foundation in Scripture, and which are essential to their religion, as any thing that we observe is to ours."* Now, Sir, no part of all this is true. In one of our meetings, where I attended six years, a very conscientious woman always chose to receive the Lord's Supper kneeling, and it gave no offence to any body; and were we at liberty to celebrate marriage, I am confident we should not in general, if at all, adopt the ceremony of joining hands. As to the several other observances and rites, which you do not mention, I can say nothing about them, but I know of none to which your objection can apply.

Your other objections to our situation are equally void of foundation. "Among the Dissenters of our own country," you say, “the want of some legal provision for the clergy, as well as of some kind of test, seems to be attended with a variety of inconveniences. I have been credibly informed, that notwithstanding they seem so free from every species of controul, yet orthodoxy is as much talked of in the several subdivisions of their society as it is among the divines of the national church, and that even the most illiterate person, of either sex, who contributes his half-crown to the maintenance of the minister, thinks himself entitled to make inquiry into the soundness of the doctrines which he teaches. A few individuals, indeed, of that denomination refuse to be under any kind of restraint in this respect, and in pursuit of what they deem the truth, are little solicitous even about those opinions which have in every age been esteemed most sacred by the general voice of mankind. But these I have also found to be greatly blamed by the Dissenting society at large, however justifiable they may appear in the eyes of their own peculiar flock."†

Now, Sir, what is this but a picture of the state of Christianity for the three first centuries? And to ridicule or censure this, is to censure the conduct of Divine Providence, which ordained that Christianity should extend itself, and triumph over Heathenism, in those very circumstances, and without the aid of civil power, which is necessary to form such an establishment as you admire. This civil power, the boasted ally of your church, has indeed done something for the clergy, by rendering them independent of their congregations; but it has done nothing for the church, besides corrupting and enslaving it. And what does your boasted independence on your congregations but lessen the ↑ Ibid. p. 46. (P.)

* Defence, p. 96. (P.)

motives for that regularity of conduct which is the greatest ornament of the clerical character, and on which alone you ought to depend for your recommendation? No man, I may say, has suffered more from the circumstance of being dependent on a congregation (though at present no person feels it less) than I myself have done; and no doubt there is a real inconvenience attending it; but I am satisfied that, upon the whole, it is a situation infinitely better than a state of independence; and a man whose conduct is such as will approve itself to the reasonable part of mankind, would disdain the advantage which a state of independence would give him.

Whatever is given to the clergy by the civil power, is first taken from the people, who by this means are deprived of the minister of their own choice, and have nothing to do in proportioning his salary to his services; privileges which you cannot deny that the Christian laity were possessed of even till long after the accession of Constantine. In fact, the civil establishment of Christianity has been nothing but the subjugation of the laity to the power of the priests, from which it is hoped that in time they will have the good sense and the spirit to emancipate themselves.

We

We Dissenters are not countenanced by civil power. have no support from the state. But neither had the apostles, nor the Christian clergy for more than three hundred years; and with this apostolical and primitive condition we are content. The countenance of civil power has evidently this inauspicious circumstance, that it lays an undue bias upon the mind, a bias from which your own mind, Sir, is evidently not exempt. Your situation may be more reputable in the eyes of a vain world, and it is certainly more lucrative than ours; but we do not look for that honour which comes from men, and our reward is independent of acts of parliament.

With respect to the two Churches of Rome and England you justly observe, "The whole dispute relative to our separation from the Roman Church must then be reduced to this simple question: which of the two churches had truth on its side, and taught the genuine doctrines of Christianity. All other objections against our separation are illusions, and this is the only point to be determined."†

a

On this supposed oppression by tithes, see Vol. XV. p. 392, Note. It is, however, obvious that the people who adhere to the Establishment, cannot have minister of their own choice," except in the very few instances where the presentation is in the gift of the parish, and even, in such a case, Dissenters and absentees have a voice equally with bonâ fide Churchmen.

+ Defence, p. 41. (P.)

On this principle, Sir, if we find errors in your creed, we are justified in our dissent from your church, as much as you are in dissenting from the Church of Rome; and by this we are willing to abide. You write exactly like a Dissenter, when you say, " Men will assume the privilege of thinking for themselves, when any difficulties occur, in spite of all professions of implicit faith;" and that "no Christian will be persuaded, in compliment to any human authority, to embrace any tenet which he thinks evidently opposite to the written word of God. However far he may deviate from the general opinion of others, he knows that he must stand or fall to that Judge alone, who alone can witness the sincerity of his researches, and the purity of his obedience. Nor is this any more an argument against the sober use of reason than it was an argument against the doctrines of the Messiah, that they were impugned by thousands. Subscriptions, tests, and creeds, might indeed have restrained his language in a land of religious intolerance, but they can never stifle conviction, or secure an unfeigned assent."*

This, Sir, is the great principle of our Dissent, and we cannot express it better than you have done. You would certainly, therefore, have acted more consistently if, when you had left the Church of Rome, you had declined joining a church of a similar kind, and attended with similar difficulties, though with similar emoluments; and either have joined us, or have formed a society of your own: for no real inconvenience arises from such varieties as these.

You strain hard to make out "an essential difference. between the Churches of Rome and of England;"† but still too many points of resemblance remain. You describe the Church of Rome as "requiring the unfeigned assent of all her subjects without distinction; pronouncing a general anathema against all who reject or even controvert her decisions, comments, and explanations; admitting in many essential points no latitude at all either of opinion, or of conduct; and interesting the civil power in her cause, so as to enforce all her spiritual censures with the infliction of temporal punishments. Between that church," you say, "and ours, no kind of comparison can be equitably drawn." Now, Sir, we see an evident agreement between them in these very things. What anathema in the Church of Rome is stronger than that in the Athanasian Creed, which you retain from the Church of Rome? Is not the whole of the

* Defence, p. 51. (P.)

+ Address, p. 44. (P.)

Let

hierarchy supported by temporal power; and are not your excommunications attended with civil disabilities? those who have been harassed by your spiritual courts say how this case stands. I fear, Sir, that as yet you are as little acquainted with that church of which you are lately become a member, as you are with the Dissenters; and that in passing from the Church of Rome to the Church of England, though you may not, to adopt a coarse proverb, have leaped out of the frying-pan into the fire, you have only leaped out of the fire into the frying-pan.

You say, indeed, that "there still exist in our code of laws some similar penal restraints; nor have I any where attempted to defend them; but the present controversy," you add, "has shewn how obsolete they are, and how totally disregarded." But, Sir, your subscription declared your approbation of the whole system, on the idea of its being carried into execution; and therefore you subscribed what you now profess that you cannot defend. What the temper of the times allows us, we do not thank your church for; and the question between us is not what the church thinks proper to do in her present circumstances, which may be very different from what she wishes to do, but what is the power that she claims; and this, as a member of the church, you are bound to approve.

I am, &c.

LETTER V.

Of the Difficulties attending the Subject of Subscription to Articles of Faith.

REV. SIR,

You say of this business of subscription, that "it is generally talked of, and yet little understood by many who are most severe in passing their censures upon it;"† meaning, no doubt, myself. But, Sir, whether is it you or I who may be supposed, by an impartial judge, to have the strongest bias upon our minds to mislead our judgments; you, who get a comfortable, and as you think a reputable, establishment by means of subscription, or I who am excluded from those advantages by means of it? If there be any real difficulty in this subject of subscription, your writings have not contributed to clear it up; nor will your conduct recommend it.

Address, p. 44. (P.)

† Defence p. 211. (P.)

In fact, nothing can be plainer in its own nature. If you really believe the articles that are proposed to you, you certainly may subscribe them with a good conscience. If not, you ought to forbear, on the same principle on which an honest man would refuse to take a false oath in a court of judicature. There would have been no difficulty at all in this business, if it had not been perplexed by the sophistry of those whose interest prompted them to subscribe while their consciences should have withheld them. Hence it is, that we have been amused with so many different and strange principles of subscribing.*

No man, I will venture to say, who really believes the articles, in the obvious sense of them, would ever have thought of any other principle of subscription than that of his real belief of them. Nor, in fact, was any other idea suggested, till after it was well known that some of the clergy held opinions inconsistent with these articles. But having subscribed, and being unwilling to renounce the fruits of their subscription, they were driven to other modes of defending their conduct.

It would be much more consistent, and even reputable, to say at once, with a Dissenting minister of whom I had some little knowledge, (who not being so well received among the Dissenters as his vanity led him to expect, conformed to the Church of England,) that you have done one bad and unjustifiable thing, in order to have it in your power to do many good ones. This, at least, would be like a man who, by theft or robbery, should make himself master of a round sum of money, of which he should afterwards make an honest and reputable use. Whereas your conduct is that of the man who should get the money by the same unlawful means, and then pretend that he came honestly by it.

You describe yourself as perfectly easy with respect to what you have done; saying, "I have not hitherto seen any reason to apprehend that I shall ever regret the step I have taken;" but considering the wretched and contradictory apologies that you have made for it, I really cannot believe you. I am willing to think better of you than to suppose that you are wholly free from compunction; and your declarations to the contrary only remind me of what passed when I was a school-boy; when going to bathe in a river, those who had the courage to jump into the water + Defence, p. 211. (P.)

• See Appendix, No. III.