strictest manner to the profession of it. They receive their emoluments on that condition. But why should we, who do not receive those emoluments, be bound to their duty, or be subjected to their laws?

Mr. Madan has thought so little on this subject, that he is not able to distinguish the claims of Dissenters as such, which would leave the church just as it is, from those claims which affect the very vitals of it. His confusion of ideas on this subject is evident in the following paragraph: "The last pretended grievance which I shall at present notice, (and perhaps it is the chief of their grievances,) is the payment of tithes and fees to the ministers of the Church of England; that is, the Dissenters complain that the provision which is appropriated to the support of those ministers who discharge the offices and duties of the religion of this country, as established by law, may be reduced and withdrawn at the caprice of sectaries, for the support of nonconformists."*

To say 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 so established by law as to be supported by any public fund, to which all shall equally contribute, the appropriation of that fund cannot be changed without affecting the established religion. If we sectaries, as Mr. Madan contemptuously calls us, demand that our proportion of the tithes be given to our own ministers, how equitable soever the thing may be in itself, it is nothing that we could ask as Dissenters. 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 interests of religion; (as I shall proceed to shew that it would be ;) but then this is a speculation of a very different nature from any thing that concerns Dissenters as such. The whole body of them formerly, and a great proportion of them at present, approve of an establishment; and since it cannot be that of their own religion, they think that the present may do as well as any other, and would even prefer it to that of many other Dissenters; and, therefore, they have no farther wish than such a full tolera

Sermon, p. 21. (P.)

+ This approval must, I apprehend, be confined to Presbyterians, and chiefly to those of the seventeenth century. It does not appear that Independents and Baptists, of any period, have approved of an establishment.

tion as Mr. Madan says they actually have, but which they find they have not, and which they would be very glad if he could procure for them.

I

In my opinion, however, and that of many others, it would be much better for the country, and for Christianity in general, if there was no such thing as any civil establishment of religion at all, but that every man should be left to provide for himself with respect to religion, using his own best judgment, as he does in things of a different nature. see no reason why any one man should be compelled to pay for the religion of another man, any more than for his instruction in grammar, philosophy, or any thing else. But this I do not advance as a Dissenter, but on the principles of political philosophy in general. And that these principles of mine, (though they are by no means peculiar to myself,) which Mr. Madan would represent as infinitely alarming, have nothing in them at which you need to be alarmed, I shall clearly shew in my next letter, and let Mr. Madan, or any of your clergy, refute my arguments if they can.

Mr. Madan's Sermon being my Text, I shall think myself authorized by his example, to take the same liberties with it, that he has done with his, that is, to preach the very contrary doctrine. From a text which inculcates meekness and forbearance, and which discountenances all evil-speaking, he has endeavoured to inflame your passions by the grossest and most absurd calumnies. The storm that he has raised I have endeavoured to allay, preaching the very doctrine to which his text should have led him, by endeavouring to remove those prejudices which lead you to think ill of your neighbours, and thereby bring you to a better temper than that which he has manifested. I shall continue to do the same in the remaining Letters, and for this purpose shall go over all the articles that he has touched upon. But as a man may sow more weeds in an hour than another can root out in a month, I must be allowed more time and space than Mr. Madan has taken; so that it may happen that a single sentence in his Sermon shall give occasion to a long letter of mine. But I shall not think much of my trouble in writing, provided you have patience to read; and I shall endeavour to write in such a manner as to put you into better humour, and make you feel more pleasantly than you did after hearing Mr. Madan's Sermon. For the feelings of a man who is angry, though ever so justly, are never comfortable.

I am, my good friends and neighbours,

Yours, &c.

LETTER VII.

Of Religious Establishments in general.

MY TOWNSMEN AND NEIGHBOURS,

I SHALL now bring before you a subject which, from the manner in which it has been generally considered, you may imagine to be of a peculiarly difficult nature, and to which your understandings are not equal. I mean the connexion between the church and the state, or the use of civil establishments of religion. But notwithstanding this, I have no doubt but that I shall make it as perfectly intelligible to you as any thing that I have yet treated of. I shall prove to you that those very principles which your superiors would have you take for granted, as axioms, or certain truths, on which they build others of very great consequence, have themselves no foundation at all, if either the Scriptures, or common-sense, be your rule of judging concerning things.

Mr. Fox himself, who, with respect to magnanimity, force, and comprehension of mind, is at least equal to any of our statesmen, and whose liberality of sentiment has led him repeatedly to defend the cause of the Dissenters in the House of Commons, still takes it for granted, that there ought to be a civil establishment of religion in every country, thinking it, no doubt, absolutely essential to good government. But, great as Mr. Fox's abilities may be, he may not have given sufficient attention to this particular subject. Indeed, if he had, many doubts could not but have arisen in his mind with respect to it. The generality of Dissenters themselves, as I have said, allow the propriety and use of some establishment of Christianity, and formerly they were universally of this opinion,† though it is contrary to a just and received maxim of theirs properly interpreted, viz. that human authority ought not to be interposed in matters of religion, and, indeed, to our Saviour's own declaration, that his kingdom is not of this world.

If men are not to interpose their authority in matters of religion, they ought to refrain, not only from making articles

Thus expressing his opinion in the debate, March 2, 1790: " He ever should be a decided friend to an established religion, but it should be an establishment founded on the opinions of the majority of the people. The truth of religion was not a subject for the discussion of parliament; their duty only was to sauction that which was most universally approved, and to allow it the emoluments of the state." Speeches of C. J. Fox, IV. p. 64.

+ See supra, p. 181, Note t.

of faith and rules of moral conduet to bind the consciences of men, (which they allow to be within the province of God only,) but they ought not to enforce any decrees of men, respecting religion, by civil penalties; for this is evidently setting up a kingdom of this world, and applying human authority to matters of religion, things with respect to which Dissenters hesitate not to say that every man should be left to himself, to be guided by the dictates of his own conscience, of which God is the only sovereign.

If I break the peace of society, if I injure my neighbour in his person, property, or good name, (things which human laws were intended to guard,) I ought to be punished by those who administer such laws. But if I do any thing by which I offend God only, and not man, I should be left to the judgment of God, in this world or the next. These are very plain rules, and yet they are evidently violated whenever any body of men, clergy or laity, lay down rules. respecting religion, and enforce them by civil penalties.

It follows from these plain principles, that whether I choose to profess any particular mode of religion, or to have no religion at all, my neighbours and fellow-citizens have no right to compel me. I do not molest them, and therefore they ought not to disturb me. If, therefore, I do not choose to give any part of my property to the maintenance of religion, it does not concern them; and to compel me to pay money on a religious account, is real injustice, though sanctioned by law. The civil magistrate has the power of the stronger, and I, as the weaker, must submit; but it is on the same principle that I submit to a highwayman, or a robber, at whose mercy I necessarily am. He may say that he has a right to take my money, but he makes himself the judge, and to me his decision may appear unjust.

If we interpret the Scriptures by the conduct of the apostles, and that of the early Christians for three centuries, you will be satisfied that I do not carry this principle too far. In the New Testament you will find that, whatever any man gave to the support of religion, it was perfectly voluntary. The primitive church had bishops, deacons, and other offi cers, who, giving their whole time to the instruction, &c. of others, were maintained from the common stock and the Christians of those times must have been at great expense in building places of public worship, maintaining their poor, &c.; but all these expenses, great as they were, were defrayed by voluntary contribution.

It will be said that, in that age, there was no civil power

that could be applied in favour of Christianity. But neither our Saviour nor the apostles gave any directions about such a thing as a civil establishment of Christianity, when Christians should have the power of making one. And yet, as our Saviour distinctly foresaw, and frequently referred to, the universal prevalence of his religion, he must have known that it would be wanted, if that change in the ex⚫ternal circumstances of his religion would authorize such a

measure.

But what apprehension could the apostles have of the use of a civil establishment of Christianity, when they found no want of it in their own times? Read all their epistles, and you will find no wish expressed by the writers of them of any civil power to enforce the laws of Christ. Nay, without the aid of any civil power, Christianity gained ground in the world, to the overturning of the long-established system of Heathenism which was supported by that power. With what face, then, can any Christian at this day say that civil power is necessary to Christianity, when it never flourished so much as when it was entirely destitute of it, and opposed by it?

Christians should consider their religion as disgraced by any alliance with civil power. The voluntary zeal of the sincere professors of Christianity would, at this day, as well as in former times, supply all the funds which are really wanted for the support of religion; and if men offend against the laws of religion, they should, as our Saviour prescribed, and the apostles practised, be cut off from Christian societies, and be considered as persons with whom they have no religious connexion; but not punished by fines, imprisonments, or any civil inconveniences whatever, such as are the consequence of your excommunications. In this manner Christianity is actually supported by all Dissenters, compelled as they are to bear their share in the support of a much more expensive system, by which they are oppressed.

It will hardly be said that the authority of the civil magistrate was necessary for the appointment, as well as the payment, of bishops, and other ministers in Christian churches. For, not only in the time of the apostles, but long after the undue interference of the civil power in matters of religion, it would have been thought an intolerable grievance, if all Christian societies had not had the free choice of their own ministers of every kind. But men who have been used to servitude of any kind, get in time a habit of acquiescence, and sometimes fancy that there is a real