<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2011-08-26</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Alexis Jakobson</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>*Proofed title page(s).
*Reviewed structure.
*Checked division-marking material at heads and feet of divisions (HEADS, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, BYLINE, etc.).
*Added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate.
*Checked for N=""s.
*Checked ^s.
*Checked placement and completeness of PBs.
*Checked for foreign, damage and missing-page GAPs, #, --.
*Checked for LBs, startqs / endqs, q;s, &abque;s, ABBRs and Qs.
*Checked for FIGUREs and decorated initials.
*Checked proofsheets and made corrections found there.
*Corrected <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">s etc.
*Converted <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">s to GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="[vendor name]".
*Revalidated.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B01759">
<STC T="W">B4069</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">51784410</BIBNO>
<VID>174832</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB REF="1">
<PB N="1" REF="1" MS="y">
<HEAD>THE Ca&s;e of the Di&s;&s;enting Prote&s;tants of IRELAND, In Reference to a Bill of <HI>Indulgence,</HI> Vindicated from the Ex|ceptions alledg'd again&s;t it, in a late An&s;wer.</HEAD>
<P>THE <HI>Author</HI> of the <HI>Ca&s;e</HI> had mention'd two things de&s;ir'd by <HI>Prote&s;tant Di&s;senters,</HI> in reference to a <HI>Bill of Indulgence, viz.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t, That it give 'em a full &s;ecurity for the free Exerci&s;e of their Religion.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Secondly, That there be no &s;uch Clau&s;es annext to it as may di&s;able 'em from &s;erving their King and their Countrey.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>An&s;werer</HI> undertakes to &s;hew, that tho the <HI>Author</HI> of the <HI>Ca&s;e</HI> have <HI>truly</HI> repre&s;ented their de&s;ires, he has but <HI>weakly argued</HI> for granting of 'em. Now, tho the <HI>Author</HI> is &s;o con&s;cious to him&s;elf of his own mean abi|lities, as to be ready to &s;u&s;pect that &s;o ju&s;t a Cau&s;e may have &s;uffer'd by being in &s;o weak hands; yet he does not &s;ee any &s;uch &s;trength in the <HI>An&s;werer</HI>'s Replys, as &s;hou'd di&s;courage him from the defence even of tho&s;e weak Arguments, from any thing the An&s;werer has alledg'd to take off the force of 'em. Whether this opinion be founded on rea&s;on, or on that partiality to his own Cau&s;e (which all men are prone to) mu&s;t be left to the Reader's Judgment.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, <HI>The Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters de&s;ire &s;uch a Bill of Indulgence as &s;hou'd give 'em a full &s;ecurity for the free Exerci&s;e of their Religion.</HI></P>
<P>As to this, the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> indeed tells us <Q>That he believes, there are few or none but will a|gree to it; Tho he thinks it plain the Author's Arguments do not evince the nece&s;&s;ity of it.</Q></P>
<P>I might therefore ju&s;tly &s;atisfy my &s;elf that there are &s;ome con&s;iderations or other for which the generality even of tho&s;e of the E&s;tabli&s;h't Church are willing to grant to Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters the free exerci&s;e of their Religion. But &s;ince the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> thinks the former Rea&s;ons alledg'd for it, to be in&s;ufficient, and &s;peaks of &s;uch a Toleration as rather in it &s;elf a very inconvenient thing, <Q>which they are inclin'd to grant more out of compliance with the importunity of tho&s;e that de&s;ire it, then any &s;en&s;e of it's rea&s;onablene&s;s, as Parents humour their Children, in giving 'em things that are plea&s;ing to their palats, tho prejudicial to their health, only becau&s;e they eagerly de&s;ire 'em.</Q> I &s;hall a little examine what he has offer'd again&s;t tho&s;e Arguments alledg'd for the <HI>Nece&s;&s;ity</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;onablene&s;s</HI> of it; and I do this the rather, becau&s;e tho&s;e <HI>An&s;wers</HI> of his &s;ugge&s;t &s;everal common prejudices again&s;t Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters, which are of late indu&s;triou&s;ly &s;pread, and I fear very deeply rooted in the minds of many, tho founded on very unhappy mi&s;takes and mi&s;information about 'em; &s;o that the Removal of'em will probably tend to promote a more charitable temper in Prote&s;tan<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters"> towards one another. And this is a de&s;ign fit to be pur&s;ued at all times, and never more &s;ea&s;onable then now, when there are &s;o earne&s;t endeavours us'd to heighten our differences in order to ob&s;truct the happy effects of our mutual confidence and affection.</P>
<P>The <HI>Fir&s;t Argument</HI> alledg'd in the <HI>Ca&s;e</HI> is. <Q>That &s;ince the &s;ecurity of the Prote&s;tant Intere&s;t in this Kingdom con&s;i&s;ts in the Number and Union of Prote&s;tants, this Bill will promote both, by drawing Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters from abroad, by uniting all Prote&s;tants at home, and by giving the Goverment a more rooted Intere&s;t in the affections of Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters.</Q></P>
<P><GAP DESC="missing" EXTENT="2 pages">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<PB N="4" REF="3"> the guilt of many intemperate hearts? or &s;hou'd not any unchri&s;tian &s;everities that are chargeable <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> either in former times, &s;erve as Sea marks to warn both of the danger of relap&s;ing into tho&s;e exce&s;s<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">s o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> mi&s;guided Zeal, which all unprejudic't and moderate per&s;ons condemn 'em for? And &s;hould not all that wi&s;h for a better under&s;tanding between Prote&s;tants rather &s;tudy to bury &s;uch ungrateful pa&s;&s;ages o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> both hands if po&s;&s;ible, in perpetual &s;ilence?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;werer.</HI> 3dly, <HI>Whether tho&s;e that are the mo&s;t moderate among 'em can, with any rea&s;on expect, but that with the &s;ame mea&s;ure they have meeted to their Brethren, the Epi&s;copal Clergy in their own Coun|trey, It &s;hou'd be mea&s;ured to them again, when they come to &s;ettle in this Kingdom.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply,</HI> I perceive the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> did not well under&s;tand matters of Fact when he propos'd this dan+gerous Que&s;tion. For if according to his own Rule, the Di&s;senting Mini&s;ters from <HI>Scotland</HI> may expect the &s;ame mea&s;ure here, that is allow'd to the Epi&s;copal Clergy there, Then they might preach in Pari&s;h-Churches, and enjoy the Revenues that belong to 'em, on no other te<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">s then <HI>the Oath of Fidelity to the King,</HI> and <HI>their behaving them&s;elves worthily in Doctrine, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="3 letters">e, and Conver&s;ation,</HI> with|out ever declaring their Judgment in the matters of Church-Government.</P>
<P>For on the&s;e very terms, do all the Epi&s;copal Clergy in <HI>Scotland</HI> that were po&s;se&s;t of publick Churches when the K<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">ng accepted that Crown, continue and are by Act of Parliament &s;ecured in the exerci&s;e of their publick Mini&s;try except tho&s;e that were turn'd out for crimes wherein their Judgment as Epi&s;co|pal is not concern'd. But of the&s;e matters I &s;hall have farther occa&s;ion to inform the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> more fully who I perceive is under &s;trange mi&s;apprehen&s;ions about 'em. Whereby it will evidently appear how little occa&s;ion there was for the <HI>An&s;werer</HI>'s concluding this Paragraph with tho&s;e &s;harp words. <Q>So that if any Indulgence be granted, 'tis purely the re&s;ult of our own Charitable inclinations and a plain evidence to the World, that our ju&s;t Re&s;entment of their &s;everity to others, has not al<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">nated our affectious from 'em.</Q> For he will find 'tis not their &s;everities in <HI>Scotland,</HI> but his mi&s;takes about 'em that have kindled the&s;e warm Re&s;entments in the <HI>An&s;werer,</HI> and in too many others that have been im|pos'd upon by groundle&s;s reports.</P>
<P><Q>An&s;werer, Neither will this Ind<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">lgence probably, tend to the uniting of Prote&s;tants at home, as <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">s too fully prov'd by Experience in England; where the pre&s;ent Tollera<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">on has not had that good effect; neither can we in rea&s;on expect it &s;hou'd be more &s;ucce&s;sful here. For if it equally extend to all parties and denominations of Prote&s;tont Di&s;senters, their mutual jealou&s;ies of one another, and their re&s;pective endeavours to propagate their opinions and to promote then temporal intere&s;ts will naturally create great heats and animo&s;ities. But if the benefit of the Indulgence be unequally di&s;tri|buted, it will be &s;o far from being a means of &s;upporting the<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">t will con&s;iderably weaken the Gover|ment by di&s;obliging all but tho&s;e that are particularly encourag'd and care&s;s't.</Q></P>
<P><HI>Repl.</HI> The <HI>Author</HI> of the <HI>Ca&s;e</HI> in his Argument evidently &s;peaks of an <HI>union</HI> between <HI>Conforming</HI> and <HI>Di&s;&s;enting Prote&s;tants</HI> which he &s;uppo&s;es this Bill wou'd promote. And herein he &s;uppo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> no more then what the <HI>Parliament</HI> of <HI>England</HI> did, who brought in this Bill there as the mo&s;t <HI>effectual means to unite all Prote&s;tants in affection:</HI> And &s;ure this Bill mu&s;t be a proper means to attain that end, if mens affections be be&s;t <HI>united,</HI> when they have no rea&s;onable ground to apprehend any danger from one another.</P>
<P>But the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> &s;eems to mi&s;take him, as if he &s;pake of the union of Di&s;senting Prote&s;tants among them&s;elves. But let him under&s;tand it either way. <Q>The contrary of this (he &s;aith) is fully prov'd by experience in England.</Q> If he mean that the Bill of Indulgence in <HI>England</HI> has not united the affections of <HI>Conformi&s;t's</HI> and <HI>Non Conformi&s;t's,</HI> 'tis ea&s;ily reply'd, that tho it have not wholly remov'd all the animo&s;itys between 'em, yet it had apparently le&s;sen'd 'em. They can conver&s;e &s;ociably, they live together more peaceably, and there is no doubt, much more of mutual love among 'em, then when the prote&s;tant Di&s;senters were every moment in danger of having their per&s;ons impri&s;on'd and their goods di&s;train'd and &s;old.</P>
<P>If he mean that the Bill of Indulgence in <HI>England</HI> has not united <HI>Di&s;senting Prote&s;tants</HI> among them&s;elves. I &s;uppo&s;e the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> is much mi&s;taken. For tho&s;e called <HI>Presbyterians</HI> and <HI>Indepen|dents</HI> never came nearer to an Union and Accommodation of their differences then &s;ince the Indulgence. 'Tis true &s;ome other heats have ari&s;en at <HI>London</HI> about the Explication of the Doct|rine of Ju&s;tification, as there have been no le&s;s warm di&s;putes among tho&s;e of the E&s;tabl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">ht Church about the Explication of a more Important Article, <HI>Viz.</HI> That of the Trinity; but the Indulgence has no way contributed to the one more then the other. And as for this Kingdom the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> mu&s;t be a great &s;tranger to it, if he think the Bill of Indulgence here pleaded for wou'd probably occa&s;ion any jealou&s;e among tho&s;e for whom 'tis de&s;ired, or create any heat among 'em, They have many years liv'd in intire mutual Friend&s;hip and as yet &s;ee no great haz|ard in their &s;maller differences becoming the fuel of any new flames, if others will not turn Incen|diaries, and blow the Coals. So that this danger &s;eems only a Bug-bear created by the <HI>An&s;werer</HI>'s own Imagination.</P>
<P><Q>An&s;werer. But. Secondly; Neither is this Indulgence &s;o highly <HI>Rea&s;onable</HI> as the Author pretends, as may appear by a particular con&s;ideration of the Arguments he makes u&s;e of to prove it.</Q></P>
<PB N="5" REF="3">
<P><HI>For fir&s;t, as the Early Zeal of the Di&s;&s;enters in behalf of this Government, may entitle 'em to it's pro|tection, &s;o it cannot be deny'd, but that they have enjoyed it ever &s;ince the Revolution, and have Receiv'd more then ordinary marks of Royal favour, partly by the free Liberty that's granted 'em throughout the Kingdom,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>as al&s;o by his Maje&s;ties bounty in allowing Yearly hitherto, a con&s;iderable Sum for the maintenance of their Mini&s;ters.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Repl.</HI> And do's the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> think that he has refuted the Argument, by what rather Confirms it<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> If the King have hitherto protected 'em, and augmented to their Mini&s;ters in <HI>&V;l&s;ter,</HI> the Pen|&s;ion <HI>K. Charles the</HI> 2d. allow'd 'em, as a mark of the Re&s;pect he had for their Fidelity and Affecti|on; <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">s it not rea&s;onable that the continuance of the &s;ame Favour &s;hou'd be &s;ecur'd to 'em by Law, when they have done nothing to render them&s;elves unworthy of it? It mu&s;t doubtle&s;s appear &s;o, unle&s;s the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> have a different Opinion of 'em, from what his Maje&s;ty has &s;o often expre&s;s't, by who&s;e approbation a <HI>Bill of Indulgence</HI> in their Favour (&s;uch as they now de&s;ire) was Tran&s;mitted to the la&s;t Parliament here. But if there be any thing in this <HI>An&s;wer</HI> to take off the force of this Argument, it mu&s;t be this, That the Toleration the Di&s;&s;enters have &s;o long en|joyed, is as much as their Zeal and Fidelity can claim; So that they wou'd have no ground to complain of the Government, tho it &s;hou'd refu&s;e to give 'em any &s;ecurity for the Continuance of it. And this &s;eems to be the <HI>An&s;werer</HI>'s &s;en&s;e, becau&s;e in Reply to the &s;econd Rea&s;on draw'n from the Indulgence granted to Foreign Prote&s;tants, he ob&s;erves, <HI>'Tis only granted for 7. Years, in hopes that after the Expiration of that Term, they wou'd declare them&s;elves Members of the E&s;tabli&s;h't Church,</HI> But what if after tho&s;e 7 Years the <HI>French Churches</HI> in this Kingdom, choo&s;e rather to Adhere to the model of their own Di&s;cipline and Wor&s;hip; will the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> then think 'em unworthy of a renewed <HI>Legal Toleration?</HI> If not, what &s;ignifies his <HI>An&s;wer</HI> to the Argument, That 'tis mo&s;t rea|&s;onable to extend the &s;ame Favour to his Maje&s;ties <HI>born</HI> Subjects, that we do to <HI>Foreigners.</HI> If he think 'em in that ca&s;e unworthy of it. I wou'd gladly know on what grounds he thinks &s;o. What grand Crime wou'd it be, if after &s;o many Years, tho&s;e Faithful Confe&s;&s;ors of Chri&s;t &s;hou'd &s;till prefer the model of their own Wor&s;hip and Di&s;cipline, to any other? Would they therefore de|&s;erve to be Treated here as they were in <HI>France&punc;</HI> And whatever the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> may think of the forward Inclination of the Fr. Prote&s;tants to their Church-Government and Wor&s;hip, all the world knows to who&s;e Di&s;cipline and Wor&s;hip their own is mo&s;t conformable. And how far &s;o|ever Temporal Intere&s;t engages the compliance of &s;ome of 'em, yet there are few of 'em, but if left to their free Liberty, wou'd choo&s;e their own. And the mo&s;t of their Mini&s;ters &s;wallow the Reordination requir'd of 'em (how &s;moothly &s;oever palliated) with great reluctancy, and not without &s;ome di&s;gu&s;t again&s;t the Impo&s;ers of it.</P>
<P>An&s;werer Thirdly. <HI>The Papi&s;t are not in equal Circum&s;tances of publick Favour, with our Di&s;&s;en|ting Brethren; For as the Liberty they have in the Exerci&s;e of their Religion, was extorted from the Go|vernment by the pres&s;ing neces&s;ity of publick Affairs, &s;o its not Confirm'd to 'em, by any Act of Parliament as this Indulgence is expected, and I &s;uppo&s;e de&s;igned to be to Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> Tis not ea&s;y to perceive where the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">orce of this <HI>An&s;wer</HI> lyes. For a <HI>publick Treaty</HI> is a con&s;iderable &s;ecurity to the <HI>Papi&s;ts;</HI> and is it not then Rea&s;onable to grant, if po&s;&s;ible, a fuller to Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters? When as the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> him&s;elf in&s;inuates, the one extorted it from the Go|vernment; in order to the &s;uppre&s;&s;ing their Rebellion: The other de&s;erv'd it by their A&s;&s;i&s;tance in the Reduction of this Kingdom. Is it not rea&s;onable at lea&s;t to make this &s;mall difference be|tween tho<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">e who have De&s;erv'd &s;o ill, and tho&s;e that have De&s;erv'd &s;o well of the Govern|ment?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;werer,</HI> Fourthly, <HI>The Experience that our Di&s;&s;enting Brethren, have had of our Tenderne&s;s to|wards 'em heretofore, is a &s;ufficient Argument and Security to 'em of our future Kindne&s;s.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Repl.</HI> We mu&s;t beg the <HI>An&s;werers</HI> pardon, if after &s;o frequent Experience <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">f the renewed Storms that <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">ell on our Brethren in <HI>England</HI> during the late Reigns, and of what we &s;ometimes felt here in <HI>Ireland,</HI> whenever any Court-turn was to be &s;erved by the revival of penal &s;everities, we do not think a <HI>general Declaration of tenderne&s;s</HI> a &s;ufficient <HI>Security</HI> to us from future per&s;ecution. E&s;pecial|ly when we know not what a change, many Turns in publick Affairs may make in the Pa&s;&s;ions and Intere&s;ts of Men. So that we cannot but apprehend a <HI>Legal</HI> Liberty more de&s;ireable and &s;atisfying then an <HI>Arbitrary</HI> one, that's as ea&s;ily recall'd as granted. Tho we mu&s;t in Gratitude add, That none can repo&s;e a more entire confidence in his Maje&s;ty, and the pre&s;ent Government then we do, on whole Ju&s;tice and Goodne&s;s we can chearfully rely, tho &s;ome Mens Ill-will &s;hou'd ob&s;truct this Effect of it.</P>
<P>An&s;wer, <HI>For we con&s;ider our mutual Agreement in the &s;ame Articles of Faith, and are glad to find this Author is plea&s;ed to declare, That the &s;uppres&s;ing of Prote&s;tant Di&s;senters, by the &s;trict Execution of Penal Laws, is a practice that has a ju&s;t Odium left upon it. But are &s;orry that the ju&s;t Odium left upon i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> among us, &s;hou'd be wholly confin'd to us, and that this practice &s;hou'd have no Cen&s;ure nor Reflection ca&s;t upon it among our Neighbours. And 'tis &s;trange the Author &s;hou'd &s;ay, that there is &s;o apparent Contrarie|ty in it to the Mild and Merciful Genius of our Holy Religion, &s;eeing he cannot but know the time when 'twas an avowed doctrine, and a general practice among the Presbyterians and Independents, to barr the members of the Church of</HI> England <HI>from the free exerci&s;e of divine Wor&s;hip according to their Con&s;cien|ces. And 'tis &s;trange that this practice &s;hou'd be &s;o apparently contrary to our holy Religion, and have &s;o mi&s;chievous Effects upon the publick peace here in this Kingdom, and yet he thought &s;o great an Evidene of</HI>
<GAP DESC="missing" EXTENT="2 pages"></P>
<PB REF="4">
<PB REF="4">
<PB N="8" REF="5">
<P>But what does the An&s;werer mean by tho&s;e Mi&s;demeanors, which be would have it in their Power to repre&s;s. If he mean Matters of meer Non-conformity, which he wou'd have &s;till a Power left to repre&s;s; then we have but too ju&s;t occa&s;ion to &s;u&s;pect the De&s;igns of tho&s;e that wou'd ob&s;truct the Indulgence. If he mean any other Mi&s;|demeanors, a Legal Indulgence will not di&s;able the Civil Magi&s;trate from Repre&s;&s;ing 'em, much le&s;s from &s;ecuring the E&s;tabli&s;ht Religion from any Danger that a Tolera|tion of Prote&s;tants can expo&s;e it to.</P>
<P><Q><HI>An&s;werer,</HI> La&s;tly, As to what he &s;aith concerning His Maje&s;ties Declaration, I de&s;ire this Author to con&s;ider more &s;eriou&s;ly, whether there be not &s;ome others in the Three Kingdoms, be&s;ides the Prote&s;tant D<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;tenters of <HI>Ireland,</HI> to whom one great End of His Maje&s;ties Declaration is yet unaccompli&s;ht, and whether there be a Law made to cover the Prote&s;tant Epi&s;copal Clergy in <HI>Scotland</HI> from Per&s;ecution, on the account of Religion.</Q></P>
<P><HI>Reply,</HI> I doubt not, the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> is by this time &s;atisfied, to how little purpo&s;e this <HI>Que&s;tion</HI> is askt, and what <HI>Rep<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">y</HI> may be given to it. For no Prote&s;tants are Per&s;e|cuted in <HI>Scotland</HI> on the Account of <HI>Religion,</HI> either by the <HI>Civil</HI> or <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;ticals</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">o|vernment. Nay, the Meetings of the Epi&s;copal Clergy have long been undi&s;turb'd tho they refu&s;ed <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> own he King's Authority. But &s;ure our <HI>An&s;werer</HI> cannot expect there &s;hould be <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> <HI>Low</HI> to <HI>Tolerate</HI> tho&s;e, that will not own the <HI>Civil Authority,</HI> by which they are <HI>Tolerated</HI> And were the Di&s;&s;enter here &s;o di&s;affected to the Government they cou'd have <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> pre&s;ence to de&s;ire a Legal Toleration.</P>
<P>The Second <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="4 letters">g de&s;ir'd by Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters is, <HI>That there be no &s;uch Clau&s;e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> next to this Bill, as wou'd di&s;able 'em from &s;erving their King and their Country.</HI></P>
<P><Q>As to this, The An&s;werer &s;aith, That in plain Terms, 'tis no more than this, That where E<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">e to Tender Con&s;ciences is the only thing they formerly de&s;ired, They now claim it as their due to be ad<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="3 letters">ed al&s;o into all honourable and profi|table Employments; and without the&s;e, whatever Ea&s;e be given to their Con&s;ciences 'Tis to be <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> they will have no quiet in their minds.</Q></P>
<P><HI>Reply,</HI> The Prote&s;tant P<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="3 letters">rs of <HI>Ireland</HI> do not (as the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> &s;eems to in&s;i|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">nate here) &s;eek any <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> Priviledg or Favour, but only are unwilling to have a New Yoke put upon 'em They claim nothing as their due, in Reference to the Civil Go|vernment, but to be Treated at Dutiful Subject, without having any Mark of pub|lick Infamy, and di&s;tru&s;t put upon 'em by a New Law. And if any &s;hou'd attempt to do &s;o, they may well forgive the Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters, That tho' they have ea&s;e to their con&s;cience, yet they &s;hou'd have no great quiet in their <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> for they have their Lives and Fortunes to Secure, of which 'tis no wonder, if they &s;hou'd be fearful, when they &s;ee &s;ome <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">en &s;o unwilling to con&s;ult our common Sa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">y, in a Kingdom li|able to &s;o frequent Returns of fatal Iri&s;h Rebellions.</P>
<P>The Author of the Ca&s;e propos'd &s;everal Arguments, to &s;hew the <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">expediency</HI> of any &s;uch <HI>Te&s;t</HI> as &s;hall di&s;able Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters from &s;erving their King and their Country. As</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, <HI>The Sacrament Te&s;t in</HI> England <HI>was chiefly de&s;ign'd again&s;t the P<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">pi&s;ts.</HI> To which the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> Replies, "That the Di&s;&s;enters a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">e included in the Body of the Act.</P>
<P><HI>Reply,</HI> None doubts, but that Act enjoyns the Sacramental Te&s;t. But <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">e <HI>Preface</HI> as well as <HI>Title</HI> of the Act, &s;hews That the <HI>End</HI> propos'd, was <HI>the preventing Dangers from Popi&s;h Recu&s;ants;</HI> which <HI>End</HI> wou'd be &s;ufficiently attain'd by the <HI>Declaratory Te&s;t</HI> a|gain&s;t Popery in that Act, tho' the Sacrament Te&s;t were left out.</P>
<P>But the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> adds, <Q>If the Zeal of the Engli&s;h Di&s;&s;enters again&s;t Popery in the late times has not exempted 'em from a Sacramental Te&s;t, our Di&s;&s;enting Bre|thren in this Kingdom, cannot with mode&s;ty expect, that their late Services &s;hould entitle 'em to any &s;uch Immunities.</Q></P>
<P><HI>Reply,</HI> Even the Zeal of Engli&s;h Di&s;&s;enters, did in His Maje&s;ties Judgment de&s;erve &s;uch a Favour, as the Removal of that Te&s;t there, which he mov'd his fir&s;t Parlia|ment to, in his Speech to 'em: But the Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters of <HI>Ireland</HI> who were no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> hamper'd with this Clog, as tho&s;e of <HI>England</HI> were, had the opportunity of &s;hewing their Zeal more Remarkably; And 'twere hard to put that very Clog on 'em now, to our freedom from which, we mu&s;t in part a&s;cribe it, that this whole Kingdom, was not then entirely lo&s;t.</P>
<PB N="9" REF="5">
<P>Secondly. The Author of the Ca&s;e Argues. That &s;uch a Te&s;t for di&s;abling Prote|&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters for any Publick Services, is again&s;t the common Prote&s;tant Intere&s;t of <HI>Ireland.</HI></P>
<P>This Argument the <HI>Author</HI> more largely in&s;i&s;ted on, than the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> &s;eems wil|ling, either to Repeat or Con&s;ider. However, Let us hear what he Objects.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;werer,</HI> Our Circum&s;tances indeed va&s;tly differ (as he &s;ays) from tho&s;e of <HI>England.</HI> <Q>For here the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church is more in danger then there by Prote&s;tant Di&s;|&s;enters as well as by the common Enemy. In <HI>England</HI> one unmixt People doe com|po&s;e the Body of the Nation, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Here we are made up of &s;everal Nations, and there is a daily Acce&s;&s;ion of great Numbers from a Neighbouring Kingdom of whom the meaner &s;ort are generally of a different Communion, tho the Gentry, and Nobi|lity, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> are generally Conformi&s;ts.</Q></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> The <HI>Author</HI> of the <HI>Ca&s;e</HI> Argues from the <HI>common Prote&s;tant Intere&s;t of</HI> Ireland, That &s;ince the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> in this Kingdom are <HI>Ten,</HI> or perhaps <HI>twenty</HI> to <HI>one Prote&s;tant;</HI> 'tis therefore nece&s;&s;ary to give the Prote&s;tant Intere&s;t the wide&s;t Ba&s;is here, by excluding no Prote&s;tants from Publick Service. That is, if a thou&s;and Men have ten or twenty thou&s;and Enemies to &s;ecure them&s;elves again&s;t; 'Tis again&s;t their Intere&s;t to divide their Strength, by di&s;abling three hundred of 'em from being employ'd in any publick Po&s;t for their common Defence: But the <HI>An&s;werer,</HI> in&s;tead of making any Reply to this, only tels us what he thinks to be mo&s;t Conducive to the &s;eperate Intere&s;ts of one party of Pro|te&s;tants; As if the &s;eperate Intere&s;t of that party, were the Intere&s;t of the whole Body of Prote|&s;tants, or at lea&s;t, were of farr greater Value and Con&s;ideration, then their common Intere&s;t.</P>
<P>But why may not tho&s;e of the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church &s;ecure their common Intere&s;t as prote&s;tants, with|out any Danger to their &s;eperate Intere&s;ts, as a di&s;tinct party?</P>
<P>While all prote&s;tants that de&s;erve well of the Government meet with Encouragement and Fa|vour, Their united &s;trength will be their Impregnable &s;ecurity; And yet &s;ince all Employments are in the di&s;po&s;al of the Government; And &s;ince the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church has &s;o ab&s;olutely the A&s;cen|dant in <HI>England,</HI> there is no ground to fear the Government here will be &s;o Lavi&s;h and Imprudent in be&s;towing their favours, as to encourage the Prote&s;tant Di&s;senters to any degree, that can render them dangerous to the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church, or put it into their Power to Act any thing to her prejudice. And yet 'tis mo&s;t rea&s;onable the Government &s;hould encourage 'em &s;o farr, as is truly conducive to our common Security; So that, there can be no difficulty in according the Common Prote&s;tant Inte|re&s;t, with the particular Intere&s;ts of the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church, Nay tho&s;e can be no other way &s;o Effec|tualy &s;ecured unle&s;s they think their own Strength alone a &s;ufficient ballance to that of the Iri&s;h Papi&s;ts But I am &s;orry to find, that the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> &s;hould reckon the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church to be in &s;o great danger of tho&s;e, that have &s;o lately helpt to re&s;tore her to her pre&s;ent &s;afety and gr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">ure: Why &s;hould he &s;o &s;oon mi&s;take tho&s;e as pernicious Enemys who in the late troubles were <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">ound to be &s;o hearty Friends? I hope the&s;e are only his own narrow Sentiments concerning the prote&s;tant <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">&s;|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">enters, and that all moderate Conformi&s;ts entertain a more ju&s;t and Charitable Opinion of 'em, having never in this Kingdom, had the lea&s;t ground for &s;uch peevi&s;h Surmi&s;es, as tho&s;e of the <HI>An|&s;werer.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;werer,</HI> <Q>Tis po&s;&s;ible indeed, as he ob&s;erves, That the Iri&s;h may be more numerous, if there &s;hou'd be a general peace; and I may add, The Papi&s;ts will probably grow much more numerous If there &s;hou'd be a general Indulgence; and therefore notwith&s;tanding our Authors Opinion, we cannot think fit to give the Prote&s;tant Intere&s;t a wider Ba&s;is here then it has in Holland, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> where all prote&s;tants are not equally capable of Employments without Religious Te&s;ts.</Q></P>
<P><HI>Reply,</HI> The <HI>An&s;werer</HI> has been oft told, 'Tis no <HI>General</HI> Indulgence the <HI>Author</HI> of the <HI>Ca&s;t</HI> pleads for; and therefore, he rea&s;ons here to no purpo&s;e; unle&s;s he imagine, That the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> will grow more numerous by a Tolleration to tho&s;e <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> who&s;e Faith is the &s;ame with that of the E|&s;tabli&s;ht Church; And does he think, That we can ea&s;ily dige&s;t &s;uch a Paradox as this, upon his bare A&s;&s;ertion? And for the Ca&s;e of <HI>Holland,</HI> which the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> wou'd here parallel with our own; and where he tels us, There are Religious Te&s;ts. 'Tis ea&s;ily replyed, there is a plain di&s;parity. For be|&s;ides, that their <HI>Te&s;ts</HI> run upon Doctrinal differences; 'Tis evident that tho&s;e who adhers to the Pro|te&s;tant Religion as there E&s;tabli&s;ht, are a large Body, to which tho&s;e that are excluded from publ<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">q<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters"> &s;ervice bear no proportions. And con&s;eqently, There is no great Danger to the State from &s;uch a Te&s;t: Whereas, here the Papi&s;ts are a hundred to Ten, in re&s;pect of the whole body of Prote&s;tants; &s;o that to di&s;able all di&s;senting ones, were to cut off from the common Prote&s;tant Intere&s;t, about a 3d part of its &s;trength, when the whole is rather too little. And the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">s as yet given as no other rea&s;on for doing &s;o, but his own groundle&s;s Fears of a Danger, which as I have &s;hewed him, If it more real (as it is not) may be ea&s;ily obviated by the Government.</P>
<P>The <HI>Author</HI> having put the Ca&s;e of another <HI>Iri&s;h Rebellion;</HI> The <HI>An&s;werer</HI> tells us, <Q>There is rea&s;on to believe the Con&s;ideration of the Common Safety, and the grati|tude of Di&s;&s;enters for their Indulgence, wou'd engage 'em to &s;hew an equal Zeal as they did before; tho' they &s;hou'd not be wholy on equal Terms with tho&s;e of the E|&s;tabli&s;ht Church, &s;ince they cou'd not rea&s;onably hope for &s;o kind a Treatment from the Papi&s;ts, as from them.</Q></P>
<PB N="10" REF="6">
<P><HI>Reply,</HI> The Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters are not &s;o vain, as ever to expect in this King+dom, to be <HI>wholly on equal Terms</HI> with tho&s;e of the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church. But can he expect, That any Gentlemen among 'em in &s;uch a Ca&s;e as is here propos'd, wou'd rai&s;e Forces for others to Command 'em, or their Tenants chearfully Ri&s;e with tho&s;e on whom they have no Dependence, and in whom they can as little Tru&s;t, or can he think, that &s;uch Gentlemen will chearfully Rai&s;e and Command Forces in &s;uch an Exi|gency, when in&s;tead of any pro&s;pect of having their Services con&s;ider'd or rewarded, they mu&s;t rather expect to pay 500 l. for their Pre&s;umption. What Encouragement is this to induce Men to venture their Lives and Fortunes to &s;ave their Country, when they are in hazard of being puni&s;ht for endeavouring it: Nay, Who does he think wou'd be tempted to &s;tay in a Country where his Danger from a common Enemy <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">s &s;o great, and where he is put under &s;uch a di&s;ability of doing any thing con&s;iderable to prevent it?</P>
<P>Thirdly for the Argument drawn from the <HI>Parliament of England,</HI> the <HI>Author</HI> urges it no farther then as a probable pre&s;umption that they thought no other <HI>Te<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters">;</HI> needful to qualify men for Employments in this Kingdom then they there Enjoyn. And if they had thought the <HI>Sacrament Te&s;t</HI> needfull here, they cou'd ea&s;ily have added it as They have the <HI>Te&s;t</HI> again&s;t Popery mentioned in the &s;ame <HI>Act.</HI> For they were not Ignorant, That it was not in force here. And again&s;t this there is nothing to the pur|po&s;e in the <HI>An&s;werers</HI> Reply.</P>
<P>Fourthly, For the <HI>Authors</HI> Argument to prove the <HI>Te&s;t</HI> unrea&s;onable. <HI>Viz. That, it will put the Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters into wor&s;e Circum&s;tances then they are at pre&s;ent</HI> The <HI>An&s;werer</HI> &s;eems to grant it, but &s;ugge&s;ts on the other hand. <Q>That a Tolleration without &s;uch a Te&s;t, will put the Members of the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church into wor&s;e Cir|cum&s;tances then they are in at pre&s;ent; Therefore &s;ince the Conformi&s;ts appear'd as ear|ly and with equal Zeal for this Goverment as the di&s;&s;enters The former (he thinks) will have rea&s;on to think them&s;elves &s;everely dealt with, if no other way can be found of rewarding the &s;ervice of di&s;&s;enters, without hazarding the mo&s;t valuable Rights of the Conformi&s;ts, by admitting the di&s;&s;enters into &s;uch office <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> may give e'm power and oppotrunity to alter the whole frame of the pre&s;ent Church Govern|ment.</Q></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I cannot imagine how the granting di&s;&s;enting Prote&s;tant<HI>'s</HI> what they now de&s;ire &s;hou'd put the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church into <HI>wor&s;e Circum&s;tances then they are now in,</HI> when the Di&s;&s;enters de&s;ire no more then that things may continue in the &s;ame peace|able and amicable po&s;ture they are in, or (what is the &s;ame) that a Legal Tolle|ration may &s;ecure to 'em what they now enjoy through the favour of the Govern|ment. And I wou'd fain know what Rights of the Church have been hazarded &s;ince this Revolution, unle&s;s the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> &s;uppo&s;es it the peculiar Right of <HI>Confor|ming Prote&s;tants,</HI> that none &s;hou'd &s;erve the Government but them&s;elves. But why may not the Government employ a few Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters in a few inferior Offices, (as they now do) without admitting them into &s;o many and &s;o Important ones as &s;hould give 'em any power or opportunity to alter the pre&s;ent Church-Go|vernment? The&s;e things are ea&s;ily con&s;i&s;tent; And the an&s;werer knows well enough, There is no ground to fear le&s;t the Government <HI>here</HI> &s;hou'd &s;o fart Deviate from the mea&s;ures of <HI>England,</HI> as to be guilty of &s;o great a mi&s;take, as to put the Di&s;|&s;enters into any Capacity of overturning the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church. Much le&s;s need the An&s;werer fear that the <HI>Conformi&s;t</HI> Officers at <HI>Derry, Iniskillen, Crum, &amp;c.</HI> &s;hould apprehend them&s;elves wrong'd that tho&s;e who were embark't with 'em in the &s;ame Cau&s;e, &s;hould have &s;ome &s;mall &s;hare with 'em in the Rewards of their Courage. None that are generous enough to value true merit wou'd envy the ju&s;t recompence of it. And I perceive the An&s;werer him&s;elf has &s;o much of that good quality as not to think it altogether <HI>inconvenient that &s;uch Per&s;ons &s;hou'd be excepted from the propo&s;ed Te&s;t.</HI> But I am &s;orry that he &s;hould think it <HI>Convenient</HI> to di&s;able all Di&s;&s;enting Prote&s;tants for the future from Imitating the Commendable Zeal and Courage of their Bretheren, as if he either envy'd the Reputation they have acquir'd, or Imagin'd there would never be any more occa&s;ion for their a&s;&s;i&s;tance <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 word"> pre&s;erve their Country.</P>
<PB N="11" REF="6">
<P>For the Argument drawn from the <HI>unfitne&s;s of the Sacrament Te&s;t;</HI> I need only &s;ugge&s;t the fol|lowing particulars to invalidate the <HI>An&s;werer's</HI> Replys.</P>
<P N="1">1. The Government may have occa&s;ion to employ many in publick Offices (e&s;pecially military one<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">), and apparently does employ many, that &s;hou'd be rather according to the Rubrick, <HI>debarr'd</HI> from the Sacrament, then thus <HI>driven</HI> to it.</P>
<P N="2">2. If tho&s;e be the fitte&s;t to be employed by the State, that <HI>give the greate&s;t Evidences of their Piety to Almighty God;</HI> Then I &s;uppo&s;e the An&s;werer will allow us to e&s;timate the Piety of the E|&s;tabli&s;ht Church, by that of tho&s;e who enjoy Civil and Military preferments in it, And then I hope al&s;o that &s;uch &s;hou'd not be excluded from this <HI>Priviledg</HI> who give equal Evidences of their Piety with any of their Fellow &s;ubjects.</P>
<P N="3">3. To make the different <HI>Mode</HI> of Receiving the Sacrament, &s;uch a <HI>Te&s;t</HI> is to make it the En|gine of a State-party, and con&s;equently a means to divide the affections of tho&s;e whom the Sacra|ment it &s;elf &s;hou'd unite in mutual Love.</P>
<P N="4">4. It will no way ju&s;tifie the rea&s;onablene&s;s of making the different <HI>Mode</HI> of Receiving the <HI>Te&s;t</HI> of all <HI>Offices</HI> in the <HI>State&punc;</HI> becau&s;e the Intere&s;t of Religion is little concern'd in it, and 'tis but com|paratively a <HI>trivial</HI> thing.</P>
<P>For the more <HI>trivial</HI> it is. The le&s;s weight &s;hou'd any wi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">e Government lay upon it, and the more willing &s;hou'd they be to leave Men to their Liberty about it.</P>
<P>But &s;ays the <HI>An&s;werer.</HI> <Q>Why &s;hou'd any &s;eparate for &s;o trivial a matter, and why &s;hou'd the State employ tho&s;e that refu&s;e to give &s;o trivial and incon&s;iderable a mark of their complyance with it's Orders?</Q></P>
<P><HI>Repl.</HI> The <HI>An&s;werer</HI> &s;ure cannot be ignorant, that when the&s;e different Modes of Wor&s;hip, are call'd <HI>trivial,</HI> 'tis in re&s;pect of their <HI>Intrin&s;ique Importance,</HI> not in re&s;pect of the <HI>Con&s;ciences</HI> of tho&s;e that &s;cruple 'em. Now that may be in it &s;elf an <HI>incon&s;iderable thing,</HI> which yet the Con&s;ci|ence of a wi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="2 letters"> Man may for fear of &s;inning, not dare to comply wi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">h. For in&s;tance, The <HI>Eating</HI> or not <HI>Eating of Blood,</HI> is comparatively a &s;mall and trivial matter. And yet many Men no way in|ferior to the An&s;werer in either Learning or Wi&s;dom, have thought the <HI>Eating of blood</HI> unlawful among Chri&s;tians them&s;elves, Now let us &s;uppo&s;e the number of &s;uch were as con&s;iderable in the Kingdom, as that of Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters is. Wou'd it be any way becoming the prudence of the Government to make this trivial difference the Te&s;t of a State-party<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">. Wou'd it be a fit Law for the wi&s;dom of a Nation to enact. <HI>That none &s;hou'd be admitted to &s;erve their King and their Countrey, that &s;cruples the Eating of a black Pudding.</HI> And yet the Intere&s;t of the State wou'd be as much con|cern'd in the deci&s;ion of this Que&s;tion as that of the Church, and of real Religion in the other. There are indeed &s;ome, who&s;e judgment has that latitude that they cou'd Receive the Sacrament, either Kneeling, Sitting, or Standing. But there are many no way inferior for Wi&s;dom or Inte|grity, (whatever the An&s;werer in&s;inuates to the contrary) who think them&s;elves oblig'd to Re|ceive in the po&s;ture mo&s;t &s;uitable to a Religious Fea&s;t, and really &s;cruple <HI>Kneeling</HI> in the Act of Re|ceiving, tho they either kneel or &s;tand, at the &s;olemn wor&s;hip offer'd before and after. I &s;hall not here either e&s;pou&s;e their Opinion, or examine the grounds of it, but only infer how unrea&s;onable a &s;tre&s;s tho&s;e lay on a dubious Rite, that is comparatively of &s;o &s;mall moment, who wou'd render all tho&s;e un&s;erviceable to their Country, and thereby debar 'em from the common Rights of all Duti|ful and Well-affected Subjects, who cannot comply with it. Whereas often the be&s;t of Men are prone&s;t to &s;cruple what the wor&s;t can without any difficulty &s;wallow.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, The <HI>Author</HI> argues, <HI>That the E&s;tabli&s;h't Church will be no way endanger'd by the Indul|gence.</HI></P>
<P>To which the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> replys. <Q>That tho the Horors &amp; Revenues of the Clergy are &s;ecur'd to 'em, yet none can fore&s;ee the difficulties, the Conforming Clergy may po&s;&s;ibly conte&s;t with, in a&s;&s;erting the Rites of the Church, if Non Conformi&s;t's were qual<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">fied for Civil offices.</Q></P>
<P><HI>Reply,</HI> the Non Conformi&s;t's have been both before and ever &s;ince the Revolution qualified for 'em and yet the Clergy have met with no oppo&s;ition in a&s;&s;erting the Rites of the Church; and I agree with the An&s;werer that no wi&s;e man can fore&s;ee any difficulties they are in danger of meet|ing with for the future.</P>
<P><Q>But the An&s;werer adds, be&s;ides we are far le&s;s concern'd for the &s;ecurity of our Temporal In|tere&s;t then for the E&s;tabli&s;hment of our ancient, holy and peaceable Religion.</Q></P>
<P>Reply, If the E&s;tabli&s;hment of their ancient, holy and peaceable Religion be the great matter the An&s;werer is concern'd for. Tho&s;e who de&s;ire the Toleration will openly declare their embra|cing the &s;ame Religion and Faith with 'em. And for the other matters in difference we mu&s;t beg the An&s;werers pardon, if we think that 'tis chiefly Temporal Intere&s;t has hitherto rendred &s;ome men &s;o deaf to all Propo&s;als for an accommodation of 'em.</P>
<P>I am glad to find, that the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> not only owns the good &s;ervices of the Di&s;&s;enters in this King|dom, but declares <HI>he wou'd not exclude 'em from a capacity of concurring to pre&s;erve their Countrey a|gain.</HI> But 'tis &s;trange how he &s;hou'd think they wou'd be in the &s;ame circum&s;tances (if a like juncture &s;hou'd happen) to &s;erve their King and Countrey tho not legally qualifi'd for Offices. For they did not then run any ri&s;que of &s;evere penalties by commanding the forces they rais'd, as now they wou'd do. Their hands were then loo&s;e, whereas now they will be ty'd up, and a <HI>Legal Pad|lock</HI> clapt on the &s;words of all that have intere&s;t enough to bring men into the Field.</P>
<PB N="12" REF="7">
<P>For what was &s;aid of the <HI>peaceable behaviour of Prote&s;tant Di&s;senters in this Kingdom,</HI> &s;ince the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> does not deny it; Why &s;hou'd he go about to detract from it, by imputing it to their want of opportunity to &s;hew their turbulency and di&s;affection to the Government? For <HI>Scotland,</HI> I have already &s;hewn him his mi&s;takes about their pre&s;ent practice there. For <HI>England,</HI> if he refer to the <HI>Civil Wars,</HI> he has been often told, they were begun by <HI>Conformi&s;ts,</HI> with whom it was no wonder if the per&s;ecuted Non-Conformi&s;ts did concurr, to be &s;helter'd from their Per&s;e|cutors. And for their Principles in reference to Civil Government. I wou'd de&s;ire the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> to &s;hew me any difference between tho&s;e contain'd in the 39 <HI>Articles,</HI> and in the <HI>A&s;&s;emblys Con|fe&s;&s;ion of Faith.</HI></P>
<P>The An&s;werer concludes, <HI>That no Motives ought to prevail on 'em to make &s;uch large Conce&s;sions to the Di&s;&s;enters, as will in all probability &s;hake the foundations of the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> Nor are any &s;uch large Conce&s;&s;ions de&s;ir'd. But I hope the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> does not take it for one of the foundations of the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church, that none &s;hou'd &s;erve the Government hu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter"> them&s;elves. For if he do, nothing can in this Kingdom &s;o probably &s;hake the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church, as the making its foundation too narrow, and nothing can &s;o effectually &s;trengthen it, as the making it a little wider, to comprehend tho&s;e whom in this ca&s;e, intere&s;t as well as gratitude, will ob|lige to &s;upport it.</P>
<P>All I &s;hall add in reference to the An&s;werer and all others that are of his opinion in this matter is this, If what is here &s;ugge&s;ted, do not convince him of the nece&s;&s;ity and rea&s;onablene&s;s of granting to the Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters a Toleration without this Te&s;t, yet the Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters do at lea&s;t de&s;ire that a Toleration with it may not be obtruded upon 'em as a favour. For to allude to the An&s;werer's Expre&s;&s;ions concerning it; &s;uch a Toleration they think wou'd be as prejudicial to their health, as 'tis di&s;ta&s;teful to their palars; and to force it on 'em, wou'd be to act like tho&s;e churli&s;h Parents, <HI>that when their children ask for Bread, give 'em a &s;tone; and when they ask for fi&s;h, give 'em a &s;erpent.</HI></P>
<P>Since the writing this Paper, I have &s;een another, (which is only a Tran&s;cript of the 2d part of the <HI>An&s;wer,</HI> with Enlargements indeed, but little or no amendments) Entituled, <HI>The Ca&s;e of the Di&s;&s;enters of</HI> Ireland <HI>con&s;idered, in reference to the Sacramental Te&s;t.</HI> But &s;ince there is little oc|curs in it that is material, more than what has been already examin'd in the An&s;wer, I &s;hall only add the following Reflections on it.</P>
<P N="1">1. The E&s;tabli&s;ht Church in <HI>Ireland</HI> can never be in any real danger from Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters while <HI>Ireland</HI> is in &s;uch entire dependence on <HI>England,</HI> and nothing can be done <HI>here,</HI> but under the conduct and controll of the Government <HI>there.</HI> Nay, the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church will be much more <HI>hazarded</HI> then <HI>&s;ecur'd</HI> by narrowing the common Prote&s;tant Intere&s;t here. So that both the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> and the <HI>Con&s;iderer</HI> from their eager concern to obviate an <HI>imaginary</HI> and <HI>improbable,</HI> almo&s;t wholly overlook a real and certain danger.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Con&s;iderer &s;eems ill-employed in reviving the&s;e common but groundle&s;s jealou&s;ies con|cerning Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters here. He does not indeed, as the <HI>An&s;werer,</HI> call tho&s;e he is jealous of, by their own name of <HI>Scots,</HI> but out of a certain tenderne&s;s &s;tyles 'em <HI>Britti&s;h.</HI> But whereas he takes a peculiar plea&s;ure in repeating the out-worn &s;tory of the <HI>Solemn League and Covenant.</HI> (as if the An&s;werer had not &s;aid enough of it). I wou'd gladly, for once, ask him, whether the mo&s;t intemperate heats of the Scots Covenanters ever came to that extravagant height as the zeal of the Epi&s;copal Party in that Kingdom, when they made it death to Preach, or even to Pray in a hou&s;e with five more pre&s;ent then tho&s;e of the Family? And why &s;hou'd the&s;e Gentlemen then delight to rake &s;uch matters as the&s;e out of the Grave of Oblivion in which they have lain &s;o long, when they know that Recriminations are &s;o obvious, and may be made to &s;o great advantage? Since Time and Experience have done &s;o much to mature the Judgments, and mellow the Tem|pers of men on both &s;ides to more of Wi&s;dom and Peace; Why &s;hou'd &s;o much pains be taken to blow up tho&s;e &s;parks that are almo&s;t wholly extinct? And whereas the Con&s;iderer &s;tarts a new &s;u&s;picion from the <HI>A&s;&s;emblys Catechi&s;m,</HI> which he tells us, declares <HI>That a fal&s;e Wor&s;hip is not to be Tolerated, and that they account that of the E&s;tabli&s;h't Church to be &s;uch.</HI></P>
<P>To remove this bug-bear al&s;o out of the way, I need do no more then acquaint him, that 'tis only a <HI>Toleration of a fal&s;e Religion,</HI> that the <HI>A&s;&s;embly</HI> accounts a breach of the 2d Command, But they never accounted that of the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church to be &s;uch (as the <HI>Con&s;iderer</HI> here very groundles&s;ly a&s;&s;erts.) Nay, the Prote&s;tant Di&s;&s;enters are ready to give the highe&s;t a&s;&s;urance of the contrary po&s;&s;ible by &s;ub&s;cribing its doctrinal Articles of Religion. Nor do the Di&s;&s;enters de&s;ire any other Toleration for their own Wor&s;hip then what they wou'd think them&s;elves oblig'd in Con&s;cience to give to all their fellow-Prote&s;tants. So that this Stumbling-block is ea&s;ily remov'd out of the <HI>Con&s;iderer's</HI> way.</P>
<P N="3">3. The <HI>Con&s;iderer</HI> has di&s;cover'd the my&s;tery of Church-politicks in the Framing of that Act in <HI>England,</HI> which enjoyns the Sacrament-Te&s;t, the &s;pecious Title whereof is only to <HI>prevent dangers from Popi&s;h Recu&s;ants</HI> but it &s;eems the real intent was to choke the Di&s;&s;enters as well as them.</P>
<P N="4">4. The <HI>Con&s;iderer</HI> need not have follow'd the <HI>An&s;werer</HI> in boa&s;ting of the inclination of French Prote&s;tants to <HI>their</HI> wor&s;hip when in this Kingdom there are 4 or 5 Churches that adhere to their <HI>own,</HI> tho under all po&s;&s;ible di&s;couragements; and but one that embrace <HI>theirs,</HI> tho drawn to it by the lure of publick maintenance.</P>
<P N="5"><PB N="13" REF="7">5. 'Tis a new way of <HI>mercy</HI> to Di&s;&s;enters to <HI>cure the Errors of their minds,</HI> by laying the dangerous Temptation before 'em of counteracting their Judgment or their Intere&s;t. But &s;ure the E&s;tab|li&s;h't Church wou'd have &s;mall ground to boa&s;t of tho&s;e pro&s;elytes who flee to her only to repair their broken fortunes. If the <HI>Con&s;iderer, be for rou&s;ing us to the Con&s;ideration of our &s;cruples</HI> by new penalties. There is no Argument &s;o awakening as the old one of Fire and Faggot, or the mo|dern one of French Dragooning</P>
<P N="6">6. If the Sacrament Te&s;t be intended as &s;uch a happy Expedient to <HI>di&s;criminate the good from the bad,</HI> it &s;eems to have been hitherto but in apply'd.</P>
<P N="7">7. The Author of the Ca&s;e is as much again&s;t making <HI>&s;itting</HI> as <HI>kneeling</HI> or <HI>&s;tanding,</HI> the only po|&s;ture of tho&s;e that are admitted to the Lord's Table, and thinks it &s;hou'd not come under any of tho&s;e narrow <HI>Inclo&s;ures.</HI></P>
<P N="8">8. For the <HI>mode of receiving,</HI> the <HI>Con&s;iderers</HI> Arguments run all upon a wrong Suppo&s;ition, that what&s;oever is accounted a thing of <HI>incon&s;iderable importance</HI> in Religion &s;hou'd be therefore ac|counted <HI>indifferent.</HI> So that all this mighty noi&s;e of the Churches power in determining indifferent things (which it &s;eems we mu&s;t grant for fear of bidding farewel to all Government in Church and State) will &s;ignify little. For there are many things that are comparatively of &s;mall moment which yet a good man dare not counteract his Judgment in. And in &s;uch things all prudent Church-Governours &s;hou'd in imitation of the Apo&s;tles advice, exerci&s;e forbearance and tender|ne&s;s, <HI>See</HI> 14. <HI>Rom.</HI> &mdash;And &s;uch dubious matters, are of all others mo&s;t unfit to make &s;uch pub|lick <HI>Te&s;ts</HI> of. For tho&s;e <HI>Te&s;ts</HI> are only &s;nares to keep out tho&s;e who&s;e Con&s;ciences are truly fearful of &s;in, and to let in tho&s;e who&s;e <HI>Stomacks</HI> (as the Con&s;iderer &s;peaks) <HI>are not &s;o tender and &s;qu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">ami&s;h.</HI> Tho on the other hand, I am &s;orry to find the Con&s;iderer &s;o &s;evere on the doctrine of <HI>occa&s;ional Communion.</HI> For I take tho&s;e Prote&s;tants who can occa&s;ionally communicate both with the E&s;tabli&s;ht Church and with the Di&s;&s;enters, to be the mo&s;t judicious, as well as the mo&s;t mode|rate per&s;ons, and mo&s;t likely to be the happy in&s;truments of healing tho&s;e Breaches, which per|&s;ons of narrower judgments on either hand do unhappily wide<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 letter">.</P>
<P N="9">9. If the Con&s;iderer think the Di&s;&s;enters &s;eparation &s;o <HI>mi&s;cheivous</HI> to the &s;ouls of men, and be more concern'd to prevent their &s;eduction, then to &s;ecure the temporal Intere&s;t of the Clergy, He &s;hou'd be much more earne&s;t again&s;t the Indulgence it &s;elf then for the Sacrament-Te&s;t. Whereas he &s;eems freely willing to grant the former, that he may hook in the latter. But I hope he'll find that this Toleration will no way increa&s;e Errors or Irreligion among the People. Nor need any that diligently feed their Flocks fear others &s;tealing their hearts from 'em. And if our Author be &s;o Zealous to put a period to &s;eparation, he need not reduce him&s;elf from Epi&s;copal grandure to Apo&s;tolical Poverty, 'tis but making things <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> the only <HI>Terms of Communion,</HI> and leaving things <HI>unece&s;&s;ary indifferent,</HI> and both <HI>Peace</HI> and <HI>Charity</HI> wou'd ea&s;ily be re&s;tor'd. And all this may be done without retrenching either the dignity or Revenues of any of the Clergy.</P>
<P N="10">10. If the <HI>Con&s;iderer</HI> is not offended that a few Di&s;&s;enters now enjoy the Effects of His Maje&s;ty's favour he need not fear that the Toleration (as 'tis de&s;ir'd) wou'd <HI>open a door to let the whole Party in;</HI> he may very well tru&s;t the prudence of the Government to di&s;pence tho&s;e favours to 'em with as moderate and &s;paring a hand for the future as they have done hitherto</P>
<P N="11">11. The Con&s;iderer &s;hou'd have been more Ingenuous then to &s;ugge&s;t, that the Author of the Ca&s;e a&s;crib'd to Di&s;&s;enters alone the <HI>pre&s;erving this Nation from ruin,</HI> when he never &s;peaks more of 'em, then that they <HI>concurr'd</HI> with the Conformi&s;ts in doing it.</P>
<P><HI>La&s;tly,</HI> Since the <HI>Con&s;iderer</HI> very kindly profe&s;&s;es that <HI>if a Medium can be found to &s;ecure the Church and yet content the Di&s;&s;enters, he will not be again&s;t it,</HI> we thankfully own his moderation therein; for if we were not per&s;waded that all the favour the di&s;&s;enters de&s;ire is fully con&s;i&s;tent with the &s;ecurity of the E&s;tabli&s;h't Church, we &s;hou'd never pre&s;ume to reque&s;t or expect it from a Parliament, who&s;e Honourable Members are almo&s;t all of that Communion. But if what we propo&s;e, will truly unite and Strengthen the Prote&s;tant Intere&s;t, we may hope it will be favourably receiv'd by tho&s;e who in all other Ca&s;es expre&s;s &s;o hearty a Zeal for it.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
