itself to extend to protestant dissenters. The former expressly relates to them; and both are declared, 10 Annæ, cap. 2. to be made for the security of the church of England as by law established.

"These acts then being made for the security of the church as by law established, that is, for the security of the ecclesiastical constitution of the realm; the intention plainly was to keep non-conformists of all sorts (whose principles and affection to their own ways cannot but lead them to use any power put into their hands to the hurt of the established church, from which they have separated) out of offices civil and military, and out of the government and direction of corporations; 'to the end that the succession in such corporations may be most probably perpetuated in the hands of persons well affected to his majesty and the established government," and for preservation of the public peace both in church and state.""†

In this part of the case his lordship finds several very visible mistakes, which he ranges under five heads. His first observation stands thus:

1. "When the corporation act was made, many of those ministers, who afterwards dissented, were in possession of their livings, and had been declared by King Charles II. himself but a few months before to have been found by him, when they waited on him in Holland, persons full of zeal for the peace of the church and state. Those particular non-conformists, who were followers of these men, could hardly be designed so soon to be excluded from any offices, merely in order to the preservation of the public peace, &c."

I find it very difficult to comprehend this reasoning: here are two things affirmed with respect to dissenting ministers, neither of which has any relation to the present case. 1. It is said that many of them were in possession of livings when the corporation act was made: 2. that a few months before that time King Charles had declared that he had found them to be persons full of zeal for the peace of the church and state. As to their being in possession of livings, it amounts to no proof of their zeal for the peace of church and state. A minister who

* Preamble to Corporation Act.

+ Ibid, p. 2.

has no living may be very zealous for the peace of both; and he who has many livings may possibly not regard the peace of either. Besides, the possession of livings which these ministers then had was an illegal possession, attended sometimes with injustice to the rightful incumbents, who had been ejected to make room for these men of zeal for peace; oftentimes with the injury of the true patrons, and almost always with the breach of the laws of church and state, insomuch that these ministers in possession at the time the corporation act passed, were liable to be dispossessed by the laws then in being, and were continued only by the indulgence and forbearance of the government in prospect of their compliance. 2. As to the king's declaration of their zeal for peace, it is a very feeble argument; for what if the king were deceived, and saw reason to alter his mind? or what if the ministers' behavior changed before the corporation act passed? In either of these cases, both which are very possible, the argument comes to nothing. But considering that the corporation act related not to ministers, the argument is still more absurd. For,

2. His lordship does not infer from the peaceableness of these ministers, that they were not intended to be affected by the act; but he infers from their peaceableness, that none of their followers were designed to be excluded from offices. But what if the followers were not so peaceable as the leaders, what then becomes of the argument? His lordship has produced no evidence that they were, and he has no right to the popish expedient of transferring merit from one to another.

3. It is very absurd to limit or explain general laws by the circumstances of individual men such laws being made for public good are founded on general reasons; and if they attain the end, which, all things considered, is most for the benefit of the public, they are good and wholesome laws, notwithstanding that it may so happen that in some particular cases they bear hard.

Let us see then how his lordship's argument stands. The ministers who waited on the king in Holland were eight or ten at most, as our histories relate the fact: the ministers who refused to conform are reckoned by their own party to be two

thousand. In what manner many of them and their followers demeaned themselves, may be seen in the Chancellor's speech at the opening of the Parliament which met May 8, 1661, who tells us, "of seditious preachers, who cannot be content to be dispensed with for their full obedience to some laws established, without reproaching and inveighing against those laws how established soever-who by repeating the very expressions, and teaching the very doctrine they set on foot in the year 1640, sufficiently declare that they have no mind that twenty years should put an end to the miseries we have undergone." And at the opening the second sessions of this Parliament, the king tells them, "there are many wicked instruments still as active as ever, who labor day and night to disturb the public peace, and to make all people jealous of each other." In this session the corporation act and, the act of uniformity both passed. His lordship's argument now is, that the corporation act could not be intended to exclude non-conformists of all sorts from places in corporations; because the king had declared a year before that he found eight or ten ministers full of zeal for the peace church and state; and his lordship supposes their particular followers were all of the same mind. Allowing all this to be true, yet if his lordship can say nothing for the one thousand nine hundred and ninety other ministers and their followers, he leaves reason enough to support the justice and equity of the law, in intending to exclude non-conformists of all sorts.

of

4. The same argument will prove that the act of uniformity was not intended to exclude non-conformists of all sorts from livings and offices in the church; for why should these zealous ministers for the peace of the church and state be any more excluded from the church than their followers from the corporations.

5. It will prove also that no law in King Charles's reign was intended to exclude papists from offices; for the king publicly owned his obligation to many of them, who ventured their lives and estates in defence of his father and himself; and more than eight or ten might be named who were peaceable subjects.

6. Many non-conformists being in possession of their livings

at the time the corporation act passed, has led two other authors* into very great mistakes, which I shall take this opportunity of rectifying.

The author of the Principles,' &c. applies himself to me; thus: "I would desire leave to ask the learned dean this one, question; how an act requiring persons in offices to receive the sacrament according to the rites of the church of England, made in 1661, could be intended to exclude presbyterians, when so many of their ministers continued still in possession of the public churches till 1662? Would it not at that time have been a sufficient qualification to receive the sacrament in their parish church, though it should have been from no conformable minister?"

Mr. Lowman has the same argument, and introduces it with observing, "that the sessions of Parliament in which the corporation act was made was opened on the 8th of May, 1661; which was a year before the present ecclesiastical constitution was settled by the new act of uniformity." From whence he infers, "that the corporation act did not require any such adherence to the now constitution as the dean contends for; nor any such affection but what may be consistent with the principles of protestant dissenters, it being notorious that above two thousand then were employed in the service of the church."

The several mistakes on which this reasoning is founded, will appear by stating the fact on which they are built.

1. Mr. Lowman does not very candidly state this case. For though what he says of the opening of the sessions be true, yet the corporation act was not ready at the opening of the session, for it did not pass till the 20th of December, 1661, and the uniformity act passed the 19th of May following, in the same session and though the present liturgy did not take place till August, 1662, yet the law enacting that it should take place then was in force before; and the corporation act and uniformity act mean one and the same thing by the church of England as by law established.

* Author of the Principles of an Occasional Conformist stated and defended, printed 1718. Mr. Lowman's Defence of Protestant Dissenters, &c. printed 1718.

+ Preface, p. 6. 7.

2. Had the case been otherwise, yet Mr. Lowman's inference that the corporation act meant no affection inconsistent with the principles of protestant dissenters; and the other gentleman's inference, that receiving in a parish church from a nonconforming minister, was a sufficient qualification within the intent of the act; are ill grounded; for the corporation act requires that the sacrament be received according to the rites of the church of England.

Now whether the new act of uniformity was in being or no, yet the old one certainly, was; and Mr. Lowman will not pretend that the protestant dissenters were readier to comply with the old act of uniformity than the new one; nor will the other gentleman affirm that the nonconformists who were in livings did observe the rites of the church of England as established by the old act of uniformity before the restoration: consequently it follows that receiving according to the rites of the church of England as established before the new act of uniformity, was as inconsistent then with the dissenters' principles as it is now, and receiving from the non-conformists, though in possession of livings, was no qualification according to the act. That the old laws relating to the establishment of the church were in force, and taken to be so at and before the restoration, every body knows; the House of Commons declare it in their address to the king, February, 1662-3. in which they tell him that his declaration from Breda ought not to be taken as a promise on his part to give indulgence, because he was not capable of making such a promise, there being laws of uniformity then in being, which could not be dispensed with but by act of Parliament. Mr. Baxter in his Life, p. 286. tells us too this was the case, and that the old laws were in force against the non-conformists before the new ones were made. But this matter is put out of all doubt by the last clause of the new act of uniformity, which provides that "the book of common prayer, and administration of sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the church of England, &c. heretofore in use, &c. shall be still used-until the feast of St. Bartholomew, 1662." And now let the gentleman answer himself, whether receiving in a parish church from a non-conformist was a sufficient qualification. But farther,