injury that we receive from it is the fame. So far he advances his accufations as unquestionable axioms. I demand his proofs, and do not wish for more impartial judges than yourselves.

Mr. Madan is a young man, and may not have had leifure to read much English hiftory; but he has heard and feen fomething; and there is a fact fo recent, as to be within his memory, which demonftrates that the Diffenters in general were as ready as the members of the established church to express their approbation of the measures of the king, when they imagined (whether juftly or not) that his prerogative was in danger of being trampled upon. This was the memorable period of the coalition, when the Dif senters were particularly forward in their addreffes to give their fanction to the measures of a court which had always been unfriendly to them. Would they have done this if they had been, from principle, hostile to the king, and disposed to take a pleasure in thwarting him?

But what has been the return for this unquestionable proof of our loyalty and zeal? Has it fecured to us the gratitude of the king, or the minifter, whofe cause we espoused? We are ftill, however, ready, as on many former occafions, to do good for evil, and to fhew our loyalty on any future occafion, whenever we shall think the juft prerogative of the king, as well as that of the commons, really violated. We confider not what others ought to do, but only what becomes ourselves, as good citizens, and friends to the genuine principles of the conftitution.

I am, &c.

LETTER

LETTER III.

The Inconclusiveness of Mr. Madan's Reasoning on this Subject demonftrated from a Variety of Confiderations.

My good Friends and Neighbours,

ADMITTING that Mr. Madan was right in his strange

notion, that they were the Prefbyterians who put king Charles to death, and that this was in itself the most criminal of all transactions, an enormity never to be expiated by all the public calamities that ever befel a nation; can he be juftified in charging it upon us, or in imputing to us the fame maxims, at the distance of more than four generations, because we bear the fame name? Do not bodies of men, and whole nations, change their principles, in a course of years, even much more than individual perfons; and must they who are now innocent suffer for the fins of their remotest ancestors? I fhall mention a few well known facts, to fhew how unreasonable such imputations would be.

The most turbulent of all religionists at the time of the reformation were the Anabaptifts in Germany. But the Mennonites, who are much more properly defcended from them, than the Presbyterians of this age from those in the time of Charles I. are the most peaceable and inoffensive of mankind. They are perfect Quakers. The clergy of this country do not, in feveral refpects, hold the fame principles now that their ancestors did at the time of the reformation. Their doctrines were then Calvinistic, as the thirty-nine articles, and all the writings of that age, abundantly fhew. But Arminianifm came in with archbishop Laud, and has been prevalent among the clergy to this day. Then alfo they, as well as almost all the christian world, were intolerant. But happily all Europe, and England, has fince that time received much light on this important fubject, fo that no

perfon

person will now openly avow himself a friend to perse

cution.

Admitting then that, contrary to all evidence of facts, the old Presbyterians were the perfons principally concerned in the killing, or the murder, of king Charles I. that they were then determined enemies of all kings, and that Scotland, occupied chiefly by Prefbyterians, never had a king, it does not follow but that the Prefbyterians of this day, and especially thofe of England, who have seen many good kings (far better, in their opinion at least, than either of the Charles's, or their father James, before them) may not be very well reconciled to kingly government. Allowing all that Mr. Madan has faid, notoriously falfe as it is, of the old Prefbyterians, it will not follow that we now, all of us, carry daggers about us, ready to strike at every king we meet with, or that we are in any fenfe, thofe dangerous people that Mr. Madan reprefents us. The very terms of Prefbyterian and Independant have changed their meaning fince the last century; fo that nothing that may be alleged, though with truth, concerning them, can be any just ground of accufation against us.

If Mr. Madan means that the prefent Prefbyterians, or Independants, are the lineal descendants of the old ones, and that the fame king killing principles have been tranfmitted from father to fon, he will find himself still more embarrafted in his argument. For many perfons, we see every day, adopt principles unknown to their ancestors. My own grandfather was a Churchman, and bishop Horfley's was a Diffenter. But do I, on that account, retain any of the principles of Churchmen, or the bifhop thofe of Diffenters. I do not believe that any fuch thing is fufpected of either of us. Our worthy rector of St. Martin's is in the fame predicament. But who entertains the leaft doubt of the dif interested purity of his zeal for the church, or thinks that he ever looks back to the principles of his family? King Charles himself, like Bishop Horiley's father, was the fon of a Presbyterian, who for the fake of preferment conformed

C

to

to the church of England, which is a coincidence of circumstances not a little remarkable; and I mention it as what may farther recommend my friend the bifhop to the admirers of the royal and bleffed martyr. If the fons of the bishop, like those of this king, fhould become Catholics, the parallel will be ftill more complete.

It is true that more is required of new converts, as a proof of their fincerity (on the fame principles that miracles require stronger evidence than ordinary facts) but the king gave these abundant proofs, and the bishop has done the fame. Though no perfon, I believe, ever queftioned the fincerity of king Charles's attachment to the church of England, notwithstanding his father had been a Presbyterian, there are fome, however, fo unreasonable as to require. more evidence than they have yet feen of the bishop's dif interested attachment to it. But then there are perfons whom the evidence of miracles will not fatisfy.

To make Mr. Madan's accufation at all probable, he fhould point out fome connection between the principles of Diffenters, and the republican, or king killing principles that he afcribes to them. Now, though I have frequently turned the subject over in my own mind, I cannot fix upon any religious principles that we are either known, or fuppofed, to hold, that could lead him to imagine that we have any predilection for a republican government, or entertain a greater antipathy to kings than any other claffes of men. Beides, our principles are fo various, and fome of them fo directly opposite to those of others, that if fome were favourable to republican government, others must be as favourable to monarchical.

What just now perhaps diftinguishes us the moft is, that fome of us are Trinitarians, fome Arians, and others Unitarians. If Mr. Madan judge by the majority, the Trinitarians only must be the Republicans, and myfelf and friends, who are the minority, must be good royalists. Or, since the great body of Diffenters pray extempore, and myself and a few more use our own pre-compofed forms (and I have even declared

declared a preference for a liturgy) I ought on this account also to be excepted from the charge of republicanism, which falls on Diffenters in general. Moft diffenting ministers pray in a plain black coat. If the republicanifm lie in that, I and a few others, who conform so far as to wear a gown and caffack in the pulpit, because we find it convenient (especially as a cover for a rusy coat, or a tattered pair of breeches) have a third ground of exception from a charge that affects the rest of the Diffenters.

But, my good friends, to be ferious, though it is difficult to be fo in replying to a charge fo abfurd and ridiculous as that of Mr. Madan; what have any notions about the trinity, what have modes of prayer, or modes of dress, or any thing else belonging to Diffenters, to do with systems of civil government?

Mr. Madan will, no doubt, fay that our difloyalty arises from fome principle that is common to all Diffenters, though we differ ever fo much in other refpects. Now, we agree in nothing but this, that we equally reject all human authority in matters of religion. But furely that does not imply that we reject all authority in civil matters, fince the things. are in themselves totally different. It is a maxim with us to render to God the things that are God's; but then there is another maxim, the counterpart of this, which is equally facred with us, viz. to render to Cæfar the things that are Cafar's. Our Saviour faw no inconfiftency in thefe maxims, neither do we.

If it be a general spirit of disobedience and revolt that neceffarily feizes all Diffenters, our wives and children, whom we endeavour to make as good Diffenters as ourfelves, must partake of it; and that would fhew itfelf in the diforder of private families, in the difobedience of wives to their husbands, children to their parents, and fervants to their mafters. But if Mr. Madan vifited any families of Diffenters, he would find them as well regulated as those of the established church, where the principles of passive obedience

C 2