principles of Diffenters? If fo, he himself must approve of them. On the contrary, the legiflature would by this generous conduct express their confidence in the folid reasons on which the established faith was founded. It would be faying, "We have no occafion "to enforce our principles by penal laws, having no doubt "but that the clergy, the proper defenders of them will be "able to support them by reafon and argument,"

But, my friends, this has not been the conduct of the legiflators, or of the clergy. Not trufting to reafon, or the fcriptures, they must enact laws, with heavy penalties, to enforce the belief of their doctrines. And though, through the liberality of the times, and not any particular generofity of their own, they are ashamed to execute them, and we, confiding in this, and not in any proper moderation of theirs, even turn their obfolete laws into ridicule, yet you see that, like the laws of the Medes and Perfians, they must remain unaltered, together with every thing else that bears the least aspect towards the church. This looks as if they themselves confidered it as no better than a castle of cards, which they are afraid of touching, left it should all fall to pieces. If good reasons cannot be alleged for retaining what is moft manifeftly abfurd, and what they themfelves are ashamed to execute, yet you see that something must be faid; and weak as it is, I do not know that any

thing

thing better can be alleged, than what is here advanced by Mr. Madan, viz. that the repeal of this improper and unjust law to defend the doctrine of the trinity, would be to give a virtual sanction to our conduct in writing against it.

There is another curious and inconfiftent circumstance in what Mr. Madan advances on the fubject of this famous law. All who believe Chrift to be a man, and not God, muft neceffarily think it idolatry to pay him divine honours. We have no other definition of idolatry, than to worship as God that which is not God. Do not all Proteftants say it is idolatry in the Catholics to pray to the Virgin Mary, to Peter, Paul, or any other faints, or even to angels and archangels? Do you not continually charge the Catholics with idolatry on this principle? Now, it is upon the very fame principle, and no other, that we, who confider Chrift as being a man, such as Peter and Paul were, say that it must be idolatry to worship, or to pray to him. This is only the neceffary consequence of avowing our belief. Yet Mr. Madan will allow us the one, without the other; as if he would allow us to think Trinitarians to be idolators, without permitting us to call them fo. "They infult us," he fays, p. 19, "with the charge of idolatry, on account of "this doctrine," viz. the trinity," they are at liberty so to "do, through the mildness of our principles, though per"haps they have not a right to do it, upon any principle "whatever;" that is, we have no right to say what we cannot help thinking. Where then is our toleration? Alas, it exists only in the mildness of men's principles, that is in their good nature, which is a very changeable thing, and not in the laws. If this mildness which Mr. Madan boafts of was any thing of a stable nature, and was meant to be perpetual, it would certainly lead them to repeal the law, and not merely to suspend the execution of it.

If this law against those who declare their disbelief of the doctrine of the trinity is never defigned to be executed, common fense will fay that it ought to be repealed, and that it ought not to remain as a disgrace to our ftatute book

any

any longer. While it is suffered to continue there, it will always be thought by us that it is intended to be carried into execution, though not at prefent, yet at fome convenient opportunity. If I be abfolutely determined never more to correct my child, and wish that he should know my refolution, I burn the rod. If I keep it, I certainly do it with the idea that some time or other it may be wanted. We Unitarians should never think that any proper toleration is intended for us, while a law, by means of which it is in the power of any man to perfecute and punish us as fuch, fhall remain unrepealed. And yet you fee very clearly that the clergy, boafting of their mild and tolerating principles, would not fail to make as ftrenuous an oppofition to the repeal of this law of king William, which makes it confifcation of goods and imprisonment for life, to declare our disbelief of the doctrine of the trinity, as to the repeal of the Corporation and Test acts. Though neither of them are in fact, of any service to their church at all, yet trembling at every shadow, and dreading they know not what, they are determined to oppofe every thing that we apply for. Imagining, as it should feem, that we are much more quick fighted than themselves, they suspect that there is something more in any thing that we ask for than they are able to see.

Mr. Madan, quoting my Letter to Mr. Pitt, p. 26, endeavours to alarm you with our farther claims, when those we are now making fhall be granted; and as he drops the quotation, he leaves you to imagine that those claims are absolutely endless, and might lead to the total ruin of the conftitution in church and ftate. Now in that Letter, which I would with you all to look into, I have diftin&tly marked what are all our claims as Diffenters, diftinct from thofe improvements which I imagine might ftill be made in the laws relating to religion in this country, after every thing that we can wifh for as Diffenters fhall be granted. These are, firft, admiffibility to all civil offices at the nomination of the crown, the difcretion of which we are not difposed to question; fecondly, full liberty to profefs, and

teach,

teach, all our religious principles, without the fear of fuch laws as that of king William; and lastly, to celebrate marriage among ourselves, as the Quakers are allowed to do.

Now this is the full extent of all our claims as Diffenters; and what is there fo very alarming in it? And till thefe three articles be granted, our toleration is manifeftly incomplete, because we remain expofed to civil penalties on account of our religious principles, which is the precife definition of perfecution. And if all the three claims above mentioned were granted, your established church would ftand not the leis, but in reality the more, firm for it. Your church is guarded by its peculiar laws, and no person can derive any emolument from it, but those who submit to thote laws, and fubfcribe to its articles. When we Diffenters shall ask for any thing that your church has to give, without fubmitting to its laws, or fubfcribing its articles, then, but not before, fay that we are attacking the establishment. We do not defire the repeal of the A&t of king William any farther than it refpects ourfelves. As the doctrine of the trinity is unquestionably an important article of your faith, let your clergy by all means be bound in the fristet manner to the profeffion of it. They receive their emoluments on that condition. But why fhould we, who do not receive thefe emoluments, be bound to their duty, or be fubjected to their laws?

Mr. Madan has thought fo little on this fubject, that he is not able to diftinguith the claims of Diffenters as fuch, which would leave the church juft as it is, from thofe claims which affect the very vitals of it. His confufion of ideas on this fubject is evident in the following paragraph p. 21, "The last pretended grievance which I fhall at present no"tice (and perhaps it is the chief of their grievances) is the

payment of tithes, and fees to the minifters of the church " of England; that is, the Diffenters complain that the pro"vifion which is appropriated to the support of those minif"ters who difcharge the offices and duties of the religion of this country as established by law, may be reduced, and " withdrawn,

"withdrawn, at the caprice of fetaries, for the fupport of "nonconformists.”

To lay nothing of the contemptuous language, unworthy of a gentleman, and a scholar, and much more of a christian, in which this paragraph, like the rest of the Sermon, is written, it is evident from the whole of it, that Mr. Madan mistakes the very nature and object of our complaints. While there is a religion fo established by law as to be fupported by any public fund, to which all fhall equally contribute, the appropriation of that fund cannot be changed without affecting the established religion. If we fetaries, as Mr. Madan contemptuously calls us, demand that our proportion of the tithes be given to our own minifters, how equitable foever the thing may be in itself, it is nothing that we could ask as Diffenters. We, and others, members of the established church, may be convinced that such a measure as this would be reasonable in itself, beneficial to our country, and favourable to the interefts of religion (as I fhall proceed to fhew that it would be) but then this is a fpeculation of a very different nature from any thing that concerns Diffenters as fuch. The whole body of them formerly, and a great proportion of them at prefent, approve of an establishment; and fince it cannot be that of their own religion, they think that the prefent may do as well as any other, and would even prefer it to that of many other Diffenters; and therefore they have no farther with than fuch a full toleration as Mr. Madan fays they actually have, but which they find they have not, and which they would be very glad if he could procure for them.

In my opinion, however, and that of many others it would be much better for the country, and for chriftianity in general, if there was no fuch thing as any civil establishment of religion at all, but that every man should be left to provide for himself with refpect to religion, ufing his own beit judgment, as he does in things of a different nature. I see no reason why any one man should be compelled to pay for the religion of another man, any more than for his instruction

Ε ́