rious an opportunity) as from an atheist? And would our high priests, if they could get the nation to be persuaded that they have the same power of confessing and absolving, (as they have of late been attempting to do in their books and sermons) be less cuckold-makers than popish priests and atheists?

Could an atheist be a greater calumniator than Dr. S-e? Could an atheist, who thinks no deference due to a bishop, have less regard for the honour of a Christian bishop than Dr. S-e, who pretends to think bishops have divine authority? Could an atheist, after he had been convicted of calumny, and forced to confess that his evidence for the calumny failed him, be more hardened in villany, than to make no satisfaction to, and ask no pardon of the person injured, but persist in supposing that time will discover his charge to be true? Could a set of a theists have patronized calumny more, than to have called that doctor to be the head of their society; and might they not with equal regard to virtue and religion, have chosen a highwayman, or a pick-pocket, who gives his money for the augmentation of poor livings? Has a modern bishop more satisfaction in being thus attacked by a high-church priest, supported and abetted by others; or is the society less disturbed by such proceedings, than if such priests were all atheists ?

Lastly, is it not equally destructive of liberty and property, for ecclesiasticks to use religious cheats and tricks to get money from the people, towards raising and maintaining a needless army of black coats, to live lazily in monasteries, and other religious houses; as for atheists to use any civil tricks to maintain a needless standing army of red coats, or by their arts to plunder the publick for any of their other purposes?

The design therefore of some following papers shall be to shew how the high church jacobite clergy promote true atheism and irreligion: That the laity may be put on the true scent of atheism: That they may have a just dread of the true atheism: That they may cease to be atheists, or worshippers of the priest, and cease to receive religion on his authority; and that they may return to God and Christ, the sole authors of all true religion.

C.

NUMBER 43.

of High-Church Atheism. Part 2.

I PROCEED, as I promised in my last, to shew, by an induction of particulars, how the high-church priests promote true atheism, or irreligion, by which I mean practical atheism.

I. And, first, I will begin with perjury, or false swearing.

I will venture to lay it down as a truth in politicks, that oaths (or something equivalent to them) are, ou many occasions, necessary in government; and that peace among neighbours, punishment of rogues, and the settlement of property, depend upon them. In the next place,

I will lay down as religious truths, that an oath is a solemn act, both of natural and revealed religion; that oaths to a government are to be kept; that there is no greater irreligion, no greater affront to God, no greater insincerity and injustice to man, than perjury; and no point of religion, upon which the honour of God, and the welfare of mankind, are more highly concerned, than in keeping oaths; that oaths of allegiance to a government intend loyalty that oaths are to be taken in the sense of the imposers; that the heart is to concur with the lips in repeating them; that men are to have no mental reserves in taking eaths; and that they must not design to break them, nor take them with design to repent of them.

And yet, on this head, atheists cannot be guilty of greater irreligion than some of our high-churchmen, (under the conduct of our high church priests) who sometimes are not for restraining our kings by their coronation oaths; and, at other times, are not for restraining the people, by their oaths of allegiance; that is, they are at one time for breaking oaths, by contending for unlimited power, and unlimited obedience; and at another time for breaking oaths, by retrenching the authority of the prince, and allegiance of the subject. Under this reign, they are for the latter perjury: as appears by their open rebellions; their irreverent discourses of the person, and family, of his majesty; their endeavours to alienate from him the hearts of his subjects; and inspiring the people with disaffection to his government; their inventing and reporting defamatory stories, to blemish his character, and weaken his authority; their rejoicing at any publick distractions; their taking sides with the French, Turks, Swedes, Spaniards and Muscovites, whenever any of these nations are in measures contrary to the interest of his majesty; and lastly, by the ridiculing and cracking jests upon the state-oaths, and citing, as a sort of scripture, these verses of Hudibras ;

He that imposes an oath makes it,
Not he that for convenience takes it.
Then how can any man be said

To break an oath he never made?

And these things are done by them, not after an atheistical manner; not under the appearance of attacking and ridiculing religion and virtue, the joys of heaven, and the fears of hell; but almost as if slander and calumny, treason and sedition, were articles of their church, which they were in duty obliged to perform. They pretend all the while to be religious men, good churchmen; concerned for the church's safety; enemies of false religion, and particularly of presbyterianism; and zealous for the orthodox faith, contained in St. Athanasius's creed. And though the high church priests have not as yet written any books to defend this manner of taking and keeping oaths; yet they take a method, no less effectual to recommend it: They not only do not bear their testimony against this open wickedness, this open practical atheism, (as is their duty) but are active themselves in the same practices, and countenance the guilty, by the credit and applause which they give -them; and by the distinction which they shew towards them, recommending them as good churchmen, and reviling others, principally, for being faithful to the oaths which they have taken to the government.—

All which is more effectual to promote perjury, than direct dogmatizing in behalf of it; for this sly way gets them the applause of many, and prevents the clamour of others against them; who would be genes rally detested, notwithstanding the devotion of the people towards them, if they openly defended perjury.

Now, pray, what is the difference between these high-churchmen and atheists? Can atheists be less bound by oaths? Can atheists be worse subjects? Are not atheists detestable, because it is supposed that they cannot be bound by oaths? And are others less detestable, whom oaths do not bind? Can any thing be said worse of atheists, than what Mr. Lesley says (in his answer to King's state of the protestants in Ireland) that the parliament cannot make an oath which the clergy will not take? Had not King George reason to apprehend as much mischief from bis swearing-religious-factious-rebel-church-subjects, as he could have from swearing-rebel atheists? Was the case of the dissenters, and other good subjects, who were plundered before the rebellion for their loyalty, or suffered in the rebellion, better for receiving such us age from the hands of high-churchmen, than from atheists? They are plainly as bad as atheists can ever be supposed to be; worse than atheists, acting by the principles of ease and self-preservation, which may be supposed to be the most general principles of action in atheists; and, in fine, worse than any profligate libertines that I ever met with in Italy itself, that seat of high-churchship; where I never heard even such talk so irreligiously about oaths, as I have heard some high-churchmen, or deliver such open perjury as parson B-se. What adds to the wickedness and guilt of these high-churchmen, is, that they pretend to be Christians, and to take their religion from the New-Testament; that they are of a church, whose distinguishing doctrine is loyalty to the prince, and which they extend so far, as to allow resistance in no case to be lawful; and that they have a sovereign, against whom they have nothing to object, but his virtues, his mild, equal, impartial and just administration of government; for as to his title (which is the best of titles, even the voluntary establishment of a free people by an act of their legislature) these swearing high-churchmen can have no just scruple.

These high-churchmen therefore are true atheists: They are practical atheists. The speculative difference between them and atheists, is a matter of small moment; for, what is it to their neighbours, while they act like atheists, that they believe in God and religion? For, while they act like atheists, they do all the mischief that atheists can do, and all those things for which alone atheism is so justly detestable. For if speculative atheism did not lead men to immorality, to faction, to rebellion, &c. it would be so far from being destable, that it would be preferrable to any religion that spoiled men's morals, and made them bad subjects: And I would rather have a speculative atheist for my neighbour, and fellow-subject, and run the hazard of his being a vicious man, than an orthordox-religious man, whose religion made him vicious.

C.

NUMBER 44.

Of High-Church Atheism. Part 3.

THE next article of atheism, that I charge upon high-church priests and high-churchmen, shall relate to the very being of religion, and that is, toleration of religion; for unless there be a toleration of religion, religion which is a matter of choice and conscience, is almost excluded the world.

It is asserted by Mr. Hobbes, that the civil magistrate of every country is the legislator in matters of religion; that his subjects ought to obey him therein; and that, if they do not, they should be compelled by force to profess that religion which he enjoins. This doctrine implies speculative atheism, as it destroys God's dominion, by subverting his authority and laws, and by making a God of the magistrate; and as it roots out all religion, by taking away men's right to follow their consciences therein; which constitutes the very essence of religion and it must introduce practical atheism; if followed; by disturbing, distressing, imprisoning, and taking away the lives of the best men; by setting men at variance with one another, and causing civil wars on a religious account; and by leaving men to be governed only by the laws of the civil magistrate, and taking away all motives to good actions drawn from conscience towards God.

Now the speculative principles of high-church priests, and those of atheists, differ but little from each other; and the practices following from both their principles are the same; that is, the high-church priests must be no less practical atheists, than the speculative atheists themselves.

1. For, first, as to the speculative principles of high-church priests: Though the high-church priests contend for a law of God, a bible and a conscience; yet they effectually subvert those good things, as the atheists, by asserting at the same time, a right in the civil magistrate to compel men by laws, or force, to embrace the true religion: For, what is the difference between a right in the magistrate to compel men to embrace the true religion, and a right in the magistrate to compel men to embrace his religion, which he will always think the best and true religion?

All the arguments of high-church priests for church authority, and church-unity, imply the same atheism. For, do they not therein contend for submission to man in matters of religion, and for the sacrifice of some men's consciences to the judgements of other men? Which is subverting the law of God, the bible and conscience, no less, than vesting the power and compulsion in the civil magistrate.

But their arguments against all innovations, in matters of religion, are most atheistical. They contend so generally against innovations, that they cite with approbation Maecenas's advice to Augustus, namely, that he should follow constantly the established religion of his country; for all innovations would foment sedition in the state, and be a means to subvert his government. Now though this advice so manifestly asserts atheism and hobbism, and implies, that neither Augustus, in whose

reign our blessed Saviour Christ was born, nor any other pagan prince, ought to permit Christianity, which is the most pure and peaceable religion, to become the established religion of their country; yet Dr. Dawson has lately had the confidence to lay it before the present archbishop of Canterbury.*; whose conduct and writings, before he was promoted to that see, gave not the doctor the least ground to suspect, that this worthy prelate would approve such atheism, irreligion, and anti-christianism; and no man dares say that they have done so since.

2. Secondly, the practices following from the principles of highchurch priests, are the same with those following from the principles of atheism. For, do not many Christian civil magistrates exercise the right asserted by high-church priests to belong to them, and fine, burn, imprison, inflict corporal punishments, take away men's natural rights, merely because men follow their consciences in what they are persua ded is the law of God? And what more can be done in virtue of any atheistical principles? Nor do the notions of a bible, a law of God, and a conscience, (however inconsistent such notions are with making penal laws in matters of religion) render high-churchmen less persecu tors, than if they were acted by any atheistical principles; as is manifest from what is done in most countries, where, in proportion to the power and influence of high-church priests, degrees of violence upon men's consciences prevail. Nor do the precepts of Christ, who requires all men to search the scriptures, and to believe and live according to the rules there laid down, and who never sends men to the magistrate or the established priests for the understanding of the bible, abate in the least their persecuting zeal. Nor lastly, does the most perfect morality taught by Christ; who every where inculcates love of mankind, forbearance, (with forgivenes even of many immoralities) and universal charity, and who has said, by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another; I say even this heavenly doctrine of his, does not restrain the high-church priest from stiring up in men's minds the utmost hatred, malice, and fury of men against one another; who seem to learn little else from their priests as matter of religion, but the doctrine of malice against those whom he dislikes. Which doctrine they practice with such warmth and zeal, as if it was the principal or only article of religion; and therein do more mischief than men acted by atheistical principles can be supposed to do; for atheism is as incapable of making men uncharitable to one another, on account of religion, as it is inconsistent with true religion to be uncharitable.

How these atheistical practises have prevailed in England, even since the reformation, (for I will not mention the times before, wherein this priestly atheism was rampant) is apparent from our history, which gives an account of the burning, hanging, fining, imprisoning, starving in goals, banishing, corporal punishments, and harrassing thousands of good and religious people, on the score of religion; upon which I crave leave to make these observations.

1. First, that as the high-church priests have been always most for ward in making and defending penal laws; so they have been the most barbarous and malicious in putting them in execution, where they

* Dr. William Wake.