Of Removing the INCAPACITIES

O'F

Proteftant Diffenters.

T can be no furprize to the World, for the Author of a Paper, writ with an avowed Design to ferve the In terest of Truth, Liberty and Catholick Christianity, to speak out his Sense upon the Grand Matter of present Debate, and frankly declare for removing the. Incapaci ties of Diffenters, of which there have been fo many, and juft Complaints

I do not expect fuch Refignation in my Readers, as to come into my Sentiments without Conviction; I have therefore thrown together fome Confiderations which make it evident to my felf and if I am not deceived will perfwade others, that, as these Hardships were brought on without being deferved, fo there are many Reasons why. they fhould now be removed, and not one found Reafon against it.

Thofe Acts which have made the Diffenters uncapable of Civil Offices, were either framed

A 2

N.B.

n.b.

framed with quite different Purposes at first, and perverted when thus applied; or elfe had certainly worse Designs at Bottom, for which this Incapacity was to clear the way.

The Teft Act was the Contrivance of the Famous Lord Shaftsbury, who was no Enemy to Proteftant Diffenters, and a Zealous Friend to the Liberties of his Country: The Defign of it, as appears from the Title and Contents, was to Secure the Proteftant Religion, by excluding Roman Catholicks from Places of Truff, who were creeping into Power through the Connivance of the Court and the Contrivance and Favour of a Popish Heir: It was not intended to affect Proteftant Dif fenters; who were declared to be Friends to their Country, and the Proteftant Religion; were known to Communicate with the Eftablished Church before that A&t was framed; and are never mentioned in it; But the Papists, by the Influence they had at Court, found a way to turn it against its firft Defign, and make it ferve Purposes contrary to thofe of its first Contrivers; that is, to weaken the Proteftant Intereft, by dividing Proteftants among themfelves:

Two Paffages relating to this Matter, will give ftrength to what I have faid. In the Year 1687, King James the IId. finding the Teft A& ftand in his way, and fhut his Friends the Papifts out of Employments, endeavours to procure a Repeal; and, as a Confiderable Step to it, to gain the Confent of the Prince and Princess of Orange the next Heir: They, in answer to the King's Letter, profefs a willingness that the Papifts enjoy their Religion as in Holland, but could not confent

to

to their Admiffion to Places, or think it consistent with the Safety of the Proteftant Religion!

But that their Highneffes had different Sentiments of the Proteftant Diffenters, is obvious from this other Pallage: In the Year 1689, King William recommends it to the Par liament, to leave room for the Admission of all Proteftants to ferve him, which would tend to the better Uniting them among themselves, and Strengthening them against the common Enemy: Such an Act was accordingly brought in, to Qualify Proteftant Subjects for Civil Offices, either without receiving the Sacrament, or upon receiving it in their own Congregations! This being rejected, several Lords entered their Proteft, with fome of the clearest and most convincing Reasons, one fhall eafily meet with:

This plainly fhews the Diffenters were not within the Intention of the A&, according to the Scheme of those by whom it was first projected; and that in the Opinion of our best Princes and Patriots the Edge of it should not be turned against them.

The Occafional Bill was thrice pushed in the Reign of the late Queen, without Effect. It was brought in under pretence of farther Security to the Established Church, in the first Year of her Reign 1702. by Mr. Bromley, Mr. St. John, and Mr. Annesley. The Prince was drawn in to give his Vote for it by the Settlement of a 100000 1. a Year, dur ing his Life, after the Queen's Demife. It paffed the Houfe of Commons, but was clogged by the Majority of the Bishops in the o ther House; and after a celebrated Debate be

tween

n.b.

tween fome Principals of each House, was drop'd for that Time. In the Year 1703, the Queen opens the Seffion of Parliament with an Exhortation to avoid Heats and Divifions, as giving Advantage to the common Enemies of Church and State: Yet the zealous Men revive the Bill; leave out the Preamble against Perfecution, which was in the former; and any mention of the A&t of Indulgence, which ought to be inviolably observed; and with a ftrange Glofs upon the Teft A&t, and fome Alteration of the Penalty, it paffed the Houfe of Commons again; but at the fecond Reading was rejected by the Lords.

One would think the Miscarriage of this Bill a fecond Time, fhould have difcouraged any fresh Attempt: But they are fo fet upon it, that in 1704, even after the Queen had told them, he hoped there would be no Contention among them, but who fhould moft promote the Publick Good, it was again brought in and read a firft and fecond Time. On which laft Occafion the Partifans for the Bill in the Houfe of Commons, finding the ftrenuous Oppofition made to it among themselves, and therefore defpairing to carry it through the Lords in the ordinary Courfe, moved to have it tacked to the Money-Bill; which was a bold Attempt on the Negative of the Prince and House of Lords; and had the Vote been carried, would have forced the Diffolution of the Parliament, and prevented all the Preparations for the War that Year. So that the State was like to have been ruined by this Bill for the Church's Security: Which made the Queen tell that Parliament at their rifing, of their Efcaping the fatal Effects of unreasona

ble

ble Humour and Animofity, and warn them against any dangerous Experiments for the future.

Yet in the fame Seffions this Party got the fingle Bill paffed in the Commons House without a Tack; but upon the first reading, it was rejected by a great Majority in the House of Lords.

Thus the Matter rested for fome Years, the moft glorious Part of the Queen's Reign. But in 1711, after the Miniftry was chang'd, and every thing began to take a new Turn, the fame Bill for Substance was again brought on the Stage, and after fo long a Struggle and vigorous Oppofition, paffed the Lords in a critical Juncture, in hopes of gaining fome zealous Churchmen to the common Interest. When all feemed at Stake, a Part was given up to prevent the Deftruction of the Whole, and the Diffenters facrificed to a miftaken Point of Policy."

The Schifm Bill was brought into the Com mons House by Sir William Wyndham, and promoted with Zeal in the Houfe of Lords by the late Lord Bolingbroke, then Secretaryn.b. of State, in the laft Year of the Queen's Reign: With what Views, their Conduct fince fufficiently explains: It was paffed with uncommon Vigour and Dispatch, against the briskeft Oppofition ever made by the whole Body of Diffenters: This was to prepare the Way for another Bill, which was to have been an home Thruft, and disfranchise them at once; it having been offered in one House, that the Schifm fhould be drop'd, provided Diffenters might be uncapable of Voting in the Choice of a Parliament; And I believe none, who confider the Agents for this Bi