tion so perfectly agreeable to me in other respects, and not having very long to continue in any,

I am, &c.

P. S. The subject of my next Letter will be Toleration, which being a thing that Mr. Madan has no want of himself, I shall shew you he has thought little about, and certainly does not understand.

LETTER VI.*

Of a complete Toleration.

MY FRIENDS AND COUNTRYMEN,

MR. MADAN, like other writers on the same side of the question, willing to represent the church to which he belongs in the best light that he can, (and toleration being fortunately at this time a reputable thing,) gives it the praise of tolerant. Now this we Dissenters readily and thankfully acknowledge to a certain degree. The Act of Toleration passed in the time of King William,† which rescued the Dissenters from starving or rotting in dungeons, and which, under certain, though hard, restrictions, allowed them to worship God in the forms they most approved, was a valuable thing. But for this we do not consider ourselves as at all indebted to the church, though the bishops might not vote against it. It was the liberality of the state, in spite of the church. The same was the case with respect to the last boon that we obtained. For it was not till after two repulses, in which the bishops, as usual, voted on the intolerant side of the question, that we got excused from subscribing many of the Articles of the Church of England, by which we had been bound before. But still it is well known that another Act of Parliament remains in force, which makes it eventually confiscation of goods and imprisonment for life for any man, educated a Christian, to declare his disbelief of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Now, as many of us Dissenters do seriously disbelieve this doctrine of the Trinity, and even think it our duty to

* Part III. March 25, 1790. (P.)

+ In 1689. See Vol. X. p. 487.

Repealed in 1813. See ibid. pp. 488, 494, 495,

endeavour to bring others to believe as we do, viz. in the doctrine of the Divine Unity, as opposed to that of the Trinity, it is evident that, while this law subsists, there is no proper toleration in this country for us. And yet Mr. Madan, knowing this, and expressly mentioning it, can insult us, as others of the clergy are perpetually doing, by saying, that we have "the fullest liberty of conscience and opinion."* "This doctrine," (viz. the Trinity,) says he, "the Dissenters think proper to reject, and they are at liberty to reject it;"t that is, at the risk of the penalty abovementioned, which, if any person should be bigot enough to inform against us, neither Mr. Madan, nor any other clergyman, let his disposition towards us be ever so friendly, can prevent being exacted to the uttermost. This certainly is no toleration. It is mere connivance, and such as any felon may enjoy while nobody thinks proper to prosecute

him.

Mr. Madan himself says, "I will admit that the rigorous execution of this law would certainly be intolerant." Is it not then plain, that though Englishmen may be merciful, the laws are unmerciful, and therefore ought to be repealed? You will naturally think, that after Mr. Madan himself had taxed the law with intolerance, if carried into execution, (which is certainly saying nothing at all in favour of the law,) he would be for the repeal of it. But this by no means follows. Without calling this law any guard of the church, or of the principles of it, which, however, it was intended to be, and even making a merit of its not being executed, he says, "The deliberate repeal of it would certainly operate as a virtual sanction for that conduct which it was enacted to restrain." That is, if there had been any law which made it death to steal an apple, it ought not to be repealed, because that would be a virtual sanction to the stealing of apples. Is not this most curious reasoning? Your clergy, I hope, give you better from the pulpit than in such publications as these. If the reasoning of Paul (Acts xxiv. 25) had been no better than this, Felix would have been more disposed to laugh than to tremble.

It is, indeed, something extraordinary that Mr. Madan's ingenuity should not be able to find some medium in this case, either by proportioning the punishment to the crime, or by repealing a law, which, however well intended, is

Sermon, p. 12. (P.)

Ibid. p. 21. (P.)

VOL. XIX.

N.

+ Ibid. p. 19. (P.)
§ Ibid. (P.)

found to be of no use, and which they are ashamed to execute. Is it not possible to abrogate what is acknowledged to be wrong, without authorizing another wrong? What a poor legislator would Mr. Madan be! You must certainly see, though Mr. Madan cannot, that the repeal of the law of king William, by which we are now forbidden, under the penalty of confiscation of goods and imprisonment for life, to declare our disbelief of the doctrine of the Trinity, would only give us the liberty of avowing our principles, and would by no means imply an approbation of them. Will Mr. Madan say, that the Act of Toleration implied any approbation of the principles of Dissenters? If so, he himself must approve of them. On the contrary, the legislature would, by this generous conduct, express their confidence in the solid reasons on which the established faith was founded. It would be saying, We have no occasion to enforce our principles by penal laws, having no doubt but that the clergy, the proper defenders of them, will be able to support them by reason and argument.

But, my friends, this has not been the conduct of the legislators, or of the clergy. Not trusting to reason, or the Scriptures, they must enact laws, with heavy penalties, to enforce the belief of their doctrines. And though, through the liberality of the times, and not any particular generosity of their own, they are ashamed to execute them, and we, confiding in this, and not in any proper moderation of theirs, even turn their obsolete laws into ridicule, yet you see that, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, they must remain unaltered, together with every thing else that bears the least aspect towards the church. This looks as if they themselves considered it as no better than a castle of cards, which they are afraid of touching, lest it should all fall to pieces. If good reasons cannot be alleged for retaining what is most manifestly absurd, and what they themselves are ashamed to execute, yet you see that something must be said; and weak as it is, I do not know that any thing better can be alleged, than what is here advanced by Mr. Madan, viz. that the repeal of this improper and unjust law to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, would be to give a virtual sanction to our conduct in writing against it.

There is another curious and inconsistent circumstance in what Mr. Madan advances on the subject of this famous law. All who believe Christ to be a man, and not God, must necessarily think it idolatry to pay him divine honours. We have no other definition of idolatry, than to worship as

God that which is not God. Do not all Protestants say, it is idolatry in the Catholics to pray to the Virgin Mary, to Peter, Paul, or any other saints, or even to angels and archangels? Do you not continually charge the Catholics with idolatry, on this principle? Now, it is upon the very same principle, and no other, that we, who consider Christ as being a man, such as Peter and Paul were, say that it must be idolatry to worship, or to pray to him. This is only the necessary consequence of avowing our belief. Yet Mr. Madan will allow us the one without the other; as if he would allow us to think Trinitarians to be idolaters, without permitting us to call them so. "They insult us," he says, "with the charge of idolatry, on account of this doctrine, viz. the Trinity; "they are at liberty so to do, through the mildness of our principles, though, perhaps, they have not a right to do it upon any principle whatever;" that is, we have no right to say what we cannot help thinking. Where, then, is our toleration? Alas, it exists only in the mildness of men's principles, that is, in their good nature, which is a very changeable thing, and not in the laws. If this mildness which Mr. Madan boasts of, was any thing of a stable nature, and was meant to be perpetual, it would certainly lead them to repeal the law, and not merely to suspend the execution of it.

If this law against those who declare their disbelief of the doctrine of the Trinity is never designed to be executed, common sense will say that it ought to be repealed, and that it ought not to remain as a disgrace to our statute book any longer. While it is suffered to continue there, it will always be thought by us that it is intended to be carried into execution, though not at present, yet at some convenient opportunity. If I be absolutely determined never more to correct my child, and wish that he should know my resolution, I burn the rod. If I keep it, I certainly do it with the idea that some time or other it may be wanted. We Unitarians should never think that any proper toleration is intended for us, while a law, by means of which it is in the power of any man to persecute and punish us as such, shall remain unrepealed. And yet you see very clearly that the clergy, boasting of their mild and tolerating principles, would not fail to make as strenuous an opposition to the repeal of this law of king William, which makes it confiscation of goods and imprisonment for life to declare our disbelief of the doctrine of

* Sermon, p. 19. (P.)

the Trinity, as to the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. Though neither of them is, in fact, of any service to their church at all, yet, trembling at every shadow, and dreading they know not what, they are determined to oppose every thing that we apply for. Imagining, as it should seem, that we are much more quick-sighted than themselves, they suspect that there is something more in any thing that we ask for than they are able to see.

Mr. Madan, quoting my Letter to Mr. Pitt, endeavours to alarm you with our farther claims, when those we are now making shall be granted; and as he drops the quotation, he leaves you to imagine that those claims are absolutely endless, and might lead to the total ruin of the constitution in church and state. Now, in that Letter, which I would wish you all to look into, I have distinctly marked what are all our claims, as Dissenters, distinct from those improvements which I imagine might still be made in the laws relating to religion in this country, after every thing that we can wish for as Dissenters shall be granted. These are, first, admissibility to all civil offices at the nomination of the crown, the discretion of which we are not disposed to question; secondly, full liberty to profess and teach all our religious principles, without the fear of such laws as that of king William; and, lastly, to celebrate marriage among ourselves, as the Quakers are allowed to do.*

Now, this is the full extent of all our claims as Dissenters; and what is there so very alarming in it? And till these three articles be granted, our toleration is manifestly incomplete, because we remain exposed to civil penalties. on account of our religious principles, which is the precise definition of persecution. And if all the three claims abovementioned were granted, your established church would stand not the less, but in reality the more, firm for it. Your church is guarded by its peculiar laws, and no person can derive any emolument from it, but those who submit to those laws, and subscribe to its articles. When we Dissenters shall ask for any thing that your church has to give, without submitting to its laws, or subscribing its articles, then, but not before, say, that we are attacking the establishment. We do not desire the repeal of the Act of King William any farther than it respects ourselves. As the doctrine of the Trinity is unquestionably an important article of your faith, let your clergy, by all means, be bound in the

* See supra, pp. 122, 123.