[P] By the fundamental rule of Protestantism, every individual, possesses the right of private judgment, and of course, is allowed to interpret the Bible, as his reason, or his feelings, suggest; and yet, _mark_ the contradiction, he is _not_ allowed, to interpret the _thirty-nine Articles_. For in the declaration prefixed to this singular code, it is said: "His Majesty, prohibits his loving subjects, the least difference from them, or putting their _own_ sense upon them; but requires them, to be taken in _their literal_, and _grammatical_ sense." Now, Dr. Paley says, that "the Thirty-nine Articles, will be found, on dissection, to contain about two hundred and forty _distinct_, and independent propositions; many of them, inconsistent with _each_ other." In fact, few of the English Clergy subscribe the articles in the literal, and grammatical sense; "and Burnet says, that in his own times, the greater part of the clergy, subscribed the Articles, _without examining them_," and that others do it, because they _must_ do it, _though they can hardly satisfy their consciences_, about some things in them. Dr. Balguy says, that "the Thirty-nine Articles impose upon us doctrines of dark, and ignorant ages." How just, then, must the observation of Gibbon be, "that the great body of the English Clergy, sign the Thirty-nine Articles, with a _sigh_, or a _smile_." Really, to require that men, should take these Articles, in their literal, and grammatical sense, whilst many of them, have _no literal_, or _grammatical_ sense, nay, moreover, to oblige men, to swear that they believe them, is, in my humble opinion, a violation of common sense, and of decency. In all this, there may be some degree of political wisdom, but it is surely, an act of very gross, religious inconsistency.