PEACE at HOME:
OR, A
VINDICATION
Of the PROCEEDINGS of the
Honourable the Houſe of COMMONS,
On the BILL for Preventing Danger from
Occaſional Conformity.
SH EWING THE
Reaſonableneſs and even Neceſſity of ſuch a Bill,
For the better SECURITY of
The Eltabliſhed Government,
For PRESERVING the
Publick Peace both in Church and State
And for QUIETING the
Minds of Her Majeſty's Subje&ts
By Sir HUMPHREY MACKWORTH,
A Member of the Honourable HOUSE of COMMONS.
The fifth Edition.
| 0 N D 0 :
Printed by Freeman Collins in the Old Baily, and are to
be Sold by him. 170 4.
3
1.
.
,
ВХ
5 2 02.
M16
{
1704
і
..
?
,
5.
arglish
Het
3.36 14.3
47643
TO THE
Queen's moſt Excellent Majeſty.
MA D A M,
A
LL good Men who have any Sence of Religion, any Concern for
the true Intereſt of their Native Country, or any Duty or Gras
titude to Your Majeſty, (the great Protector under Heaven of all
our Rights and Liberties, on whoſe Happineſs, long Life and
Proſperity, not only England, but Europe do ſo much depend) muſt all agree
in their hearty Wiſhes and Endeavours for that Peace and Union fo graci-
ouſly recommended by Your Majeſty from the Throne, however it may be
their Misfortune to differ amongſt themſelves about the Means to Attain
it.
The World hath lately receiv'd the Opinion of a Learned Gentleman on
this Subject, addreſs'd to Your Majeſty under all the Ornaments and Ad-
vantages of Oratory and good Language, which yet hath not diſcourag’d,
but induc'd me, with all Humility, to lay this plain Diſcourſe at Your
Majeſty's Feet, depending ſolely on the Merits of the Cafe, and Your Ma-
jeſty's
great Judgment ; and tho' it comes recommended with no Oratory,
no Addreſs, nor with any Collateral Advantage whatſoever, yet ſtill from a
Heart fincerely devoted to the true Intereſt of Your Majeſty, and the ge-
neral Advantage of all your People.
But alas ! to what end are any Applications made to Your Majeſty on
this Occaſion, ſince the Fears and Jealoufies of thoſe, who are Members
of the Church of England, and of thoſe who diſſent from it, and the Mat
ters in Controverſie ariſing from thoſe Fears, ſeem in a fair way to be De-
termind, to the Satisfaction of all parties, by your Gracious Speeches
from the Throne, That You will always make it Tour particular Care to En-
courage and Maintain the Church as by Law Eſtabliſhd, and that you will alſo
Maintain the A&t of Toleration for the Eaſe of Diſſenters ; The One ſhall have
your Favour, the Other your
Protection : All which is very conſiſtent to-
gether, and neither can be diſſatisfy'd if both are Preſervd. Your Majeſty
may very well perform your gracious Promiſe, in taking all Methods which
Mall be thought proper (by your Parliament) to tranſmit the Church ſecurely
ſetled to Poſlerity, and at the ſame time Preſerve the Indalgence granted to
Scrupulous Conſciences. And when Matters ſhall be thus happily ſetled,
that both ſhall be ſecure from danger of one another, and each of them
know the extent of their Privileges : When the Church ſhall have no
Power or Provocation to promote a Profecution of Diſenters, nor any Dif-
You &hlt
C
ftitution of mo
of to
Jenters be permitted to cyade the Laws, and to get into Publick Offices and
Employments in Counties and Corporations, whereby they may be enabled
at one time or other to deſtroy the Church, they will then have no ground
of quarrel left on either ſide, but muſt neceſſarily find it their mutual In-
tereſt to live together in Peace and Unity.
• Some of the Diffenters have publickly declar'd in their Writings, thàt
the Bill againſt Occaſional Conformity doth not Concern thoſe amongſt them
who diffent from the Church upon real Principles of Gonſcience : Theſe
are the Diffenters to whom they conceive Your Majeſty hath promiſed
your Indulgence; if any. State-Diffenters, or Politick-Diffenters, are
crept in amongſt them; any that can Conform and will not; they deſire
to be diſtinguiſh'd from them, alledging, That all the Parliaments that
ever were, or will be, can never ſuppreſs any thing amongft them ſo
Scandalous to their Reputation, and to that Candour with which they de-
fire to guide their Actions ; nor ſo contrary to, and deſtructive of the ve.
ry Nature of their ſeparating from the Church of England, and the Con-
mity. It can therefore never be conceiv'd or imagin'd, by any of
Your Majeſty's moft Faithful Subje&s, that you can ever be perſwaded to
leffen the great Satisfaction which Your Majeſty hath already given from
the Throne to all your People, by fhewing any extraordinary Favour to
thoſe Men who act upon Principles no ways agreeable to the generality of
your Sabjects, whether Churchmen or Diſſenters.
It is very certain, as a late Author hath obſerv'd, That it is very much
,
Dominions by the Strength and Intereſt of Parties : But your great Wiſdom
is ſufficiently able to diſcern, that the Members of the Eſtabliſhed Church
can never come under the denomination of a Party; Your Majeſty, and the
Three Eſtates of the Realm, who are all Members of the National Church, do
conſtitute the Body Politick of this Kingdom, and you are neither one of
the Three Eſtates, nor do conſtitute a Fourth, but you are the Sovereign
Head of that Great Body; and ſo long as Your Majeſty acts as ſuch, and
protects their Rights, you will act as Queen of England, and reign in the
Hearts of all your People, who have either Honeſty or Ability to Support
your Government.
Private Men may deliver their opinion, but in a multitude of Counſellors
there is Sifety', 'and no Infance can be given of any Prince in England, that
ever Miſcarry'd by the Advice of his Parliament. And your Dutiful Com-
Is mons have not ſo much as attempted any thing for the Security of the
Eſtablifu'd Government, in Church and State, but by ſuch gentle Methods
as are conliſtent with the Act of Toleration, are agreeable to the plain In-
tent and Meaning of the Laws already in Being, and have been found
Succeſsful by frequent Experience; as particularly in that very Caſe of
Henry the Third of France, quoted by the ſaid Author'; who Excluding the
Hugonats from Pablick Offices and Emplojments, Converted ſo many in three or
four Tears, that it was then thought (if we may believe that Authority) that.
of he bad continued the ſame Methods, he might in a short time bave reduc'd
his
while Kingdom to one Religion; which, altho*
to be abhorred, and not credi.
ble in that Nation, where the Differences between. Proteſtants and Papills
1
Arc
Dearca Vu Die QUEEN.
are ip Eſſentials, and where Truth was to yield to Error, may yet be more
practicable in this, where we Proteſtants differ only in Ceremonies and lefler
Matters. And what a Bleffing would ſuch a happy Union be, to Your Mas
jeſty and this Nation ?
The Conſequences that may be ſuppos'd to happen upon ſuch a Bill, or
which the Wit of Man can Imagine or Invent as poſſible, will not diſcou-
rage Your Majeſty from concurring with your Parliament in paffing ſuch
a Law as they conceive to be Reaſonable, and even Neceffary to preſerve
Peace at Home, and to promote an Unanimous Zeal for carrying on a Vigo-
rous War Abroad : ſuch a Law as is agreeable to the Policy and Practice of
Foreign States, and of all your Allies, who will rather admire that ſuch an
Act was not made before, than be offended at the Wiſdom of it, and in
all probability, the ſooner ſuch a Bill ſhall paſs into a Law, the ſooner there
will be an end of Clamours and Difíentions.
The Conſcientious-Diſſenter will not be offended at it, but being ſecure
of Liberty of Conſcience, will be contented to live peaceably, and be thank-
ful for his Toleration; and the Members of the Church of England, being
free from danger, and finding the advantage of gentle Methods, will creac
the Diſſenter with Tenderneſs and Affection. The Churchmen and Diflenters
will indeed both take new Meaſures, not to the prejudice, but advantage
of the Government; for inſtead of Fears and Jealouſies, there will be a
Mutual Security, and inſtead of private Factions and Cabals, they will open-
ly join in Defence of Your Majeſty againſt the Common Enemy. Which,
that they may all do, and Your Majeſty may be the Glorious Inſtrument of
Providence in Reducing France Abroad, and Faction at Home, and may
live to ſee a perfect Peace and Vnion amongſt all your Subjects, and long
enjoy that great Bleffing and Happineſs, is the hearty Prayer of,
M A D A M
Your Majeſty's moſt Dutiful, moſt Humble,
and moſt Obedient Subject and Servant,
Humphry Mackworth.
P R E F A C E.
T
H E ſecuring the Adminiſtration of Publick Affairs in the Hands of ſuch
Perſons as are well affe&ted to the preſent Eſtabliſhment, hoth in Church
and State, is a thing in it ſelf jo Reaſonable, and ſo Agreeable to the
Policy and Pra&tice of all Foreign States, that few I think will openly oppoſe it.
This was the End of the Bill formerly brought into the Houſe of Commons, to
prevent Occaſional Conformity; which was an End ſo very deſirable, that thoſe
who differ'd in the Means, yet publickly profeſſed to agree in the Conclufion.
Whence we may probably hope. That when upon more mature Conſideration it
Shall be obſerved, what proper Methods the Commons took to prevent the Corpo-
ration and Teft-A&s from being eluded, ro ſecure the Eſtabliſhed Church from
the danger of being Undermined, and to preſerve the Liberty and Indulgence granted
to Scrupulous Conſciences from the Hazard of being reſumed, the whole Legiſla-
ture will readily concur in the Means to ſo necesſary and avowed an End.
As to the Proceedings of the Houſe of Lords, the Writer deſires always to pay
the higheſt Deference and Reſpe&t to their Lordſhips, who are ſo Noble and ſo Eſ-
ſential a part of our Conſtitution ; and he is ſenſible that their Lordſhips are
Perſons of that great Honour, and are ſo much concerned in Intereſt for the Safe-
ty and Proſperity of the eſtabliſhed Government both in Church and State, that
they will not be offended with any perſon whatſoever, that all indeavour, by
Reaſon and Argument, and in a decent and reſpeftful manner, to eſtabliſh thoſe
Truths that ſeem to him to be abſolutely neceſſary for the Preſervation of it
.
Their Lordſhips have been pleaſed to declare, That they are ready to join
with equal Zeal, in excluding all Perſons from Employments of Truſt, who
join themſelves to any other Bodies of Religious Worſhip beſides the Church
of England; and this being the Subſtance of the Bill againſt Occaſional Confor-
mity, it may reaſonably be hoped, both Houſes will agree in the Form, and oppoſe
every thing that may obftru&t what ſeems to be ſo neceſſary to eſtabliſh Peace and
Vnion amongſt ws.
As to the Reaſons that induced the Commons in the laſt Seſſion of Parlia-
ment, to paſs the ſaid Bill, they are ſo briefly, and yet ſo fully ſet forth, in the
Printed Account of their Proceedings upon it, (to which the Reader is referrid)
that there would be no Occaſion of writing any more on that Subjelt, if it were
not for ſome Miſtakes and Mil-apprehenſions tbat do ſtill prevail with ſome Per-
fons, and ſeem to call for a farther Explanation of it.
The End therefore of this Treatiſe, is to endeavour to Anſwer the Obje&tions
againſt the ſaid Bill, and to open the nature of it a little more at large to the
World, eſpecially to thoſe who have the Misfortune to diſent from the National
Church, that they may not only be freed from Fears and Jealouſies on that Occa.
ſian, but may alſo be Convinced of the Uſefulneſs, and even Neceflity of ſuch a
Bill, for their Own and the Publick Good.
PREF A C E.
But bere the Writer muſt confeſs, that he hath great reaſon to make an Apo-
logy to the Honourable and Wortby Patriots of the Houſe of Commons, for ap-
pearing in the Vindication of their Proceedings, which ſo many of that great Body
are much more able and better qualified to Defend, and which indeed to wije
and conſiderate Perſons, do carry with them their own Vindication ; but yet be
humbly hopes, he ſhall be able to obtain their Pardon and Proteition, ſince it
was not from an Affe&tation to appear in Print, eſpecially in ſo plain and homely
a Dreſs, but Zeal for their Service, and the true Intereſt of his Religion and
Country, that bath extorted from him this little Treatiſe ; which, in reality,
contains no more in Subſtance than what he intended to have humbly offered at
the Free Conference on this Occaſion, if an Accident at that time had not pre-
vented it; and ſince the Cafe appears to him to be very plain, when fully and
fairly ſtated, he thought plain Engliſh might be ſufficient for it: Art and Ora-
tory are very requiſite to ſet off an Argument in a Cauſe that has no good Foun-
dation; but this needs no Advantage, but a true Relation and an unbiaſs’d
Judge.
Advantages and ton and an unnaise
As to Liberty of Conſcience, the Writer indeed was always of Opinion, That
nothing can be more free than the Mind of Man, and that nothing can pre-
vail upon it but what is introduced with Love and Kindneſs, and therefore
he ever thought that gentle Methods, by Reaſon, Arguments
, and a good
Example, nere much
more proper and likely Means to bring the Diſſenters
over to the Church than Penalties and Puniſhments ; but yet he cannot conceive
that theſe Means will be rendred leſs effeElual by the afitance and influence of
ſuch a Bill, which will be apt to diſpoſe them to wiſh at leaſt for a Reconcilia-
tion, and may therefore probably encline them to a more favourable Enquiry into
the Nature and Excellency of the Eſtabliſhed Church, and by conſequence to be
not Occaſionally, but Sincerely and Heartily reconciled to it.
As to the Writer's Zeal for the Eſtabliſhed Government in Church and
State, it is ſo happily founded on the Principles of the ſaid Church, that it dith
Tather encrease than diminiſh bis Charity for Diffenters : He is very fenfible
what great influence the Prejudice of Education, the Example of Parents, the
Advice of Friends, and long Vſage and Cuſtom, (which is a ſecond Nature) ge-
nerally have over the Minds of Men, and hath therefore a great tenderneſs for
ſuch Diffenters, who are not yet convinced that they ought to Conform to the
National Church ; and ſince the ſeveral Branches of the Legiſlative Authority
are now in a temper to continue to them all the Indulgence they do enjoy,
and can reaſonably be deſired, he would not have them incur their Diſpleaſure,
by contending for Publick Offices and Employments, which they are not Enti-
tled to by the A& of Toleration, are not any ways neceſſary for their preſent
or future Happineſs, nor is their Pollefion of them conſiſtent with the Peace and
Safety of the Eſtabliſhed Government.
He is perſwaded that many of them are Men of Candor and Ingenuity, and
do rather connive at, than approve of Politicks and Trimming in Religion; and
that they have generally more Wiſdom than to entruft thoſe fort of Occaſional
Conformiſts to be Guardians of their Children, or Executors of their Wills, who
yet deſire to be entruſted by the Government with the Guardianſhip and Execu-
tion of the Laws of their Country. They well know, that they who can diſpence
with their Principles for the ſake of an Office, can diſpence with their Truſt for
the ſake of an Eſtate ; and if they have at any time omitted to obſerve this Rule,
with reſpe&t to their private Affairs, yet they have ſeldom or never fail'd to ob-
PRE FACE.
ferve another, with relation to the Publick ; and that is, To keep the Power
in their own Hands, when ever they have had an opportunity to do it.
And therefore, they cannot juftly condemn that Prudence and Caution in others,
wbich they have conſtantly recommended and practiſed
amongſt themſelves;
and more eſpecially, when it tends to the Peace of their Country.
But bow different foever Mens private Opinions may be on this Subje, it is
bumbly conceived, tbu in v Caſe of this Nature and Importance to the Publick
Peace, borb in church and State, the Controverfie ought not to be carried on
with Heat and Paſſion, but fairly debated with Reaſon and Moderation, not by
unknown Perſons who may be Jeſuits of Deiſts, but by ſuch as dare own their
Principles, and will endeavour to reconcile our Differences, and not to enflame
abem. And ſince the Writer does not deſire to retain an Opinion any longer than
it can be ſupported by right Reaſon, whoever ſhall argue fairly, and own his
Principles, ſhall be ſure to meet with a favourable Reception, and (if bis Argu-
ments deſerve it ) with a ready Submiſſion to his greater Fudgment; but if any
Perſon ſhall think fit to take the ſame Method of Anſwering this little Treatiſe,
mbich is uſually taken by ſome Perſons in Anſwering others, and inſtead of
bringing Reaſons and Arguments to diſprove what is Written, Mall run out into
indecent Refle&ions on the Writer, he shall only defire him to apply to this Occa-
fien a ſhort Saying which was ujed on another,
Didicit ille maledicere, & ego Contemnere.
To conclude, The following Diſcourſe ſets forth the humble Opinion of the Writer
on this Subject, which having ſincerely delivered according to bis Judgment, he
anay be confident that no Perſons will deny the ſame Indulgence to bim, which
they are ſo ready to grant to every other Perſon, and that therefore he Mall
never be Perſecuted for Conſcience only ; but whatſoever bis Treatment may
be (for be is not ſure he ſhall meet with that ulage himſelf, wbich he is wil.
ling to give to others :) Theſe are bis Principles, and theſe are the Motives that
induced him to make them publick. Not to keep up, but to reconcile our
Differences, Not to promote Parties and Factions, but Peace and Uairy;
Not for the ſake of any private End or Intereſt whatſoever, but for the
fake of Truth, and for the General Good of his Native Country,
Peace
Peace at Home.
Claflings amoneft themſelves about
L L Wife Nations in the World, even thoſe who give the greateſt
Indulgence to Conſciences truly Scrupulous, how different foever
their Conſtitution of Government may be in other Reſpects, and
whatever has been practis'd in Ancient Times, in particular Cales or on
extraordinary Occafions; yet being convinced by Reaſon and Experience,
they do agree at this Day, and have for many Ages paſt, not only in Po-
piſh but in Proteſtant Countries, That there is an abſolute Neceflity of an
Eſtabliſhed Religion, and a National Church ; and that for the Peace and Wel-
fare of every Government, it is alſo neceſſary to preſerve the Adininifiration of
Publick Affairs in the hands of perſons of One and the ſame Perſwafion in Matters
of Religion, that there may be Unity and Uniformity in the Church and State,
and whilft all the Publick Officers and Miniſters are aiming at one and the ſame
Common End, the Publick Good, neither they for the Nation may be deprived of
that End by any unneceſſary Diſſenſions or Claſbings amongſt themſelves about
the Means to attain it.
And wherever a National Church hath been eſtabliſhed by Alts of Uniformi-
ty as in this kingdom, the Wiſe Legiſlators have generally eſtabliſhed ſome
Teſt, or other Security, to diſable and incapacitate thoſe Perſons who Dil-
ſented from the National Church, from bearing Publick Offices or Imploy-
ments in the State; as not thinking it reaſonable or ſafe that any Perſons
ſhould be entruſted with the Execution of the Laws, who did not heartily ap-
prove of, and willingly pay Obedience to them.
For theſe Reaſons our Wife Predeceſſors, after long Experience of the
many Inconveniencies which formerly happened to this Nation for want of
ſuch a Security, and after a long and Bloody Civil War in this Kingdom,
ariſing (amongſt other Cauſes) from a mixture and Confuſion of men of oppoſite
Principles in one and the ſame Adminiſtration,did provide for the Common fafe-
ty of the Prince and People, by enacting the Corporation, and afterwards the
Teſt-A27, which were made (as appears by the expreſs Words of the Pream-
bles thereof) that a Succeſſion in Corporations might be perpetuated in the
Hands of Perſons well affected to the King and the Eſtabliſh'd Government,
for the Preſervation of the Publick Peace hoth in Church and State, and for
quieting the Minds of his Majeſty's Subjects ; That is, as may farther appear
by the whole Scope and Tenor of the Acts themſelves, and the Remedies
therein preſcribed : For preſerving the Adminiſtration of Publick Affairs in the
hands of Perſons of one and the ſame Perſwalion in Matters of Religion (with-
out which therecould be no Peace either in Church or State) and for free-
ing the Minds of bis Majeſty's Subje&ls, not only from the danger of Popery,
which is of the greateſt Conſequence, but alſo from Fears and Jealoufies of co-
ming any more under the Power and Dominion of thoſe Men, who under the ſpe.
cious Pretences of preſerving the true Intereſt of Religion, and of their Native
Country, bad jo lately ſubverted the Eſtablibd Government both in Church and
State, and even the Original Conſtitution of it.
B
Theſe
2
Theſe were the great Ends propoſed by thoſe Laws, and the Means that
were then thought to be moſt effettual to compaſs thoſe Ends, were there-
in provided, viz. That no Perſöin kould be admitted into any of the confiderable
Ofices or Places of Truſt in this Kingdom, but ſuch as did appear to be true
Members of the National Chweb, by receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper, according to tbe Rites and Vſage of the ſaid Cbarch.
And whoſoever ſhall reflect on the general Practice of the Diſſenters in
thoſe Days, or the Arguments which they then chictly made uſe of on all
Occaſions to juſtifie their Separatist from the National Church, and eſpeci-
ally their Refuſal to receive the Saerament according to the Rites of that Church,
which ( in their common Language at that time) was no leſs than Popery
and Idolatry, could never have ſuſpected that thoſe Laws ſhould have want-
ed the Aſſiſtance of this or any other Bill, To render the ſame more effe&u-
al for the true Endr and Purpoſes for wheb they were made, which were to
keep not only Popiſh Recuſants but all forts of Diſſenters from the Natio-
nal Church, out ot the Adininiſtration of Publick Affiirs.
But it now appears by full Experience, That ſome of thoſe Diſenters,
who with all their Endeavours, could never obtain to be diſpenſed with
by any Law; (and who indeed had needed no Diſpenſation, if Occaſional
Conformity to the Sacramcat had been ſo much practis'd in thoſe days as
is now pretended.) having by fome Compliances in a late Reign (which I
forbear to mention) had a little Taſte of the Sweetneſs of ſuch a Diſpen-
Tation, and thereby got into Places and Preferments, have of late endea-
voured to ſupply the want of ſuch a diſpenſing Law, and to preſerve
themſelves in Pablick Employments, by ſetting up An Arbitrary Diſpenſing
Power in their own Conferences, wherely they are enabled to go to the Church
for their Profit, and to a Conventiele for their Principles, and ilereby to evade
all manner of Teſls, and to overthin all ſuch Laws and Eſtabliſhments
whatſoever.
Is not then a Bill-againſt ſuch a praaiee as this neceſſary and reaſonable
for the Cominon Safety? Is it not high time to make the Corporation and
Tell Act, more effectual for the Ends for which they were at firſt made? Is it
not juſt and proper to keep thoſe Men out of Offices and Places of Truſt
relating to the Government, either in Counties or Corporations, who
have
no other way to come at them, but by acting contrary to their Original
Principles, nor any way to makc Atonement for the fame to their own
Party, but by endeavouring to render thoſe Laws uſeleſs and ineffectuil
with the Execution of which they are entrolled
The Corporation and Telt Akte lave been eſteemed for ſeveral Reigns the
great Bulvark
of the Eliablilled Government, againſt both Popiſh Recu-
fonts and Proteſtant Dilienters. And one great Complaint vpon the late
Revolution, was the atrempt which had been made to Repeal the ſaid Laws.
But what great difference is there in the Conſequence to the Govern-
ment, between Evading and Resealine & Ear? Or if Statutes evaded are
not to be enforced and made effettukal by more prevailing Penalties, to
what end do they any longer retain the pame of Laws ? Or any place in
the Book of Statutes?
As to the Alt of Toleration, bow can that Statute be any ways concern.
ed in this Controverfie? For rent in the Ad it ſur, nor any Clauſe there.
in rould have been Repcaled, if the bill had paſſed into a Law, No Man
hath
3
hath had the Confidence to affert any ſuch thing; and the Bill it ſelf doth
fufficiently demonſtrate the contrary, which is as followeth.
As nothing is more contrary to the Profefion of the Chriſtian Religion ; and
particularly to the Doctrine of the Church of England, then Perfecution for
Conſcience only; in due Conſideration whereof an Ad paſſed in the firſt year of
the Reign of the late King William and Queeen Mary of Glorious Memery, Ina
tituled, An Afor Exempting their Majeflies Proteſtant Subjects difſenting from
the Church of England from the Penalties of certain Laws, which A&t ought
inviolably to be obſerved, and eaſe given to all Conſciences truly ſcrupulous, ne.
vertheleſs, whereas the Laws do provide that every Perſon to be admitted into
any (conſiderable ) Office or Employment ; (that is, according to the ſaid Cor-
poration and Tett acts, to which this Bill did refer,) ſhould be Conforma-
ble to the church as it is by Law Eſtabliſhed, by Ena&ling that every ſuch Per-
ſon ſo to be admitted, ſhould receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, accord-
ing to the Rights and Uſage of the Church of England: Yet ſeveral Pera
fons diffenting from the Church, as it is by Law eſlabliſhed, do joyn with
the Members thereof in receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to qua-
lifie themſelves to have and enjoy ſuch offices and Employments, and do after-
wards reſort to Conventicles, or Meetings for the Exerciſe of Religion, in other
manner then according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England,
which is contrary to the intent and meaning of the Laws already made.
+ Be it therefore Enacted, &c. * The Purport whereof was, that if any
Publick Officer, (except Conſtables, Collectors, Affeffors, Overſeers, and
other Pariſh Officers who were not included in this Bill) be not Conforma.
ble to the National Church, but do refort to Conventicles, that then in caſe Oath
be made thereof before a Magiſtrate within ten Days after the Offence com-
mitted, and Proſecution within Three Months, and the Party be thereof Con-
viếted by a Jury on Oath of two credible Witneſſes, he ſhall forfeit bis Office,
and a fine of one Hundred Pounds to the Proſecutor, and alſo Five Pounds for
s every Day be fall take upon him the Adminiſtration of Publick Affairs after
ſuch Departure from the Church ; and ſhall be incapable of bolding any Pub-
Slick Office; but with this Provifo, That if he will again be Conformable to
the National Church, and give a Years Proof of it, and receive the Sacra-
ment Three times in the ſaid Year, according to the Rights and Uſage of the
ſaid Church, he shall be recapacitated to hold any Publick
Office whatſoever ;
and if he offend a Second time, and be thereof Convided by a Jury, he is to in-
cur double the ſaid Penalties, and not to be capable of any Publick Office, una
leſs be phall be Conformable to the Church for the Spece of Three Tears.
This is the Subſtance in fhort of the ſaid Bill, and what is there in all
this, that is inconſiſtent with the Ad of Toleratiop? For what is the
Scope and Intent of that Statute, but only that the Proteſtant Diflenters
Mhall be exempted from the Penalties of certain Laws ? that whereas they
were formerly not only intended to be diſquality'd from Publick Employ-
ments, but alſo made liable to various Fines and Penalties for not Con-
forming to the National Church ; They are now exempted from any Tem-
poral puniſhment, in hopes that Gentle Methods by Reaſon, Arguments, and
a good Example may prove berter Means to convince them of their Error, and
bring them over to the Church then Penalties and Puniſhments.
Is there any Proviſion made by the Ad of Toleration, that any Diſſen-
ters from the National Church, ſhould be thereby Eatituled to, or qualifi-
B 2
ed
6
ed for Publick Offices and Employments in the State, notwithſtanding the plain
intent and meaning of the Corporation, and Tejt Aks to the contrary? Is there
one Clauſe or Word in the whole Ad to that purpoſe ? Or did the Diſſen-
ters ever deſire any fuch thing, or any more then Liberty of Conſcience to
ferve God in their own way, that they might follow their reſpective Trades,
and enjoy their Liberties and Properties, without being diſturbed by Pro-
fecutions for Conſcience only? How then caft the Ad of Toleration be any
wife concerned in this Debate ?
This Bill therefore did not only not affect any Inferior or Pariſh-Officers,
as Conftables, Collectors, Churchwardens, Art. Nor any voluntary Socie-
ty, (as ſome would ſuggeft) but it did not ſo much as affea any Diffen-
ter whatſoever, who cannof Conform to the National Church, neither did
it affect thoſe Diflenters who think fit to Conform Occaſionally for their
own Information, or private Satisfadion, nor indeed any Diflenter wlfat-
foever, with regard to Liberty of Conſcience abftracted from the Publick
Safety. It only affected thoſe particular Diflenters who thought fit to
Conform for an Office, but would not conform for the Unity of the
Church. Thoſe who thought fit to evade the Laws for their own fakes;
but not to pay Obedience to them for the Safety of the Government.
That is, it affected only one ſort of Occaſional Conformiſts, ſuch as Conform
for Offices and Places, and not them with regard to Liberty of Conſcience,
but meerly with reſped to the Public Safety. So far was this Bill from re-
pealing any one Clauſe in the Act of Toleration, or from bringing any
real Hardſhip upon the Conſcientious Diſſenter,
Let Men then fpeak out in plain Engliſh, and ſay what they would
bave : Let them tell the Truth, and confeſs that they are not now contending
for Liberty of Conſcience, but for Power and Daninign. They have indeed
gained the fire Point, and may, (if they will be contented with it) enjoy
the ſame to all Pollerity. But if they will be fill contending for more;. if
nothing elſe will pleaſe them but a Power to deftroy the Eſtabliſh'd
Church, that hath givce then this Indulgence, can they blame the true
Members of the National Church, for endeavouring to preſerve themſelves ?
Or did any Perſons ever attempt their own Security with greater Mode-
ration than by ſuch a Law, which is altogether defenſive, without the leaſt
Encroachment on the Rights
and Priviledges of any other? How then can
this be called a Perfecution: Is the meer Preſervation of the Eſtabliſh'd
Government in Church and State to be elteemed no leſs then Perſecution
of Diffenters? Is their Intereſt and Safety ſo Incompatible? Or is there
no Liberty in this World, or hopes of going to a better without a Publick
Employment?
Whatgreat Miſtakes then do thoſe worthy Perfons unfortunately fall into,
who are perſwaded to argue againſt fuch 2 Bill; for with all due fubmiffi-
on to greater Judgments, What occafion was there to make any Harangues
in prarſe of the Diffenters, and of the great Benefit of the Act of Tolera-
tion, when nothing was attempted to the Prejudice of either? What oc-
caſion was there to endeavour to prove, That the going to a Meeting is not
malum in fe, That the Diflenters are not Schifmaticks, that Occaſional Con-
formity is not a new but an old Imvention, That a great difference ought to be
put between Perſous going to a Porifh anda Proteſtant Diffenting Meeting, and
that leſſer penalties bave #mally been indided on private Perſons for going to
Maſs
umuua ITU ME.
5
Maſs or Conventicles, then are in this Bill ? When none of theſe Points
ſeem to be any ways material in the preſent Debate ; for this Bill did not
affect any private Perſons going to a Meeting, nor determine whether
they are Schiſmaticks or not, nor whether Occaſional Conformity be a
new or an old Invention, neither did it take away the Diſtinction that is
very juſtly made between a Popiſh and a Proteſtant Diſſenting Meeting, it
only ſeconded the Motions made by our Wife Predeceffors, in the Cor-
poration and Teſt Acts, that no Perſons whatſoever ſhould be employed in
the Adminiſtration of Publick Affairs, and in the greater Offices and Em-
ployments relating to the Peace and Welfare of the Queeen and Kingdom,
but ſuch as were true Members of the National Church, and by Conſe-
quence did fincerely wiſh well to the Eſtabliſh'd Government.
The proper Queſtions then to be debated upon this Bill, ſeem to be no
other then theſe: Whether it be conſiſtent with the Safety of the Eſtabliſed
Government, either in Church or State, with the Wiſdom of the Engliſh Nati-
on, with the Prallife of any wiſe Government in the World, or with the true in-
tent and meaning of the Corporation and Teſt Alts, to admit any Perſons what-
ſoever, whether Schiſmaticks or not, whether Tolerated in their Private
Capacities or not, whether Popiſh or Proteſtant Diffenters, whether Na-
tives or Foreigners, whether old Sinners or new ones, or whether guilty of
any Crime or of no Crime, into Publick Offices and Employments relating to
the Government, either in Counties or Corporations, wbo are not ſincere Mem-
bers of the National Church, and who do not heartily approve of the Laws of
the Land, and chearfully pay Obedience to them.
And whether it is better to have the Adminiſtration of Publick Affairs in
the Hands of Perſons of One and the Same Perſwafion in Matters of Religion, or
to bave a Mixture and Confuſion of Men of oppoſite Principles in one and the
ſame Adminiſtration ; or in other Words, whether it is better to have all the
Publick Officers dram together the ſame way for the Publick Good, or to have
ime drawing one way, and ſome another, and thereby tearing the Government
in pieces between them? That is, in ſhort, and in effed, whether it is fis
that the Corporation and Teſt Axts ſhould be Enforced or Repealed?
Theſe are the Queſtions upon this Bill; and if both Parties will keep
to the Subject Matter of the Debate, we may expe& ſome good Iſſue of
it; but if either of them ſhall leave the chief Points, and run to other
Matters that are entirely Foreign to the preſent Controverſie, is it not
plain to all Men of common Capacities, that they give up the Merits of
the Cauſe, and depend ſolely on the Weakneſs of the Readers Judgment
for the Succeſs of their Arguments. I cannot therefore ſee the neceſſity of
giving the World a largeaccount of the Fines and Penalties appointed to the
Reformation and Puniſhment of Private Perſons frequenting Popiſh and Pro-
teſtant Conventicles, as a Precedent or Rule for the Reformation, or Puniſh-
ment of Publick Officers? Neither can I underſtand that we are obligʻd to
Preach up Charity to Private Offenders ; and thereby ancharitably expoſe
the Safety ofthe Queen and Government to the male Adminiſtration of Pub-
lick officers. For as to the Penalties in the ſaid Bill, is there no difference to
be made, when the Government is concerned, and when it is not? Is there
no difference to be made between a Penalty impoſed for the Reformation of
a Private Offender, and a Pepalty appointed for the Security of the Eſtabliſhed
Government ? Is there no diflindion between an Offence committed by a
Perfi B
6
PE ACE at HOME.
Perfon in a Publick, and in a Private Capacity? Between the Safety of one
particular Member, and of the whole Body Politick? Shall Laws be made
for the Security of the Government, and ſhall we agree that thoſe Laws
are necefiary, and yet refuſe to make them eftectual? If not, then it is
very certain, That what is alledgeil by ſome Perſons to another purpoſe,
ought to be more ftri&ly obſerved, and that isa Juſt Proportion between the
Offence and the Puniſhment ? and if the Offence be of ſuch a Nature, as is
inconſiſtent with the Peace and Safety of the Eſtabliſh'd Government
the Paniſhment alſo ought to be ſuch, as will in all probability prevent the
Commiflion of it.
149 Hulin
But with great Submiſſion, can that be done by a Penalty of Twenty
Pounds? And by giving ſo ſmall a part as one Tbird thereof to the Infor-
mer, with the odious Charaller of being one of the worst fort of Men?' will any
Man be encouraged to ſerve the Government at that rate? Or if Men were
bound to Profecute on thoſe Terms, Would not ſuch a Law be rather a
Penalty on the Informer, then on the Offender? Is Reſtitution only a ſuf-
ficient Puniſhment for any Offence? Or will giving up an Office with ſo
ſmall a Fine in that cafe amount to Reſticution ? Can it be imagined that
Men put into Places to ſerve a Party, or to undermine our Conſtitution,
will be diſcouraged from this Offence by ſo ſmall a Penalty? Or will they
not rather be encouraged to undertake any Pablick Employment? And
may not the Eſtabliſhed Government be over-turn'd and deſtroyed, be-
fore fuch Men can be diſcovered and brought to Puniſhment?
Laws of this Nature, which are lo highly neceſſary for the Peace and
Welfare of the Church and State, are not made upon a Suppoſition that
they will be broke, but kept ; and the Penalties impoſed in fuch Caſes are
not intended as a Satisfaction for the Crime, by way of Commutation, as is
allowed on ſome Offences of a wiore private Nature; but they are impo-
fed in order to deter Men from cyer committing ſuch Offences as are
inconſiſtent with the Publick Safety. And for thicle Reaſons the Wiſdom
of our Anceſtors thought fit to inflict ſo great a Penalty in the Teſt All,
not with regard
to the Nature of the offence, when committed by a Pri-
vate Perf n, but when committed by a Publick Officer, and in order to de-
ter ſuch Men from undertakiug the Adminiſtration of Publick Affairs, who
are not ſincerely affeded to the true Intereſt of the Eſtabliſh'd Govern-
ment; and certainly as far as the Publick Safety ought to be prefer'd be-
fore the Safety of a particular Perſönt, fo far there ought to be a juft Pro-
portion obſerved, between a Penalty impoſed for the Security of the one
and of the other.
Pray let us conſider, is not the Offence againſt this Bill of the ſame
Nature as the Offence againſt the Teſt Act? Is there not Five Hundred
Pounds Penalty by that Act given entirely to the Informer for the very firft
Offence, withut any time limited for the Proſecution, beſides Diſabilities and
Incapacities of the higheſt Natute? And is one Hundred Pounds Penalty for
the firſt offence, and Five Pounds a day for an obſtinate and wilful perfift-
ing in it, equal to Five Hundred Poundr eertain, without any Relief? Is a Pe-
nalty of one Hundred and Fifty Pounds, or even the Poflibility of Five
Hundred and fifty Pounds, when all but one Hundred Pounds even after
Breach of the Lart, is in a Man's oim Power, to be efleemed Cruelty and
undue Severity, for an Offence of the ſame Nature with that for which Five
Hundred
Hundred Pounds certain is by the ſame Perſons thought to be a reaſonable Pe-
nalty?
But granting that theſe Penalties ſhould be greater than thoſe heretofore
inflicted : Yet if former Laws by reaſon of the ſmalneſs of their Penalties
have been found too weak to attain the ends for which they were made,
why may not a new Law be propoſed with ſuch Penalties, which it is hoped,
may prove more effe&tual for the Publick Safety.
As to the Objection of Danger from falſe Witneſſes, are Men in this Age
to be more careful of their places than of their Lives? Have not all Men
as much Security by this Bill againſt falſe Witneſſes, as they have in the
Caſe of Felony, or even High-Treaſon it ſelf? Muft they not be Convicted
by a Jury,upon the Evidence of two credible Witneſſes and are not the Jury
Judges of the Credit of thoſe witneſſes? What greater Security can be
defired? And whether is it better, whether is of greater conſequence to
the Nation, That a private Perſon ſhould run the Hazard of loớing an Of-
fice upon the Evidence of two witneſſes, tho' they ſhould happen to be
falſe, or that the Government ſhould run the Hazard of being ruined and
undone by the mixt and oppoſite Adminiſtration of Publick Officers ?
There is indeed one very great difference between the Teſt Aft and this
Bill; for upon the former, a Man may ſuffer and be convi&ed without his
own wilfal Default, as it lately happened upon Failure of a Seſſions, and
Neglect of the Juſtices, &c. but on this Bill, No Man could ſuffer by the
negleit of others, nor through his own Inadvertency, he muſt offend knowingly
and wilfully, it muſt be his own premeditated All that brings him within the
Compaſs of this Law. So that the Arguments that are uſed againſt the Pe-
balties of this Bill, are much ſtronger againſt that in the Teſt Act, which
hath been eſtabliſh'd by the wiſdom of our Anceſtors.
And if in the firſt Act againſt Conventicles, the third Offence was pu-
niſhed with Baniſhment (as is obſerved by ſome Perſons) in the Caſe of a
private Subject, where nothing was conſidered but the meer Act of Diſo-
bedience, What Fines and Penalties would the lame Legiſlators bave imposed,
in caſe the Publick Safety had been added to the Conſideration ?
.
But with great Submiſſion, is it not very ſtrange to hear the ſame Ar-
guments made uſe of againſt this Bill, which were formerly inſiſted on
for repealing all the Teſt Laws whatſoever ? even thoſe againſt Papifts as
well as thoſe againſt Diſſenters? And were then rejected with Indignation
by all the great and wiſe Men in the Kingdom? It is pleaded, That
An Engliſhman cannot be reduced to a more unbappy Condition, than to be put
by Law under an incapacity to ſerve his Prince and Country; But may not a
Papift, as well as a Diffenter, be an Engliſhman? Has not Popery been ever
looked on, as that which we ought to apprehend and fear the moſt, and guard
chiefly againſt it, being our moſt inveterate, moſt reſtleſs and moſt formidable
Enemy ? Is the next ſtep to be made, to let in the Papiſts alſo into the Go-
vernment? Is the Church to be ground to pieces between both? If not,
how comes this Argument to be ſo much inſiſted on; which any Man may
as well make uſe of, who refuſes the Oath of Allegiance to his Lawful
Sovereign, or any Legal Qualification whatſoever for Publick Officers,
which are uſual, and even neceſary in all Nations and Governments in the
World, when it is not the Law, but his own Diſloyalty that puts him un-
der ſuch an incapacity? And when Men ought,Day can and actually do comply
with
with the Law, for their own private Advantage, but will not for the ſake
of the Government (which is the Caſe of the Occaſional Conformiſts)
Whether is it the Law or their own ſtubborn and corrupt Wills that puts them
under an Incapacity to ſerve their Prince and Country ??
It is alſo alledged, That nothing but a Crime of the moſt deteſtable nature ought
to put him under ſuch a Diſability: Whereas it is evident, that the Law doth
not ſo much regard the nature of the Crime in this Cafe, as the Publick
Safety ; and if the Law be ſo tender of the Safety of a private Perſon,
that it will not ſuffer the next of kin, to whom the Eſtate may deſcend, to
be be Guardian of an Infant, and have the management of his Eſtate,
tho' he be Guilty of no Crime at all, becauſe the Guardian will gain ap ad-
vantage by the Death and Deſtruction of that Infant, how much more
ought the Law to take care of the Publick Safety, that thoſe Perſons may
mot be entrusted with the Guardi anſhip and Execution of the Laws, whoſe Inte-
reſt it is to Defeat and Deſtroy them ?
It is farther obſerved, that they who think the being preſent at a Meeting
to be ſo high a Crime, can bardly think that a Toleration of ſuch Meetings ought
to continue long, notwithſtanding the Bill ſays, that the A& of Toleration
ought to be kept inviolable.
But with due Deference to greater Judgments, what premiffes are there
to warrant ſuch a ſevere Concluſion upon the Commons ? What prodigious
ſleps muſt be made to come at it ? How many plain and obvious Diſtinctions
muſt be laid aſide to compaſs this Argument? Is there no difference to be
made between a Wilful and Unwilling Separation from the National
Church? Between Occaſional Conformity for an Office, and for Private In-
formation? Between doing that which is, and that which is not conſiſtent
with the Publick Safety? And, in ſhort, between an Affirmative and a Ne-
gative? For does it follow, that in caſe the Commons ſhould think it a
deteſtable Crime in thoſe that can and will not Copform, that therefore
they muſt of Neceſſity entertain the ſame thoughts of thoſe that would
Conform and cannot? Is there no difference to be made between a Perſon
that can, and a Perſon that cannot conform? Or between an Occaſional Con-
formiſt for an Office, and a Conſcientious Diſenter ?
The Commons do indeed ſay, That Conforming and Non-conforming are Con.
traduftions ; nothing but a firm Perſwaſion that our Terms of Communion are
finful and unlawful cum juſtify the one, and that plainly condemns the other :
but they paſs no Sentence at all on the going to a Meeting by a Perſon that can-
not Conform. And therefore, for any thing appears by this Bill, or the Ar-
guments of the Commons upon it, they may have as favourable an Opinion
of fuch Diflenters as others have.
And after the Corn.mons had made ſuch a Solemn Declaration in favour of
the All of Toleration in the preamble of this Bill, how can it ſeem ſo very
agreeable with that Charity and Tenderneſs that is profeſs’d to Diſenters,
and whiclı our Religion teaches, to paſs ſuch a hard, not to ſay unwarrant-
able and uncharitable Cenſure on the Repreſentatives of the People?
The Commons have indeed ſhewed a great tenderneſs for Conſciences tru-
ly Scrupulous, and are very well pleafed with the Ast of Toleration, in hopes
that gentle Methods will rather prevail with the Diffenters, than Penalties
and Puniſhments : Yet it may preſum'd they cannot come up to that Do-
étrine that is taught by others, that the going to a Meeting is now eſta-
bliſhed
TLACD at HOME.
9
bliſhed by a Law, and made part of our Conftitution ; for are the Ads of
Parliament, that require an Uniformity in the Church, repealed by the Aa
of Toleration ? Or are the Diſſenters barely exempted from the Penalties of
thoſe and other Laws? Is there no difference then between eſtabliſhing Con-
venticles, and exempting them from Humane Penalties ? Is a thing juſtified
and made Lawful, becauſe it is not attended with Temporal Puniſhments ?
No certainly, the Laws for Uniformity do ftill require obedience in foro
Conſcientia, and they cannot but think
the Diſenters are in an Error (by
what Name foever it may be called) in ſeparating from the National
Church, which they take to be the beſt eſtabliſhed Church in the World,
but yet they are very willing to give thoſe Diſſenters, that are not yet con-
vinced they ought to conform, all the Indulgence that can reaſonably be
deſired, and which is in any meaſure confiftent with the Publick Safety:
but it is to be hoped that none of their Friends, who profeſs to be of the
Church of England, will from thence draw ſuch Concluſions, as tend rather
to encourage them in their Error, than to convert them from it.
It's farther alledgʻd, That as the Law ſtood upon this Bill, any perſon ha-
ving an Office might be preſent at Maſs, upon much eaſier Terms than he might be
preſent at a Conventicle: But what is the meaning of this ? Did not this Bill
equally extend to Popiſh as well as Proteſtant
Diſſenters? And is not the Govern-
ment ſecur'd from Popiſh Officers by many other Laws? Is not a Papiſt Convict
(who is eafily convi&ed for not coming to Church) under Incapacities and
Diſabilities of the higheſt Nature? So that there was not only this Bill, but
a great many other Laws againſt Papifts; and a great many higher Penale
cies by loſs of Eſtate, Incapacities, &c. but there is no Penal Law againſt oc-
caſional Conformity for an Office, nor can the Government be fecured againſt
it, but by ſome fuch Penalties, as were intended by the ſaid Bill, which yet
are not near fo great as thoſe againſt Papifts; being ſo effectual, that it is
preſumed no one Inſtance can now be given of any of that Religion that are
in publick Employments.
As to the Proviſo to Qualify the Tncapacity, it is objected, That more is to
be done thereby than by any former Law againſt Papifts : What then ? If this
Bill did equally extend to Papiſts as well as other Diſſenters; if the Laws
for the Security of the Government againſt both, or either of them, are not
fufficient, why may not a new Law be made to render them more effectual?
And if Men will knowingly and wilfully tranfgrefs that Law, why ſhould
they not give a Years proof of their Sincerity and Repentance before they
are entruſted any more with the Publick Safety? Moreover, there was not
ſo much reaſon to reſtore a Perſon immediately, upon his conforming, to
a Publick Employment, as to his private Property; and a ſecond Offence is
a Relapſe and an Apoſtacy, whicb are Circumſtances that aggravate it, and
make it more heinons than the firſt offence, and therefore deſerves an increaſe
of Puniſhment.
Theſe ſort of Objections are indeed very popular, but then they ought to
be juftly applied, and Care taken not to fall into the ſame Error which is
charged on others, and which may as well happen by making no Diſtinction
between Popiſh and Proteſtant Diffenters in the Amendment, as in the Ori-
ginal Clause a hotele
As to our Proteſt and Allies, How can it be conceived that they ſhould in-
termeddle or concern themſelves with the Adminiſtration of our Govern-
TD
CAUD at T U M.
ment, any more than wedo with theirs? Much more that they ſhould be
offended with us for doing the ſame thing which they do themſelves, who
have all a National Church, and preſerve the Publick Peace, by keeping
Diflenters from it out of the Adminiſtration ?
And as to the Foreign Proteſtants amongſt us, did they ever defire to have
a ſhare in the Government of England, any more than the Engliſh Abroad
do deſire it in other countries? Or doth this Bill take away any one Privi-
lege they ever enjoyed, or ever requeſted from the Engliſh Government ?
How then can this be ſaid to be a Perſecution? Do the Engliſh call it Perſe-
cution in Holland, Germany, Geneva, &c. if they are not there admitted
into the Adminiſtration of the Government? Or do any of thoſe Nations
take other Meaſures than theſe that are now propoſed? And if not, why
should not England take as much care of their Government, in Church and State
as their Neighbours do?
And ſince we have ſo great Advantages from their Woollen Manufactures,
as by fome hath been alledg’d, is it prudent to take them from their
Trades that they do underſtand, and wherein they are ſo very ſerviceable
to England, and put them into Offices and Places which they do not under-
ſtand, and where they can do no manner of Service either for England or
themſelves ? Or if thoſe Foreigners had been excepted out of this Bill
,
might not the Commons have heard of greater Objections againſt the Bill, by
the Diſſenters that are Natives, than now they do ?
As to the Clauſe for Exempting Proteſtant Diſſenters from Offices of
Burthen ; the Commons did not ſo much oppoſe the giving Eaſe to Diſfen-
ters in that Particular, as the doing of it in ſuch a manner, and by ſuch a
Clauſe which tended to encourage Perfons bred up in the Church of Eng-
land to go to Conventicles meerly to ſave themſelves from Offices of Bur-
then, which would rather Eſtabliſh Occaſional Nonconformity, then prevent
Occaſional Conformity, and muſt therefore have a very different Effect from
what was deſigned for inſtead of curing, it would encreaſe the Evil which this
Bill intended to remedy : And fince no Obligation of bearing burthenſome
Offices, was by this Bill laid upon any Subjects, nor any new Law intro-
duced in Favour of the Church, it did not ſeem proper in this Bill to in-
ſert a new Law in Favour of Diſſenters. oper in this bar
As to the Clauſe relating to the Univerſities, it feems to be altogether
unneceffary in this Caſe, thoſe Learned Bodies having been ſufficiently pro-
vided for in the Acts of Uniformity.
And as to the Clauſe relating to Hoſpitals and Corporate Work-Houſes,
where the Governors and Aſſiſtants are not obliged in the private Acts
(by which they are Eſtabliſhed ) to receive the Sacrament, (as many of
them are not, , there they were not included in this Bill; but when they
were obliged to receive the Sacrament as a Qualification, it is allowed to
be very reaſonable, that they who could Conform for an Office, ſhould
alſo Conform for the Unity of the Church.
As to the Objections againſt the Corporation Clauſe, the fame being
paſſed with a Solemo Declaration, of being ready to joyn with equal Zeal in
Excluding all Perſons from Employments of Truſt, who joyn themſelves to any
other Bodies for Religious Worſhip, beſides the Church of England. They will
require no further Anſwer; for fince it was admitted, that it was a Scan-
dal to Religion to Conform for a Place in a County, it would have ſeemed
very
PE ACE at HUME.
II.
very ſtrange to have infifted, that it was no Scandal to do ſo in a Corpo
ration; as if Men in Corporations had ſome particular Priviledge to be ex-
empted from Scandal when they did Scandalous Actions,
It has indeed been urged by ſome Perſons, that the Words of that Ad
were general and uncertain, tho' that Act was made before the Teſt Ali, and
no Objection to it of that kind was ever made before; and that it was
hard that Men ſhould be deprived of their Birth-Rights, as if the Subjects
were born Mayors or Common-Council Men; it was further infifted, that
the ſaid Law was founded on Reaſons peculiar to that time, when the King.
dom was juſt delivered from a long Uſurpation. Whereas the Law was then
made perpetual, and the Reaſons were ſo too, which were declared to be,
that a Succeſſion in Corporations might be perpetuated in the Hands of perſons
well affe&ted to the King, and the Eſtabliſhed Government, and for preſerving
the Publick Peace both in Church and State ; and that was by preſerving an
Uniformity in both; without which it will be always impoſſible to pre-
ſerve either; and there may be almoft as much danger from an Uſurpation
creeping on by Evading a Law, as from an Vſurpation dire&tly contrary
to it.
It has been denied by ſome Perſons, that in caſe the Commons had de-
parted from the Corporation Clauſe, the Diſenters might let themſelves into
the Government of Corporations, and thereby influence the Government of the
Kingdom, notwithſtanding the Conſequence ſeems very plain and unavoid-
ble. For tho' they could not let themſelves into the Offices of Magiſtracy,
to be Mayors, Bayliffs, or other head Officers, yet they might ad in other
Employments relating to the Government of Corporations, which are not yet
adjudged to be within the Teſt Axl, as Common-Council Men, &c. And if
they had the Majority of the Common-council in every Corporation, they
might make what By-Laws, and Elect what Mayors, and in many caſes what
Members of Parliament they pleaſed, and then what could hinder them from
influencing the Government of the Kingdom.
It is indeed truly obſerved to be the great Security to the Eſtabliſhed
Religion, that all who fit in the Houſe of Commons ought to be true Mem-
bers of the National Church, but what the real Difference may be between
a Church-man, chofe by Church men, and choſe by Diflenters, may not be ſo
very eaſily determined; for if the Church-men choſe by Diſſenters ſhould
prove to be Occaſional Conformiſts, fome Perfons do think the Difference
between them to be only this, That the former will be for bringing the Diſen-
ters to the Church, and the latter for bringing the Church to the Diflenters.
And that the former will be for uſing Gentle, and the other Severe Methods
to attain their Ends, eſpecially if they may have leave to judge in this
Caſe, from the Temper of their Brethren in an Adjacent Kingdom.
It is farther obſerved, That the only Conteſt between both parties for and
againſt this Bill, is which ſhall moſt befriend and take care of the Church. The
one (they ſay) would procure a baſty ſetled Submiſſion, not ſo much to be de.
pended upon; the other would obtain for her, a more gradual but a Jafer
Advantage, over thoſe that diſent from her, the ſame End being deſigned by
both, and only fome Difference in the Means to attain it: For we are told, That
the Diſſenters are coming into the Church, and nothing but terrifying Meaſures
and Severity can prevent the happy Union. But with great Submiſſion, what
are theſe Terrifying Meaſures and Severity ? Are the Commons going to
C
ſet
uc TU UT
ſet up an Inquiſition ? Are they going to uſe Fire and Faggot to convert
them? Or, is it really thought fucb a terrible tbing to be kept out of an Office ?
Far be it from the Commons to entertain ſo mean an Opinion of the Con-
fcientious Diflenter, as to believe that ſuch a Qualification Bill, as this will
be a means to procure a haſty ſettled Submiſſion not to be depended upon ?
But they may indeed very
reaſonably hope, that it may be a Means to ob-
tain a more gradual and ſafer Advantage
over thoſe that Diſſent from the
National Church; for Interest is a prevailing thing, and does often diſpoſe
Men by degrees to a more favourable Enquiry into the Truth, which is the
great thing the Church ſeems to want for the Converſion of Diſſenters ; and
whenever they ſhall think fit to come over to the Church, for the ſake of
their Principles, and not of their Profit, they will certainly be received
with all the Tenderneſs,Joy, and Affeớion that can be expreſſed. But in the
mean time, till this gradual and happy Union can be procur'd, there is one
Difference more, that ſeems yet to remain between ſome that argue for
and againſt this Bill, That the former are of Opinion, that the way to pre-
ſerve the Church, is to keep the Power in the Hands of thoſe who are true Mem-
bers of it, and the latter think it is to leave the Power, (or at leaſt a good
ſhare of it) in the Hands of their Adversaries.
As to the Act of Toleration, all Parties are agreed in the preſervation
of it, only ſome are of Opinion, the ſaid Law ought to be obſerved with-
out enforcing the Corporation and Teſt As; and others are of Opinion, not
only to preſerve the former, but enforce the latter alſo. And thus it's
plain the Commons hope to have all the good Effects of the A& of Tolerati-
on, and yet to have the Security intended by the Corporation and Test sits
too, they are not willing to ſacrifice one in Compliment to the other, but
believe that both will do beſt for the Publick Safety.
By this means, Occaſional Conformiſts will indeed be excluded from the
Government, but private Perſons will be ſtill at liberty to uſe their Diſcre-
tion. And therefore if any Good did ever accrew from Occaſional Con-
formity, as is by ſome alledg'd, that from Occaſional, it grew to conſtant Con-
formity, if not in the Perſons themſelves, yet in their Children. The Church
will loſe no advantage in that reſpect by this Bill , for they that Occafio-
nally conform out of Principles, may do ſo ſtill, and they that Conform
meerly for Profit have the greater Inducements to be conſtant to the
Church ; and to add to the Number of thoſe deſcended from Occaſional Confor-
miſts, we may hope to ſee the Occafional Conformifis themſelves eſpouſe the
Cause of the Church with more zeal.
The beſt of the Diſſenters delire not Power or Dominion, but Li-
berty of Conſcience, and Exemption from Penal Laws. The true Mem-
bers of the Church of England defire no more than to ſee the Admini-
ſtration of Publick Affairs, in the Hands of ſuch, who are well affected to
the Eſtabliſh'd Government, that whilſt they are freely conſenting to the
Liberty of others, they may not be deprived of that Liberty themſelves,
of which they have formerly had very melancholy Inftances both in their
own and in a Neighbouring Kingdom.
Amongſt other Arguments for Occaſional Conformity, I cannot forget
one that is very extraordinary, That the Pope and the Church of Rome do ve-
ry much encourage Occaſional Conformity, and that they are in the right, and
gain beir Ends by it ; But although the Example of the Pope and the
Church
LAUT at TUME.
13
Church of Rome is what few would make choice of, to recommend any
thing to the People of England ; yet I cannot obſerve any Weight in this
Argument, unleſs it could alſo be proved, that the Pope did intruft Occafi-
onal Conformiſts with the Adminiſtration of Publick Affairs, which he ne-
ver did : And the ſame Perſons who alledge, That the Pope doth always
encourage the Occafional Conformity of Proteſtants, do on the other hand
obſerve, That he always diſcouraged the like Conformity in Papiſts, and
that he was in the Right, as to his own Intereſt, for he ſaw what in time Oc-
cafional Conformity would grow to, and therefore be did put a ſtop to it in the
Beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, and by a Bull Condemned it ; if there
fore we may draw any Argument or Conclufion from the Proceedings of
the Pope, we might rather conclude, That as the Pope was ſo wiſe as to en-
truſt none in his Government, but who were true Members of his Church, ſo we
ought to be p wiſe as to entruſt none in this Government, but who are true Mem.
bers of ours; and as Occaſional Conformity of Papiſts was formerly a Means to
ruine Popery ; So the like Pratice of Publick Officers in this Government, may
now be a means to ruine the Church of England.
It is obſerved to be the Apoſtle's Rule, Omnia probate, quod bonum, eſt te-
nete, which (fome fay) is impoſſible ſhould this Bill paſs ; But with great
Submiſſion, that is a Miſtake; for any private Perſons may go to a Meet-
ing to try whether they like that manner of Worſhip better than the Eſta-
bliſhed Church or not : But certainly it is fit they ſhould be ſettled in their
Religion, before they are entruſted with the Publick Safety.
It is added, That if this Bill the Commons are contending for, had been a
Law before the Reformation, in time of Popery, it had prevented even the Re-
formation it ſelf, which was owing in great meafure to Occaſional Conformity.
Now ſuppoſing the Men of thoſe Days to have been as greedy of Profit and
Preferment as the Men of theſe, and this Propoſition to be true in the ut-
moft extent, that ſuch a Bill would have prevented the Reformation, be-
cauſe it would have prevented any Innovation in the Eſtabliſhed Church
yet it ſeems to be the beſt Reaſon that can be given for paſſing this Bill, and
preſerving the Church of England from any ſuch Innovation.
But here it may not be improper to obſerve, that there are two ways of
avoiding a thing propoſed to be done, that is, by ſhewing the Unreaſon-
ableneſs of the Thing, or the Onſeaſonableneſs of the Time, and thus when all
other Arguments fail, when nothing elſe of Weight and Moment can be
ſaid againſt the Reaſonableneſs of ſuch a Bill, you muſt not be offended
with ſuch other Arguments as the Nature of the Caſe will bear; and there-
fore you will not admire to hear it ſaid, That though there may be forne things
to be found fault with, yet a proper time ought to be taken to apply Remedies ;
and that in time of War, Alterations are not only Unneceſſary, but Dangerous :
So that in time of War, the end whereof is uncertain, we muſt not (it
ſeems ) make any new Laws, tho' ever ſo neceſſary for the Publick Safe-
ty, becauſe all new Laws do make ſome Alterations.
But when we ſee a Nation divided into Parties and Factions, and are
aſſured that a Kingdom divided can never ftand, when we ſee by Expe-
rience that Church-men and Diffenters can never draw well together
for the Publick Good; that therefore it is abſolutely neceſſary to preſerve Uni-
formity in the State, as well as in the Church, and to Establiſh the Admi-
niftration of Publick Affairs in Men of the one or the other Perſwafion,
ſince
14
HOWE.
fince the Contention ſeems to be grown to that height that in all probabi-
lity it cannot laſt much longer without Ruine to the Nation. Is it not
high time to heal theſe Diviſions ? And which way can that be done, but
by ſuch a Bill as this, which will remove the Temptation, and will place the
Golden Ball of Contention out of ſight, by' preſerving Dominion in its proper Chan-
mel, within the jujt Bounds and Limits of the National Church?
And ſince it is allowed, that there is a neceſſity of having an Eſtabliſhed
Religion, and a National Church, and that no Perſons ought to be entruſted
with employments of Truſt, who joyn themſelves to any other Bodies of Reli-
gious Worſhip, beſides the Church of England. How can a thing be neceſſary
and unneceſſary at the ſame time? Or when can this neceſſary thing be
done with leſs danger, or in a better Reign to obtain a Sanction to it? But
wherein does the Danger lie? Are the Occaſional Conformiſts grown ſo
numerous and powerful? Is it not plain then (what the Commons have al-
ledged) that the intereſt of the Church and State cannot long be ſupported
without ſuch a Bill ? And what great Encouragement have the People of
England to ſpend ſo many Millions to ſecure our Religion and Government
from the common Enemy abroad, if they are not able to ſecure them by
good Laws at home? And if the Occaſional Conformiſts put in a Claim of
Right to elude our
Laws from ſo ſhort a Practice, what will they do it the
Legiſlature ſuffer the Continuance of it?
It is agreed that the Presbyterians, Anabaptiſts, Independents, and Qua-
kers can no more be reconciled to one another, then they can be to the
Church, or ever be contented to ſhare the Power amongſt them, and will
every one rather conſent that the Adminiſtration of Publick Affairs ſhould
be in Members of the Church of England, than of any other Sect of Diffen-
ters beſides themſelves. Since then it is eſteemed impracticable to divide
the Adminiſtration amongſt them, and intolerable to have it in any one
Sect of them ; how can it be imagined but that the Body of Diffenters
will be contented with the Act of Toleration, and Liberty of Conſcience,
without running the hazard of Ruine and Confuſion to themſelves and
their Poſterity, by unreaſonable Contentions for Power and Dominion, with-
out any proſpect of Advantage by it? How can it be conceived that the Con-
ſcientious Diſenter will be prevailed on to engage againſt the Church by
Wicked and Ambitious Men, who have no other Deſign but to ſet one a-
gainſt the other in order to deſtroy both? For upon the ſtricteſt Enquiry
it will be found, That Perſecution was not the Cauſe that the Diſenters were
formerly Seditious and in Arms, and oppoſition againſt the Church and State,
as
is alledg'd by ſome Perſons; but on the contrary, they were always firſt
abuſed and miſled by Popular and Ambitious Men, to diſturb the Peace of the
Government, before any Penal Laws were made, ar put in Execution againſt
tbem.
And what elſe can ever deprive the Conſcientious Difíenter of the Act
of Toleration he now enjoys; but his being milled by ſuch Evil Councellors,
to contend for Power to ſerve the private Ends of Irreligious and Self-de.
ſigning Men, and at laſt to deſtroy thoſe that gave him that Indul-
gence.
Are the Diflenters ſecure that there are no lurking Deifts, no Socinian
Politicians behind the Curtain, who are ſtriving for Power and Dominion,
under the fpecious Pretences of Liberty of Conſcience? Are they ſure that
ſome
upon them.
ſome ſuch Men are not making uſe of the Difíenters as Tools and Scaffolds, to
raiſe themſelves, deſtroy our Conſtitution, and Extirpate the true Chri-
ftian Religion out of the Kingdom? Is there no Reaſon to fufpect that theſe
are the Men who have made uſe of ſo many Arts and Stratagems to under-
mine our Conſtitution both in Church and State? To ſet not only the
Church-men and Diffenters together by the Ears, but alſo to divide the
Church it ſelf? Is it not from theſe ſort of Men we have learnt the Diſtin-
ction between High-church and Low-Church, the High Flyers and the Mode-
rate Churchmen? &c. And ſince they know that the Church, in all pro-
bability, cannot be deſtroyed but by it felf, do they not find it neceffary
to keep the Diſſenters united, and the Church in a diviſion, and to make the
number of the Low Churchmen the greater, have not they liſted the Occa-
fional Conformiſts amongſt them ? And may not therefore the great Conteſt
in this Nation, under the old Names of Wbig and Tory, of Williamite and
Jacobite, of Churchmen and Diſſenters, &c. be reduced at laſt to this ſingle
Contention, Whether ſuch Men as theſe, of what denomination ſoever, (that are
moſt for Liberty of Conſcience in the largeft fence, without troubling their
Thoughts about the Myſteries of Revealed Religion or the Queen and her Pro-
teſtant Succeſſors, (with the aſſiſtance of true Chriſtians of the National Church)
fhall govern this Nation?
If this be not the Diſpute, let any Man demonſtrate what it is, or for
what end, and by what Perſons any Diſenters are ſo much incited to oppoſe
this Bill, or to imagine that the ſame is deſigned to bring any real hardſhip
If Men are not now contending for Power and Duminion, let them ſhew
what it is they are contending for : Liberty of Conſcience is enjoyed by
virtue of the A&t of Toleration, which by this Bill would have been enforcd
with a Solemn Declaration, that it ought inviolably to be obſerved; what then
would they have ? If any Diſlenters pretend to be under fears without a
Cauſe, why ſhould they admire that the Members of the Church do la-
bour under very great fears, when they have ſo many and ſo great Cauſes
for it? When they fee Epiſcopacy Aboliſhed in a Neighbouring Kingdom,
and themſelves ſurrounded in this with Deifts, Papiſts, Socinians, and Oc-
cafional Conformiſts? When they fee fome Men take ſo much Care, and ufe
fo many Arguments, in favour of the All of Toleration, and none at all in
favour of thoſe Laws that were made for the Security of the Eſtabliſhed
Church. Is this a proper time to ſecure the one and not the other? Or
what elſe is the meaning of theſe Proceedings ??
The Way to preſerve the Publick Peace in Church and State, is not to
oblige the Diſſenter and diſoblige the Church, but to preſerve the juſt
Rights and Privileges of both, and to remove all fears and jealouſies on either
ſide ; on the one, of being ever Deſlroy'd, on the other, of being ever Proſecuted
for Conſcience only; and that can never be done but by ſuch a Bill as this,
which will remove the Cauſes of all our Fears, and of all our Diviſions.
Such a Bill will not only ſecure Her Majeſty from the danger of having
two contending Parties in the Nation, but her Royal Proteftant Succeffors
alſo from ſplitting on a Party of ſuch Principles that njuſt inevitably end
in the Ruin of the Monarchy.
No Prince whoſe Right is eſtabliſhed by Law, can ever have juſt Cauſe
to fear an Oppoſition in this Kingdom, when the Government is fi
fet
ſetled in Peace and Unity; but on the other ſide, no Prince either in Pof-
feffion or Reverſion, can ever be ſecure where a Nation is divided into
Parties and Factions, it muſt therefore be very acceptable and advantage-
ous to Her Majeſty and her Princely Proteſtant Succeffors, that all our Dif-
ferences ſhould be thus happily reconciled, and Peace and Union both in
Church and State ſecured and eſtabliſhed. There will then be no Danger
in the entrance upon the Government, nor any Difficulty under the fuble-
quent Adminiſtration of it; the beginning will be on a foot of Unity, and
the Continuance will be founded on the Eſtabliſhed Conſtitution, which will
always be the beſt Supporter of Monarchy, and a Proteftant Succeffor.
And thus upon the whole Matter, ſuch a bill as this will not only tend
to ſecure the Church, but to preſerve the Queen, her Proteſtant Succeffors, and
even the Diſſenters themſelves, in Peace and Happineſs : The Queen, by Eftab-
liſhing that Unity and Uniformity in the Church and State, which is abfo-
lutely neceſſary to preſerve the Peace and Welfare of every Government in
the World: The Princely Proteſtant Succeffors, by putting them at firft on
ſuch a Foundation on which alone the English Monarchy is built, and can
be ſupported : And the Diflenters themſelves, by removing the occaſion of
thoſe Fears and Jealouſies, which have ever been the Cauſe of their Pro-
fecution.
And as on one ſide, ſuch a Bill will be prejudicial to none but thoſe who
mean private Intereſt under publick Pretences, fo on the other it ſeems to be
abfolutely neceſſary to quiet the Minds of Her Majefty's Subjects, who be-
ing thereby ſatisfied, that neither the Church ſhall be undermined by Occa-
fional Conformiſts, nor the Diſenters be tormented with Penal Laws or Pro-
ſecutions, will be all inclined to live together in Peace and Unity, each en-
joying their reſpective Priviledges, and all uniting againft the Common
Enemy of the QUE EN and KINGDOM.
POST CRI PT.
Aving thus, with great Deference and Submiſſion, endeavour'd to vin-
dicate the Proceedings of the Honourable Houſe of Commons, on the
laft Bill for Preventing Occaſional Conformity, I humbly crave leave to add,
That I do not from thence conclude, that ſo Wiſe and ſo Great an Aſſem-
bly are not able to Amend their own Bill, as they have done ſeveral Laws
made by their wife Predeceſſors: I doubt not but all Objections to the
fame will be duly weighed and conſider'd, and care taken to make proper
Amendments, and to Paſs ſuch a Bill for this purpoſe, as will neither be a
Snare to the Churchman, nor a Prejudice to the Diſenter; ſuch a Bill as will
not Deſtroy, but Preſerve our Religion, Laws, and Liberties, and ever-
more eſtabliſh Peace and Unity amongſt us, and ſettle our Conſtitution up.
on a ſure and laſting Foundation.
FINI S.
at