in merely advancing any opinion, and the reasons on which it is founded. Are not the clergy at full liberty to answer those reasons? Was it worth their while to trouble every member of the houfe of Commons, and all the bishops, with an account of my wifhing only to reafon with them on the subject? Will the clergy seriously say that they are afraid of my arguments, and as much terrified at them, as they would be at real gunpowder?

Mr. Madan ridicules, p. 16, our attempt to plead a precedent for "our diftrict meetings, our national meetings, " and our common funds, from the admired system of that "peaceable set of men, the Quakers.' "But I believe," he fays, "every body will fmile at an example fo totally "inapplicable to your prefent fubject. Your farther read“ing, it is true, may perhaps induce the next change of your principles to coincide with thofe of that refpectable fraternity, and I heartily with it may."

Now, fhould not Mr. Madan have fhewn in what respects our conduct has differed from that of the Quakers? But it is much easier to affert and to calumniate, than to prove a charge. I have clearly fhewn you, that our conduct does not at all differ from that of the Quakers, and our public papers fhew that from the first we had their conduct in view. In a letter of Mr. Walker's, which was circulated with a view to promote our late proceedings, copies of which were printed here, and fent to all parts of England, is the following paragraph, "The example of the Quakers, "of whose union this plan is almoft an exact conterpart, is "a complete answer to every objection that can be made to "this intention, and this mode, of confolidating the com"munion of Diffenters through the kingdom.” compliment Mr. Madan pays the Quakers, is evidently meant to be at our expence, which is nothing but a poor artifice, to engage them on his fide, against us. But I know that body of men better than he does. I know that they wish well to our application, and I do not despair of their openly joining us when it shall be renewed.

cr

The

I am

I am particularly forry to perceive that Mr. Madan is not ashamed of retailing the low fcurrility of Swift. “Your "virulent abuse," he fays, p. 35, "of the writings and (( memory of Dean Swift, cannot fail to return with in"creased force upon yourself; and his character is above your reach.” Now I faid nothing about his writings and memory in general, but of his illiberal prejudices against the Diffenters; and that I am not fingular in treating this part of his character with contempt, Mr. Madan may fee in the last Monthly Review, which I now have in my hands, in which the following cenfure is paffed on the late republication of the Dean's Tracts on the repeal of the Test Act, p. 343. "Dean Swift's hatred to the Diffenters " is well known; and all calm and difpaffionate men are of "opinion, that his hatred urged him even to grofs defama"tion. We are forry, therefore, to fee the present contro"verly on the Teft Act thickened by throwing into the "cauldron any of his illiberality and virulence.

I am, &c.

LETTER XI.

Of Mr. Madan's farther Arguments in Support of his Pofition that the Principles of the Diffenters are unquestionably Republican, and of the Decifion of the House of Commons against the Diffenters.

My Townsmen and Neighbours,

As S Mr. Madan promised one final reply to all these Letters, you would naturally expect that it would have been an effectual one, so as to leave nothing of any confequence to add to it. Now, in order to this he should not

have

have contented himself with looking for the principles of modern Diffenters in those of the time of Charles I. but have examined our late conduct, and the principles that we now teach. For admitting that we did put to death one king in the middle of the last century, we may have repented of it before the conclufion of this. Now it does not appear that we made any attempt upon the life of William III. queen Ann, George I. or II. or that of his present majesty. Nay, the Diffenters entered into no confpiracy against Charles II. or James II. And as their loyalty to the princes of the house of Hanover stands unimpeached, it ought in reafon to be concluded that, in their proceedings againft Charles I. they did not confider him merely as a king; for then they would have had the fame diflike to all kings. Mr. Madan therefore, in his final reply, should by all means have answered this argument, which I very particularly urged against his maxim that the principles of the prefbyterians (meaning those of the Dif senters in general) are unquestionably republican.

He ought alfo to have replied to my argument from the Scots (who always were, and ftill are, Prefbyterians) never having fhewn any predilection for a republican form of government, but having always had kings, and a proper attachment to them. But though he intimates, p. 26, that he could have explained this remarkable fact confiftently with his accufation of all Prefbyterians being of course republicans, he leaves you to guess at what he might fay; and I am fure it is not in my power to divine what it could be, Warburton may give what reafons he pleases for allowing the Scots to retain their prefbyterian form of church government; but the attempt to force epifcopacy upon them in the time of Charles II. proves that it was a measure of neceffity, not of choice.

But though Mr. Madan fays nothing in reply to my objections to this doctrine, he still maintains his own, viz. that the principles of Prefbyterians, both in the antient and modern fenfe of the word, are unquestionably republican; and

in

in proof of it he now alleges, p. 26, the cafe of Holland, Geneva, and that of other foreign Proteftants, whose principles he supposes to be prefbyterian, and whose governments are republican. But in the fame manner he might prove that the principles of the Catholics are republican. For in Switzerland there are as many popifh cantons as proteftant ones. Also, the religious principles of the natives of Holland and of Geneva are materially different from thofe of the Diffenters of this country: If they be Presbyterians, the French Proteftants are so too, and can Mr. Madan fhew that they ever discovered a leaning towards a republican government?

Even the Lutheran church may be faid to be prefbyterian, fince its conftitution approaches much nearer to this fyftem, than to that of the church of England. The circumstance that particularly diftinguishes Prefbyterians from the members of the church of England, is that the latter are governed by diocefan bishops. But among no foreign protef tants are there any bishops with fuch powers as those in England. They do not there rank with the nobility, so as to have feats in the fupreme council of the nation; and they have no fuch temporal courts (very improperly called spiritual) as, to your forrow and coft, you often find they have The Lutherans, however, though in fact Presbyterians, compared with Epifcopalians in this country, are not republicans; but have always acquiefced in the government of the empire, and have fubmitted to the laws of it, as much as the catholic fubjects.

here.

On the whole, Mr. Madan's favourite idea of the natural connection between the principles of religion and thofe of civil government, on which he charges the Diffenters with being republicans, is altogether unfupported by any facts in hiftory. He might juft as well infer that because his next neighbour was both a prefbyterian and a buttonmaker, that therefore all prefbyterians were button-makers, or all button-makers prefbyterians; as because the people of Geneva, or any other particular state, are republicans and prefbyterians,

prefbyterians, that therefore all other prefbyterians are republicans. As, if he walk through this town he will find button-makers of all religions, fo if he ftep beyond the territory of Geneva, he will find republics composed of zealous Catholics; and Mr. Madan himself will hardly fay that the principles of the Catholics are unquestionably republican.

Mr. Madan, a little confcious, perhaps, that his arguments from present facts, and past history, such as we usually call arguments a pofteriori, have but ill served his purpose, has recourse to a new and very curious argument a priori; inferring facts from principles; and in the following manner he argues that republican principles must at this day exift among Diffenters, notwithstanding all the changes which he allows to have taken place among us fince the time of Charles I. "Parties," he fays, p. 24, "change every day "but principles are a long-lived generation. Where then," fays he, p. 28, "are the principles of fome of the leading "characters who funk again into the general mass when the "Restoration happily took place." I ask him the fame. question. Let him find them if he can. Only I will fay they are not among the Diffenters. Where are the principles of the violent Anabaptifts in Germany? I do not believe that they exist any where; and yet according to Mr. Madan they must be somewhere. Besides, if these republican principles do exift among the Diffenters, they cannot affect the great body of them; for the king-killers in the time of Charles I. were very few.

But if there must be republican and king-killing principles among the Diffenters, must there not, for the same reason, be the principles of paffive obedience and non-refiftance among the clergy; fince they did exift, and were far more general among them, and in a very late period too, than republican principles ever were among the Diffenters? And, in confequence of this are not the clergy as much to be dreaded, because friends to arbitrary power, as the Diffenters are for being too great friends to the liberties of the people ?

With