present day; as if Luther and his brethren had been men divinely inspired and exempt from all error, and as if all wisdom was born and died with them; whereas they only set an example, which those who came after them ought to have followed. I am, &c.

LETTER XV.

Of Subscription to the Articles, &c. of the Church of England. MY FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS,

You will naturally say, If there be these strange absurdities in the articles and public services of our church, why are not our bishops and clergy sensible of them; and, as they are men of sense and education, how can they, as we know they are required, willingly and ex animo, subscribe to the truth of them? This is a question that I cannot answer. You must apply to them yourselves, and perhaps they may be able to give you satisfaction. However, when any man declares his unfeigned belief of any thing, I am not apt to question his veracity, as Mr. Madan does mine. I have a much better opinion of him than he has of me. And if he can, in so peculiarly solemn a manner, declare his belief of the Dissenters in general being disaffected to government, and that their declarations of loyalty are not to be trusted; if this opinion of his be "the settled principle and conviction of his heart, as he hopes for mercy from the God of truth," he must certainly have subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles with the same serious conviction of their truth: for he must know that God is a witness to that subscription, as well as to his composing, delivering, and printing his Sermon.

It is well known, however, that the generality of his brethren do not believe these Articles, in that strict and grammatical sense in which their subscription to them is required. They publicly preach, and even print, what is directly contrary to them. They will even be offended if you say that they are Calvinists, though the distinguishing doctrines of Calvinism are no other than those of Original Sin, Predestination, and other doctrines necessarily depending upon them, which I have shewn to be contained in the Thirty-nine Articles. This is so well known, that the late Lord Chatham, (who was a very different man from his son, our present prime minister, whose transcendant abilities are so much admired by Mr. Madan,) in a celebrated speech which he made in the House of Lords in favour of the DisVOL. XIX.

R

senters, said, "We have a Popish liturgy, a Calvinistic creed, and an Arminian clergy.'

You will naturally say, that, as your clergy do subscribe these Articles, it must be in some sense or other. But, as Bishop Burnet justly said long ago, "The greater part subscribe without ever examining them, and others do it because they must do it, though they can hardly satisfy their consciences about some 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 seeing others do the same every day, they come to make as light of it as too many persons in trade do of a custom-house oath, as if they thought that it implied no obligation at all. But in the very same 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 subscribed to these Articles, (which they generally do without ever thinking about the matter,) have sometimes found it necessary to allege something or other in justification of their conduct; and you will naturally have some curiosity to know what it is that they can say. Now, there have been no less than fourteen different reasons assigned by your clergy for their subscribing willingly and ex animo, to the literal truth of those articles which at the same time they openly profess not to believe at all. I shall not trouble you with all the excuses, some of which exceed the ingenuity of a Jesuit, but I will just mention a few, that you may have some idea how very clever your clergy are, and with what dexterity they can split hairs.

Many say, that they sign these Articles, " as far they are agreeable to the word of God." But, if that had been sufficient, why were the Articles composed at all? Would it not have been sufficient to require a subscription to the Scriptures themselves? The subscription to these Articles, if it have any meaning at all, must be a solemn declaration, that they contain the true sense of the Scriptures.

Very many of your clergy have said that they subscribe the Articles not as articles of faith but as articles of peace, meaning, I suppose, 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 solemn promise, that the clergy would not * O. T. fol. II. p. 684. + See Appendix, No. III.

publicly impugn them. This subscription to the Articles as articles of peace, will give no peace to the mind of an honest man. The preface to the Articles says, that they were compiled "for avoiding of diversities of opinion, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion." But how does this kind of subscription prevent diversity of opinion? Many of your clergy not only hold, but publish, and earnestly contend for, very different opinions, on the most important articles of religion.

Mr. Paley, Archdeacon of Carlisle, maintains that any person may subscribe the Articles who does not belong to any of the three classes of men originally intended to be excluded from the church by them, viz. Papists, Puritans, and Anabaptists. Now, Mr. Paley's writings being in very high repute, and publicly taught to the youth at the Universities, this new idea of his concerning subscription 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 subscription was enjoined? If nobody was intended to be excluded from the church besides Papists, Puritans and Anabaptists, would not the tenets of these people have been particularly marked? And why are a variety of articles inserted to which they could all subscribe? None of these three classes of men were Socinians, and therefore, according to Mr. Paley, they may safely subscribe these Articles; though the very first of them says, "In unity of this Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' But should not I, who disbelieve this doctrine, be a great rascal, if I should subscribe it, in order to get preferment in your church?

Many persons, I am informed, think themselves justified in subscribing the Articles of the Church of England though they do not believe them, because it is well known to those who receive their subscriptions, that they do not, and therefore they say that they deceive nobody. But can you think that a falsehood is rendered innocent, by its being accompanied with impudence? What should we say of any man who should take an oath that was known to be false by the magistrate who administered it? Would not the transaction cover both the parties with infamy? And surely we should not be less scrupulous 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 persons who receive subscription, will naturally conclude that the man who solemnly subscribes to any thing, really believes it,

and will never imagine that he thought to impose upon the world, and himself too.

Lastly, there are many who subscribe the Articles as a mere form of admission 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 salary; but that their belief of what they are required to pronounce is not at all necessary. One of your clergymen has even said in print, that when he is in the desk he only says what the law appoints him to say, and pays him for saying; but, that in the pulpit he speaks for himself, and is answerable for the truth of what he delivers. But do you think that nothing more is required of your clergy than of a public crier, 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 just as well conform to the Church of Rome, profess Mahometanism,* or do any thing else, for a sufficient salary; and I fear that there are too many of them who would not scruple to do it; because what they would do then, would be no greater violation of their consciences than what they do now. Common sense will tell you that no man ought to subscribe what he has not well considered, and what he does not firmly believe.†

Instead of merely subscribing their names to these Articles, as the clergy now do, I wish 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 settled principle and conviction of their heart, as they hope 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 present; and your teachers, though believing what I have clearly shewn to be exceedingly absurd, and manifestly unscriptural, would at least be honest. I am, &c.

* See this opinion entertained by a clergyman, Vol. XVIII. p. 496, Note. + See Appendix, No. IV. Dr. Powell, in his famous Commencement Sermon, 1757, has contrived to connect subscription and firm belief, by the convenient aid of an acknowledged "variety of interpretation."

This variety, he says, " may help to explain the nature and force of that assent which is given to the Articles; to shew, that it was never conceived to have so much rigour as would exclude all improvements from theology. And if among this great variety a free inquirer should not find all his own opinions, the same liberty of adding to it still remains." Sermon, Ed. 4, 1772, p. 20. See Confessional, 1770, Ed. 3, pp. 427, 441-449.

LETTER XVI.

Of Mr. Madan's Idea of Unitarianism.

MY FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS,

You have heard a good deal of late about Socinianism, or Unitarianism, and some of you may not know much about the matter, except that you have been led to conceive that it is something of a very alarming nature, something offensive to God, and highly dangerous with respect to its consequences in another world. But Mr. Madan has advanced something quite new on the subject; more than intimating that it is dangerous with respect to the state, as much so as any thing in Popery. "To justify this assertion, it is necessary,' he says, "to remark, that the principles of the Socinian doctrine in this place are evidently gaining ground among the Presbyterians; and certainly those principles are not more consistent with the doctrine of the Established Church, and no less dangerous to the State, than any of the tenets of Popery."*

As Mr. Madan does not tell you what this Socinianism (which he describes as so very dangerous both to church and state) is, it is necessary that I give you some information on the subject, and then you will judge for yourselves, how far it is dangerous. Now, Socinians believe that Christ 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 sent of God to teach men the true way to eternal life, and especially to preach the doctrines of an universal resurrection, and a future judgment; that in order to enable him to teach these great doctrines with effect, he was empowered 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 Socinianism, or more properly Unitarianism, is what I am sure you perfectly understand, much better, I am well persuaded, than you do your own church

Letter, p. 9. (P.)