in again till the Restoration. The Pope indeed did not think it for his Intereft to allow the Practice, and therefore by a Bull forbad it. And yet I hope, Mr. Bwill not pretend the Differences between the Diffenters. and us are greater, than between us and the Papifts; or that there is not as much Probability of making the former join with us in one Common Intereft, as ever there was of the latter.

But this Practice, Mr. B fenters themselves.

says, is condemn'd by the better Sort of Dif

That this Practice fhould be condemn'd by the most violent Part of the Diffenters, I think there is no Reafon to wonder at. Those who would perfuade their Auditors, that all Communion with the Church of England is abfolutely unlawful, muft ufe their utmost Endeavours to keep their Auditors from looking into the Practice of that Church. There is fomewhat fo devout, fo reverend, and fo chriftian, in our Forms of Worship, and particularly in that of adminiftring the Sacrament, that the fafeft Way to keep People from complying with them, is to keep them from knowing what they are. And there have been fo many confiderable Families, that by an Occasional Conformity at first, have been brought to a Conftant Conformity at laft; that it is no Wonder, those who are fo violent for a Separation, fhould be against those Methods that have brought fo many to an Union. But that Mr. Bwho profeffes himself so zealous a Friend to our Church, fhould call these the better Sort of Diffenters, who are the most violent against it; and should declare fo warmly against a Practice, by which the Church has gain❜d fo many Profelytes already, and is fo likely to gain the reft; that, I confefs, is to me a little extraordinary:

But however some rigid Diffenters may difapprove the Practice of the Occafional Conformifts, I make no doubt, but the moft violent of them would be alarm'd at any Thing done against it; or ever imagine, that if the Law were once alter'd to the Prejudice of thofe Diffenters, who approach fo nearly to our Church, they might not foon expect a more fevere Law against thofe Diffenters, who are fo very distant from it.

But Mr. B, you tell me, fays further, That the employing Perfons of a different Religion from that establish'd by Law, has never been practis'd by any wife Government; and is not allow'd even in Holland at this Day.

What Governments Mr. B will allow to be wife ones, I fhall not take upon me to determine; but, that in all Ages, and in all Countries, where there were not Perfecutions for Religion, the Governments have employ'd Perions under them, who were of different Religions, is so very notorious, that it would feem ridiculous to give particular Inftances. The Jews employ'd the Sadducees; and the Heathen employ'd the Jews: The Pagans employ'd the Chriftians; and the Chriftians the Pagans. In France, (which feems to be the Place fome Perfons propofe for the Model of their Politicks, and Church-Difcipline) there was an Admiral, a Lord Treasurer, and a Conftable of France (not to mention several others) who were Proteftants. Nay, under this present Monarch (as great a Perfecutor as he has prov'd fince) the

whole

whole Army of France was entrusted in Proteftant Hands. There is scarce. a Town in Holland (whatever fome have affirm'd to the contrary) where the Remonftrants, as well as the Calvinifts, have not fometimes been in their Publick Offices. Some of the Generals of their Army, and Governors even of their Frontier Towns, are at this very Time Roman-Catholicks. They do not only employ all Chriftians without Diftinction, but even Jews upon Occafion; of which we had an Instance at Madrid in the late Reign, which caus'd a Sort of Rupture between them and us; and that the other German Princes follow them in this, we may be convinc'd by the printed Difpute between Mr. Limborch and a learned Jew, where there is a Lift of feveral Jews, at that very Time actually employ'd at the Hague, as Publick Minifters, from feveral of those Princes. And Queen Elizabeh employ'd Papists in her Councils, Fleets and Armies, during her whole Reign. Whether she was a wife Princefs, or a Friend to the Church of England, let the World judge.

But let all this be as it will, the Matter in Question is not, whether Diffenters from the Establish'd Church are employ'd by the Government there; for tho' they are, yet there is not one employ'd, that I know of, under her Majefty here. But the proper Question is, Whether it be Penal in any one who is in Office, to go to a feparate Congregation? And this is fo far from being Penal, that the Calvinifts and Remonftrants make no Scruple of going to one anothers Congregations, when there is any particular Occafion for it. Nor is there any Country, that I know of, except England, where the receiving the Sacrament, or any other Religious Exercife, is neceffary to qualify a Man for any Temporal Employment; fo that we have gone a great deal farther already, in that Matter, than any other Country has done.

But this Sacramental Teft, Mr. B. fays, was thought necessary to preferve the Establish'd Church; which Church feems in as much Danger now from the Diffenters, as it was then from the Papifts.

Every Body knows the Circumftances our Affairs were in, at the Time when this Teft-Act was made. We had a Sovereign upon the Throne, who was fufpected to have a very ftrong Inclination towards Popery; and who, if the Proofs publifh'd after his Death by Authority, may be believ'd, was then actually a Papift. His Brother, who had then the greateft Share in the Adminiftration, and who had the Fleet and Army in his own Hands, was a profefs'd one. The Lord-Treafurer, who had the Difpofal of all the Publick Money, was a Papift. The Perfons employ'd in publick Truft, were fuch as were likely to purfue the Methods prefcrib'd them by thefe. Secret Treaties were made with the French King, great Sums of Money receiv'd from him, and his Ambaffador was at the Head of our Affairs in England. In fine, there appear'd, upon all Occafions, an evident Difpofition at Court to introduce Popery, and deftroy the Liberty of the Subject; and there was a potent Foreign Prince ready at all Times, to engage in any Enterprize against the Proteftant Religion, and the Civil Rights of all Europe.

But

But is there any Danger like this from the Diffenters at prefent? Has ever the most malicious Enemy but once fufpected her Majefty of any Designs against the Church of England? Is there any Man employ'd in any Office under her, who has ever been faid to be a Diffenter? Have the Diffenters shewn any Inclinations to invade the Church? Are they not firmly united with her in the fame Common Intereft? Or, if they were not, Have they any Foreign Prince either willing or able to fupport them, in any Attempt against her?

Thus far I have confider'd the Reafons that are given for the Occafional Bill itself, and I muft freely confefs I can fee none that can fatisfy me of the Neceffity of it. I think the Practice of Occafional Conformity, as us'd by Diffenters, fo far from deferving the Title of a vile Hypocrify, that I think it the Duty of all moderate Diffenters, upon their own Principles, to do it. I think, that however it may be disapprov'd by some rigid Diffenters, it ought to be encourag'd by all good Church-Men, as a likely Means to bring them over. The employing Perfons of a different Religion from the Establish'd, has been practis'd in all Countries where Liberty of Conscience has been allow'd: That we have gone farther already in excluding Diffenters, than any other Country has done: That whatever Reasons there were to apprehend our Religion in Danger from the Papifts, when the Teft- Act was made, yet there does not feem the leaft Danger to it from the Diffenters now,

But on the other Hand, I can fee very plain Inconveniences from this Bill at present. As it was brought in this laft Time, indeed they have added a Preamble, that tho' it was put in the first Edition of the Bill, was left out in the Second, viz. That the Act for Toleration fhould be always kept inviolable. But the Toleration-Act being to take away all the Penalties that a Man might incur by going to a separate Congregation, and the occafional Bill being to lay new Penalties upon thofe that do it, how they can fay that this is not itself a Violation of the other, I cannot very eafily comprehend. I doubt it will put People in Mind of what pafs'd in France, where every Edict against the Proteftants began with a Proteftation, that the Edict of Nants ought to be always preferv'd inviolable, till that very Edict in which it was in exprefs Words repeal'd.

At a Time that all Europe is ergag'd in a bloody and expenfive War; at a Time that this Nation has not only fuch confiderable Foreign Foes to deal with, but has a Party in her own Bowels, ready upon all Occafions to call in a Popish Pretender; and involve us all in the fame, or rather worfe Calamities than those from which, with fo much Blood and Treafure, we had been freed: At a Time that the Proteftant Diffenters (however they may be in the Wrong in feparating from us) yet are heartily and undoubtedly united with us against the Common Foes to our Religion and Government; what Advantage those who are in earnest for defending these Things, can have, by leffening the Number of fuch as are firmly united with them in this common Caufe; I cannot for my Life imagine.

VOL. III.

S

But

But notwithstanding I can fee no Reafon for fuch a Bill as this, yet I would not have it imagined the Dangers of the Tack were founded upon this Bottom only, for People may have quite a different Opinion of this Bill; they may think it convenient, they may think it in fome Measure neceffary, and yet they may be against the running fuch a Rifque, as the tacking it to the neceffary Supply; and to do every Body Juftice, feveral Gentlemen, who were very zealous for this Bill, did however appear as zealous against that dangerous Experiment of tacking it to the other.

But Mr. B fays, this Bill being necessary for the Prefervation of the Church, and having been twice refus'd by the House of Lords, the only Way to fecure its paffing was to tack it to a Money-Bill.

This truly is a very compendious Way of dispatching Bufinefs: It has always been thought the Excellency of our Conftitution, that no new Law could be made, or old one repeal'd, without going through feveral Hands that were all Checks upon one another. Let the Commons be ever so much prepoffefs'd in Favour of any Thing, they cannot propose it to the Throne to pafs into a Law, without Confent of the Houfe of Lords. And let the Lords be ever fo violent for any Bill, they cannot offer it to the Royal Affent without the Concurrence of the Houfe of Commons. And let both thefe Houses agree in their Opinion, yet it cannnot pafs into a Law, till it has had its Sanction from the Throne. These different Steps are wifely ordered by our Conftitution, for Fear any Thing fhonld pafs into a Law by a particular Faction, by Heat of Parties, or by Inadvertency.

But this excellent Form of our Legislature is at an End, if Encouragement be given to this new Manner of tacking. As all Money-Bills, however neceffary for the publick Safety, must have their Rife and Form in the Houfe of Commons, if this Houfe may add to their Money-Bill new Laws of quite a different Nature to the Money, and if the Lords cannot after this pafs the Money-Bill, without confenting to, the other to, then it is the House of Commons only that has the Right of deliberating: For what Occafion can there be for the Houfe of Lords to confider whether a Law be reasonable before they confent to it, when it is in the Power of the House of Commons to make them confent to it, whether they think it reasonable or not?

But Mr B Jays, That it has been an ancient Practice to tack Bills, that were for the Good of the Subject, to Money-Bills; that while heavy Taxes were laid upon the People for the Good of the Crown, the Crown might, in return, grant fuch Laws as were for the Good of the People.

Whatever Pretences may be made of the Antiquity of this Practice, yet every Body knows it has been very rare, and is of a very fresh Date, and has been only when thefe two Circumftances have agreed.

First, When Money was ask'd for the private Support of the Crown, and not for the general Neceffity.

Secondly, When fome Bill had been before refus'd by the Crown, that was judg'd neceffary for the Good of the Subject, not by fome particular Men, or by one particular Houfe, but by both Houfes of Parliament.

But

But in the prefent Cafe, whatever Money was ask'd by the Queen, or granted by the Commons, was not for the private Support of the Crown, but for the general Neceffity of the People. So far is her Majefty from getting one Farthing by thefe Taxes, that it is very well known, the has every Year, of her own Accord, contributed very largely out of her own private Revenue towards the War. They are given to carry on a War that is abfolutely neceffary for fupporting the Rights and Liberties of Europe, which have been fo notoriously invaded by the French King, and to keep out a Pretender to our own Crown, who is bred up in the Religion and Principles of that Prince; and I hope no Man ever has, or ever will be thought fit to reprefent his Country, in Parliament, who does not think this War neceffary for the Intereft of every Subject in England, as well as of her Majesty.

In the fecond Place, this Bill is fo far from being thought for the Good of the Nation by both Houfes of Parliament, that one Houfe had before, in two fucceffive Seffions, thought fit to reject it.

In the third Place, if both Houfes had agreed to it, there is no Reason to conclude her Majefty would have refus'd the Royal Affent, in which Cafe, only this Way of tacking had ever been us❜d.

. But tho' this Way of tacking had been fometimes practis'd, yet it is fo far from being allow'd the Right of the Commons to do it, that the Lords have always, before the paffing any fuch Bill, how agreeable foever the Matter tack'd might be to them, enter'd Proteftations upon their Books against that Manner of proceeding. And when the House of Commons carry'd this pretended Right fo far, as to offer at tacking Claufes to Money-Bills, which the Lords did not think fo reasonable to be pafs'd, (tho' they never went fo far as to tack any Thing the Lords had rejected before) the Lords, to preferve the Conftitution, and that there might be a lafting Caution against all fuch Attempts, to ingrofs the whole Legislature to the House of Commons, at a Time when there was no fuch Matter depending between the two Houfes, caus'd a folemn Declaration to be enter'd upon their Book, and which was fign'd by the greatest Part of them, that they would never, after that Time, pass a Money-Bill with any Claufes that were foreign to the Subject of the Bill. And after fuch a Declaration fo publickly made, enter'd and fign'd, the Commons could have no Design in tacking fuch Clauses, but only to have the Bill miscarry.

But Mr. B fays, That the great Neceffity there was for the LandTax's paffing, was rather an Argument for, than against this Proceeding. For what Danger could there be, that the Lords (who pretend to be fuch great Patriots) fhould rather lose the necessary Supplies, than pass a Bill fo requifite for Prefervation of the Church?

How far this Bill had been for Prefervation of the Church, I have confider'd already. And as for the Lords being fuch great Patriots, I wish some Members of the House of Commons have not given their Electors too much Caufe to think the Lords better Patriots than their own Reprefentatives.