and hands in order to conceal it, as maintain that we are republicans. Let him, or, since he will not, do you, read my own writings of a political nature, viz. my "Essay on the first Principles of Government," or Dr. Price's "Essay on Civil Liberty," which are generally considered as the boldest, and the most exceptionable, of any thing on the subject in the English language; or look into my "Lectures on History and General Policy," in which I particularly consider all the forms of government, and weigh their advantages and defects, and see whether you can discover any traces of a preference for republican government. On the contrary, you will there find a decided preference given to our own, and perhaps as good reasons for this preference as Mr. Madan himself is able to give. What then must you think of such calumny as he, in this random, inconsiderate manner, and yet with such uncommon solemnity, has thrown out.

The truth is, that we Dissenters are friends to a limited monarchy, in which a king may do much good, and can do but little harm, whereas the clergy in general have always had a leaning to a more arbitrary form of government, in which the king shall have much to give, and themselves as much to receive. Hence their deep-rooted attachment to the family of the Stuarts, and ours to that of Hanover. It is well known that the clergy in general were never well affected to what is usually called government, but generally opposed the measures of the court, in the reigns of king William, and those of George I. and George II.; while the Dissenters, out of gratitude for the liberty they enjoyed under them, went perhaps too eagerly with the court, and abetted with too little distinction the measures of govern

ment.

Now it has unfortunately happened, that another king is arisen, who knoweth not Joseph, or the obligations that his family are under; a prince who, with the best intentions, has the truth hidden from him by churchmen like Mr. Madan, who, without reminding him that the Dissenters were the steadiest friends of his grandfather and great-grandfather, will persuade him that they are his enemies, and wish to overturn his government; and we have not the same access to him that they have, and so have no opportunity of informing him better. And though he should give us a hearing, his attention has been pre-occupied by such men as Mr. Madan, who have told him that our declarations are not to be trusted. But, my generous countrymen, we think it

our happiness that we have access to you, and perhaps finally through you to the king himself. Before your tribunal I arraign Mr. Madan of evil-speaking and calumny; and whether it be intentional or not, the injury that we receive from it is the same. So far he advances his accusations 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 leisure to read much English history; but he has heard and seen something; and there is a fact so recent as to be within his memory, which demonstrates that the Dissenters 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 justly or not,) that his prerogative was in danger of being trampled upon. This was the memorable period of the coalition, when the Dissenters were particularly forward in their addresses to give their sanction 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 pleasure in thwarting him?

But what has been the return for this unquestionable proof of our loyalty and zeal? Has it secured to us the gratitude of the king, or the minister, whose cause we espoused? We are still, however, ready, as on many former occasions, to do good for evil, and to shew our loyalty on any future occasion, whenever we shall think the just prerogative of the king, as well as that of the commous, really violated. We consider not what others ought to do, but only what becomes ourselves as good citizens and friends to the genuine principles of the constitution.

I am, &c.

LETTER III.

The Inconclusiveness of Mr. Madan's Reasoning on this Subject demonstrated from a variety of Considerations.

MY GOOD FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS,

ADMITTING that Mr. Madan was right in his strange notion, that they were the Presbyterians who put king Charles to death, and that this was in itself the most criminal of all transactions, an enormity never to be expiated

* Between Lord North and Mr. Fox, in 1783.

by all the public calamities that ever befal a nation; can he be justified in charging it upon us, or in imputing to us the same maxims, at the distance of more than four generations, because we bear the same name? Do not bodies of men, and whole nations, change their principles, in a course of years, even much more than individual persons; and must they who are now innocent, suffer for the sins of their remotest ancestors? I shall mention a few well-known facts, to shew how unreasonable such imputations would be.

The most turbulent of all religionists at the time of the Reformation were the Anabaptists in Germany. But the Mennonites, who are much more properly descended 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 several respects, hold the same 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 shew. But Arminianism came in with Archbishop Laud, and has been prevalent among the clergy to this day. Then also they, as well as almost all the Christian world, were intolerant. But happily all Europe, and England, has since that time received much light on this important subject, so that no person will now openly avow himself a friend to persecution.

Admitting then, that, contrary to all evidence of facts, the old Presbyterians were the persons 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 Presbyterians, never had a king, it does not follow but that the Presbyterians of this day, and especially those of England, who have seen many good kings, (far better, in their opinion at least, than either of the Charleses, or their father James, before them,) may not be very well reconciled to kingly government. Allowing all that Mr. Madan has said, notoriously false as it is, of the old Presbyterians, 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 sense, those dangerous people that Mr. Madan represents us. The very

terms of Presbyterian and Independent have changed their meaning since the last century; so that nothing that may be alleged, though with truth, concerning them, can be any just ground of accusation against us.

If Mr. Madan means that the present Presbyterians, or ndependents, are the lineal descendants of the old ones, and that the same king-killing principles have been transmitted from father to son, he will find himself still more embarrassed in his argument. For many persons, we see every day, adopt principles unknown to their ancestors. My own grandfather was a Churchman, and bishop Horsley's was a Dissenter. But do I, on that account, retain any of the principles of Churchmen or the bishop those of Dissenters? I do not believe that any such thing is suspected of either of us. Our worthy rector of St. Martin's is in the same predicament. But who entertains the least doubt of the disinterested 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 Horsley's father, was the son of a Presbyterian, who for the sake of preferment conformed 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 bishop to the admirers of the royal and blessed martyr. If the sons of the bishop, like those of this king, should become Catholics, the parallel will be still more complete.

It is true that more is required of new converts, as a proof of their sincerity, (on the same principles that miracles require stronger evidence than ordinary facts,) but the king gave these abundant proofs, and the bishop has done the same. Though no person, I believe, ever questioned the sincerity of king Charles's attachment to the Church of England, notwithstanding his father had been a Presbyterian, there are some, however, so unreasonable as to require more evidence than they have yet seen of the bishop's disinterested attachment to it. But then there are persons whom the evidence of miracles will not satisfy.

To make Mr. Madan's accusation at all probable, he should point out some connexion between the principles of Dissenters, and the republican or king-killing principles that he ascribes 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 supposed, 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 classes of men. Besides, our principles are so various, and some of them so directly opposite to those of others, that if some were favour

able to republican government, others must be as favourable to monarchical.

What just now perhaps distinguishes us the most is, that some of us are Trinitarians, some Arians, and others Unitarians. If Mr. Madan judge by the majority, the Trinitarians only must be the Republicans, and myself and friends, who are the minority, must be the good Royalists. Or, since the great body of Dissenters pray extempore, and myself and a few more use our own pre-composed forms, (and I have even declared a preference for a liturgy,) I ought on this account also to be excepted from the charge of Republicanism which falls on Dissenters in general. Most Dissenting Ministers pray in a plain black coat. If the Republicanism lie in that, I and a few others, who conform so far as to wear a gown and cassock in the pulpit, because we find it convenient, (especially as a cover for a rusty coat, or a tattered pair of breeches,) have a third ground of exception from a charge that affects the rest of the Dissenters.

But, my good friends, to be serious, though it is difficult to be so in replying to a charge so absurd and ridiculous as that of Mr. Madan's; what have any notions about the Trinity, what have modes of prayer, or modes of dress, or any thing else belonging to Dissenters, to do with systems of civil government?

Mr. Madan will, no doubt, say that our disloyalty arises from some principle that is common to all Dissenters, though we differ ever so much in other respects. Now, we agree in nothing but this, that we equally reject all human authority in matters of religion. But surely that does not imply that we reject all authority in civil matters, since 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 sacred with us, viz. to render to Casar the things that are Casar's. Our Saviour saw no inconsistency in these maxims, neither do we.

If it be a general spirit of disobedience and revolt that necessarily seizes all Dissenters, our wives and children, whom we endeavour to make as good Dissenters as ourselves, must partake of it; and that would shew itself in the disorder of private families, in the disobedience of wives to their husbands, children to their parents, and servants to their masters. But if Mr. Madan visited any families of Dissenters, he would find them as well regulated as those of the Established Church, where the principles of passive