THE Author of the Case had mention'd two things desir'd by Protestant Dissenters, in reference to a Bill of Indulgence, viz.

First, That it give 'em a full security for the free Exercise of their Religion.

Secondly, That there be no such Clauses annext to it as may disable 'em from serving their King and their Countrey.

The Answerer undertakes to shew, that tho the Author of the Case have truly represented their desires, he has but weakly argued for granting of 'em. Now, tho the Author is so conscious to himself of his own mean abi­lities, as to be ready to suspect that so just a Cause may have suffer'd by being in so weak hands; yet he does not see any such strength in the Answerer's Replys, as shou'd discourage him from the defence even of those weak Arguments, from any thing the Answerer has alledg'd to take off the force of 'em. Whether this opinion be founded on reason, or on that partiality to his own Cause (which all men are prone to) must be left to the Reader's Judgment.

First, The Protestant Dissenters desire such a Bill of Indulgence as shou'd give 'em a full security for the free Exercise of their Religion.

As to this, the Answerer indeed tells us ‘That he believes, there are few or none but will a­gree to it; Tho he thinks it plain the Author's Arguments do not evince the necessity of it.’

I might therefore justly satisfy my self that there are some considerations or other for which the generality even of those of the Establish't Church are willing to grant to Protestant Dissenters the free exercise of their Religion. But since the Answerer thinks the former Reasons alledg'd for it, to be insufficient, and speaks of such a Toleration as rather in it self a very inconvenient thing, ‘which they are inclin'd to grant more out of compliance with the importunity of those that desire it, then any sense of it's reasonableness, as Parents humour their Children, in giving 'em things that are pleasing to their palats, tho prejudicial to their health, only because they eagerly desire 'em.’ I shall a little examine what he has offer'd against those Arguments alledg'd for the Necessity and Reasonableness of it; and I do this the rather, because those Answers of his suggest several common prejudices against Protestant Dissenters, which are of late industriously spread, and I fear very deeply rooted in the minds of many, tho founded on very unhappy mistakes and misinformation about 'em; so that the Removal of'em will probably tend to promote a more charitable temper in Protestan [...] towards one another. And this is a design fit to be pursued at all times, and never more seasonable then now, when there are so earnest endeavours us'd to heighten our differences in order to obstruct the happy effects of our mutual confidence and affection.

The First Argument alledg'd in the Case is. ‘That since the security of the Protestant Interest in this Kingdom consists in the Number and Union of Protestants, this Bill will promote both, by drawing Protestant Dissenters from abroad, by uniting all Protestants at home, and by giving the Goverment a more rooted Interest in the affections of Protestant Dissenters.’

[...] [Page] [Page] [Page 4] the guilt of many intemperate hearts? or shou'd not any unchristian severities that are chargeable [...] either in former times, serve as Sea marks to warn both of the danger of relapsing into those excess [...]s o [...] misguided Zeal, which all unprejudic't and moderate persons condemn 'em for? And should not all that wish for a better understanding between Protestants rather study to bury such ungrateful passages o [...] both hands if possible, in perpetual silence?

Answerer. 3dly, Whether those that are the most moderate among 'em can, with any reason expect, but that with the same measure they have meeted to their Brethren, the Episcopal Clergy in their own Coun­trey, It shou'd be measured to them again, when they come to settle in this Kingdom.

Reply, I perceive the Answerer did not well understand matters of Fact when he propos'd this dangerous Question. For if according to his own Rule, the Dissenting Ministers from Scotland may expect the same measure here, that is allow'd to the Episcopal Clergy there, Then they might preach in Parish-Churches, and enjoy the Revenues that belong to 'em, on no other te [...]s then the Oath of Fidelity to the King, and their behaving themselves worthily in Doctrine, [...]e, and Conversation, with­out ever declaring their Judgment in the matters of Church-Government.

For on these very terms, do all the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland that were possest of publick Churches when the K [...]ng accepted that Crown, continue and are by Act of Parliament secured in the exercise of their publick Ministry except those that were turn'd out for crimes wherein their Judgment as Episco­pal is not concern'd. But of these matters I shall have farther occasion to inform the Answerer more fully who I perceive is under strange misapprehensions about 'em. Whereby it will evidently appear how little occasion there was for the Answerer's concluding this Paragraph with those sharp words. ‘So that if any Indulgence be granted, 'tis purely the result of our own Charitable inclinations and a plain evidence to the World, that our just Resentment of their severity to others, has not al [...]nated our affectious from 'em.’ For he will find 'tis not their severities in Scotland, but his mistakes about 'em that have kindled these warm Resentments in the Answerer, and in too many others that have been im­pos'd upon by groundless reports.

‘Answerer, Neither will this Ind [...]lgence probably, tend to the uniting of Protestants at home, as [...]s too fully prov'd by Experience in England; where the present Tollera [...]on has not had that good effect; neither can we in reason expect it shou'd be more successful here. For if it equally extend to all parties and denominations of Protestont Dissenters, their mutual jealousies of one another, and their respective endeavours to propagate their opinions and to promote then temporal interests will naturally create great heats and animosities. But if the benefit of the Indulgence be unequally distri­buted, it will be so far from being a means of supporting the [...]t will considerably weaken the Gover­ment by disobliging all but those that are particularly encourag'd and caress't.’

Repl. The Author of the Case in his Argument evidently speaks of an union between Conforming and Dissenting Protestants which he supposes this Bill wou'd promote. And herein he suppo [...]e [...] no more then what the Parliament of England did, who brought in this Bill there as the most effectual means to unite all Protestants in affection: And sure this Bill must be a proper means to attain that end, if mens affections be best united, when they have no reasonable ground to apprehend any danger from one another.

But the Answerer seems to mistake him, as if he spake of the union of Dissenting Protestants among themselves. But let him understand it either way. ‘The contrary of this (he saith) is fully prov'd by experience in England.’ If he mean that the Bill of Indulgence in England has not united the affections of Conformist's and Non Conformist's, 'tis easily reply'd, that tho it have not wholly remov'd all the animositys between 'em, yet it had apparently lessen'd 'em. They can converse sociably, they live together more peaceably, and there is no doubt, much more of mutual love among 'em, then when the protestant Dissenters were every moment in danger of having their persons imprison'd and their goods distrain'd and sold.

If he mean that the Bill of Indulgence in England has not united Dissenting Protestants among themselves. I suppose the Answerer is much mistaken. For those called Presbyterians and Indepen­dents never came nearer to an Union and Accommodation of their differences then since the Indulgence. 'Tis true some other heats have arisen at London about the Explication of the Doct­rine of Justification, as there have been no less warm disputes among those of the Establ [...]ht Church about the Explication of a more Important Article, Viz. That of the Trinity; but the Indulgence has no way contributed to the one more then the other. And as for this Kingdom the Answerer must be a great stranger to it, if he think the Bill of Indulgence here pleaded for wou'd probably occasion any jealouse among those for whom 'tis desired, or create any heat among 'em, They have many years liv'd in intire mutual Friendship and as yet see no great haz­ard in their smaller differences becoming the fuel of any new flames, if others will not turn Incen­diaries, and blow the Coals. So that this danger seems only a Bug-bear created by the Answerer's own Imagination.

‘Answerer. But. Secondly; Neither is this Indulgence so highly Reasonable as the Author pretends, as may appear by a particular consideration of the Arguments he makes use of to prove it.’

For first, as the Early Zeal of the Dissenters in behalf of this Government, may entitle 'em to it's pro­tection, so it cannot be deny'd, but that they have enjoyed it ever since 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, &c. as also by his Majesties bounty in allowing Yearly hitherto, a considerable Sum for the maintenance of their Ministers.

Repl. And do's the Answerer think that he has refuted the Argument, by what rather Confirms it [...] If the King have hitherto protected 'em, and augmented to their Ministers in Ʋlster, the Pen­sion K. Charles the 2d. allow'd 'em, as a mark of the Respect he had for their Fidelity and Affecti­on; [...]s it not reasonable that the continuance of the same Favour shou'd be secur'd to 'em by Law, when they have done nothing to render themselves unworthy of it? It must doubtless appear so, unless the Answerer have a different Opinion of 'em, from what his Majesty has so often express't, by whose approbation a Bill of Indulgence in their Favour (such as they now desire) was Transmitted to the last Parliament here. But if there be any thing in this Answer to take off the force of this Argument, it must be this, That the Toleration the Dissenters have so long en­joyed, 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 shou'd refuse to give 'em any security for the Continuance of it. And this seems to be the Answerer's sense, because in Reply to the second Reason draw'n from the Indulgence granted to Foreign Protestants, he observes, 'Tis only granted for 7. Years, in hopes that after the Expiration of that Term, they wou'd declare themselves Members of the Establish't Church, But what if after those 7 Years the French Churches in this Kingdom, choose rather to Adhere to the model of their own Discipline and Worship; will the Answerer then think 'em unworthy of a renewed Legal Toleration? If not, what signifies his Answer to the Argument, That 'tis most rea­sonable to extend the same Favour to his Majesties born Subjects, that we do to Foreigners. If he think 'em in that case unworthy of it. I wou'd gladly know on what grounds he thinks so. What grand Crime wou'd it be, if after so many Years, those Faithful Confessors of Christ shou'd still prefer the model of their own Worship and Discipline, to any other? Would they therefore de­serve to be Treated here as they were in France▪ And whatever the Answerer may think of the forward Inclination of the Fr. Protestants to their Church-Government and Worship, all the world knows to whose Discipline and Worship their own is most conformable. And how far so­ever Temporal Interest engages the compliance of some of 'em, yet there are few of 'em, but if left to their free Liberty, wou'd choose their own. And the most of their Ministers swallow the Reordination requir'd of 'em (how smoothly soever palliated) with great reluctancy, and not without some disgust against the Imposers of it.

Answerer Thirdly. The Papist are not in equal Circumstances of publick Favour, with our Dissen­ting Brethren; For as the Liberty they have in the Exercise of their Religion, was extorted from the Go­vernment by the pressing necessity of publick Affairs, so its not Confirm'd to 'em, by any Act of Parliament as this Indulgence is expected, and I suppose designed to be to Protestant Dissenters.

Reply. Tis not easy to perceive where the [...]orce of this Answer lyes. For a publick Treaty is a considerable security to the Papists; and is it not then Reasonable to grant, if possible, a fuller to Protestant Dissenters? When as the Answerer himself insinuates, the one extorted it from the Go­vernment; in order to the suppressing their Rebellion: The other deserv'd it by their Assistance in the Reduction of this Kingdom. Is it not reasonable at least to make this small difference be­tween tho [...]e who have Deserv'd so ill, and those that have Deserv'd so well of the Govern­ment?

Answerer, Fourthly, The Experience that our Dissenting Brethren, have had of our Tenderness to­wards 'em heretofore, is a sufficient Argument and Security to 'em of our future Kindness.

Repl. We must beg the Answerers pardon, if after so frequent Experience [...]f the renewed Storms that [...]ell on our Brethren in England during the late Reigns, and of what we sometimes felt here in Ireland, whenever any Court-turn was to be served by the revival of penal severities, we do not think a general Declaration of tenderness a sufficient Security to us from future persecution. Especial­ly when we know not what a change, many Turns in publick Affairs may make in the Passions and Interests of Men. So that we cannot but apprehend a Legal Liberty more desireable and satisfying then an Arbitrary one, that's as easily recall'd as granted. Tho we must in Gratitude add, That none can repose a more entire confidence in his Majesty, and the present Government then we do, on whole Justice and Goodness we can chearfully rely, tho some Mens Ill-will shou'd obstruct this Effect of it.

Answer, For we consider our mutual Agreement in the same Articles of Faith, and are glad to find this Author is pleased to declare, That the suppressing of Protestant Dissenters, by the strict Execution of Penal Laws, is a practice that has a just Odium left upon it. But are sorry that the just Odium left upon i [...] among us, shou'd be wholly confin'd to us, and that this practice shou'd have no Censure nor Reflection cast upon it among our Neighbours. And 'tis strange the Author shou'd say, that there is so apparent Contrarie­ty in it to the Mild and Merciful Genius of our Holy Religion, seeing 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 England from the free exercise of divine Worship according to their Conscien­ces. And 'tis strange that this practice shou'd be so apparently contrary to our holy Religion, and have so mischievous Effects upon the publick peace here in this Kingdom, and yet he thought so great an Evidene of [...]

But what does the Answerer mean by those Misdemeanors, which be would have it in their Power to repress. If he mean Matters of meer Non-conformity, which he wou'd have still a Power left to repress; then we have but too just occasion to suspect the Designs of those that wou'd obstruct the Indulgence. If he mean any other Mis­demeanors, a Legal Indulgence will not disable the Civil Magistrate from Repressing 'em, much less from securing the Establisht Religion from any Danger that a Tolera­tion of Protestants can expose it to.

‘ Answerer, Lastly, As to what he saith concerning His Majesties Declaration, I desire this Author to consider more seriously, whether there be not some others in the Three Kingdoms, besides the Protestant D [...]stenters of Ireland, to whom one great End of His Majesties Declaration is yet unaccomplisht, and whether there be a Law made to cover the Protestant Episcopal Clergy in Scotland from Persecution, on the account of Religion.’

Reply, I doubt not, the Answerer is by this time satisfied, to how little purpose this Question is askt, and what Rep [...]y may be given to it. For no Protestants are Perse­cuted in Scotland on the Account of Religion, either by the Civil or Ecclesiasticals [...]o­vernment. Nay, the Meetings of the Episcopal Clergy have long been undisturb'd tho they refused [...] own he King's Authority. But sure our Answerer cannot expect there should be [...] Low to Tolerate those, that will not own the Civil Authority, by which they are Tolerated And were the Dissenter here so disaffected to the Government they cou'd have [...] presence to desire a Legal Toleration.

The Second [...]g desir'd by Protestant Dissenters is, That there be no such Clause [...] [...] next to this Bill, as wou'd disable 'em from serving their King and their Country.

‘As to this, The Answerer saith, That in plain Terms, 'tis no more than this, That where E [...]e to Tender Consciences is the only thing they formerly desired, They now claim it as their due to be ad [...]ed also into all honourable and profi­table Employments; and without these, whatever Ease be given to their Consciences 'Tis to be [...] they will have no quiet in their minds.’

Reply, The Protestant P [...]st [...]rs of Ireland do not (as the Answerer seems to insi­ [...]nate here) seek any [...] 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 Go­vernment, but to be Treated at Dutiful Subject, without having any Mark of pub­lick Infamy, and distrust put upon 'em by a New Law. And if any shou'd attempt to do so, they may well forgive the Protestant Dissenters, That tho' they have ease to their conscience, yet they shou'd have no great quiet in their [...] for they have their Lives and Fortunes to Secure, of which 'tis no wonder, if they shou'd be fearful, when they see some [...]en so unwilling to consult our common Sa [...]e [...]y, in a Kingdom li­able to so frequent Returns of fatal Irish Rebellions.

The Author of the Case propos'd several Arguments, to shew the [...]expediency of any such Test as shall disable Protestant Dissenters from serving their King and their Country. As

First, The Sacrament Test in England was chiefly design'd against the P [...]pists. To which the Answerer Replies, "That the Dissenters a [...]e included in the Body of the Act.

Reply, None doubts, but that Act enjoyns the Sacramental Test. But [...]e Preface as well as Title of the Act, shews That the End propos'd, was the preventing Dangers from Popish Recusants; which End wou'd be sufficiently attain'd by the Declaratory Test a­gainst Popery in that Act, tho' the Sacrament Test were left out.

But the Answerer adds, ‘If the Zeal of the English Dissenters against Popery in the late times has not exempted 'em from a Sacramental Test, our Dissenting Bre­thren in this Kingdom, cannot with modesty expect, that their late Services should entitle 'em to any such Immunities.’

Reply, Even the Zeal of English Dissenters, did in His Majesties Judgment deserve such a Favour, as the Removal of that Test there, which he mov'd his first Parlia­ment to, in his Speech to 'em: But the Protestant Dissenters of Ireland who were no [...] hamper'd with this Clog, as those of England were, had the opportunity of shewing their Zeal more Remarkably; And 'twere hard to put that very Clog on 'em now, to our freedom from which, we must in part ascribe it, that this whole Kingdom, was not then entirely lost.

Secondly. The Author of the Case Argues. That such a Test for disabling Prote­stant Dissenters for any Publick Services, is against the common Protestant Interest of Ireland.

This Argument the Author more largely insisted on, than the Answerer seems wil­ling, either to Repeat or Consider. However, Let us hear what he Objects.

Answerer, Our Circumstances indeed vastly differ (as he says) from those of England. ‘For here the Establisht Church is more in danger then there by Protestant Dis­senters as well as by the common Enemy. In England one unmixt People doe com­pose the Body of the Nation, &c. Here we are made up of several Nations, and there is a daily Accession of great Numbers from a Neighbouring Kingdom of whom the meaner sort are generally of a different Communion, tho the Gentry, and Nobi­lity, &c. are generally Conformists.’

Reply. The Author of the Case Argues from the common Protestant Interest of Ireland, That since the Papists in this Kingdom are Ten, or perhaps twenty to one Protestant; 'tis therefore necessary to give the Protestant Interest the widest Basis here, by excluding no Protestants from Publick Service. That is, if a thousand Men have ten or twenty thousand Enemies to secure themselves against; 'Tis against their Interest to divide their Strength, by disabling three hundred of 'em from being employ'd in any publick Post for their common Defence: But the Answerer, instead of making any Reply to this, only tels us what he thinks to be most Conducive to the seperate Interests of one party of Pro­testants; As if the seperate Interest of that party, were the Interest of the whole Body of Prote­stants, or at least, were of farr greater Value and Consideration, then their common Interest.

But why may not those of the Establisht Church secure their common Interest as protestants, with­out any Danger to their seperate Interests, as a distinct party?

While all protestants that deserve well of the Government meet with Encouragement and Fa­vour, Their united strength will be their Impregnable security; And yet since all Employments are in the disposal of the Government; And since the Establisht Church has so absolutely the Ascen­dant in England, there is no ground to fear the Government here will be so Lavish and Imprudent in bestowing their favours, as to encourage the Protestant Dissenters to any degree, that can render them dangerous to the Establisht Church, or put it into their Power to Act any thing to her prejudice. And yet 'tis most reasonable the Government should encourage 'em so farr, as is truly conducive to our common Security; So that, there can be no difficulty in according the Common Protestant Inte­rest, with the particular Interests of the Establisht Church, Nay those can be no other way so Effec­tualy secured unless they think their own Strength alone a sufficient ballance to that of the Irish Papists But I am sorry to find, that the Answerer should reckon the Establisht Church to be in so great danger of those, that have so lately helpt to restore her to her present safety and gr [...]u [...]ure: Why should he so soon mistake those as pernicious Enemys who in the late troubles were [...]ound to be so hearty Friends? I hope these are only his own narrow Sentiments concerning the protestant [...]s­ [...]enters, and that all moderate Conformists entertain a more just and Charitable Opinion of 'em, having never in this Kingdom, had the least ground for such peevish Surmises, as those of the An­swerer.

Answerer, ‘Tis possible indeed, as he observes, That the Irish may be more numerous, if there shou'd be a general peace; and I may add, The Papists will probably grow much more numerous If there shou'd be a general Indulgence; and therefore notwithstanding our Authors Opinion, we cannot think fit to give the Protestant Interest a wider Basis here then it has in Holland, &c. where all protestants are not equally capable of Employments without Religious Tests.’

Reply, The Answerer has been oft told, 'Tis no General Indulgence the Author of the Cast pleads for; and therefore, he reasons here to no purpose; unless he imagine, That the Papists will grow more numerous by a Tolleration to those Protestants, whose Faith is the same with that of the E­stablisht Church; And does he think, That we can easily digest such a Paradox as this, upon his bare Assertion? And for the Case of Holland, which the Answerer wou'd here parallel with our own; and where he tels us, There are Religious Tests. 'Tis easily replyed, there is a plain disparity. For be­sides, that their Tests run upon Doctrinal differences; 'Tis evident that those who adhers to the Pro­testant Religion as there Establisht, are a large Body, to which those that are excluded from publ [...]q [...] service bear no proportions. And conseqently, There is no great Danger to the State from such a Test: Whereas, here the Papists are a hundred to Ten, in respect of the whole body of Protestants; so that to disable all dissenting ones, were to cut off from the common Protestant Interest, about a 3d part of its strength, when the whole is rather too little. And the Answerer h [...]s as yet given as no other reason for doing so, but his own groundless Fears of a Danger, which as I have shewed him, If it more real (as it is not) may be easily obviated by the Government.

The Author having put the Case of another Irish Rebellion; The Answerer tells us, ‘There is reason to believe the Consideration of the Common Safety, and the grati­tude of Dissenters for their Indulgence, wou'd engage 'em to shew an equal Zeal as they did before; tho' they shou'd not be wholy on equal Terms with those of the E­stablisht Church, since they cou'd not reasonably hope for so kind a Treatment from the Papists, as from them.’

Reply, The Protestant Dissenters are not so vain, as ever to expect in this Kingdom, to be wholly on equal Terms with those of the Establisht Church. But can he expect, That any Gentlemen among 'em in such a Case as is here propos'd, wou'd raise Forces for others to Command 'em, or their Tenants chearfully Rise with those on whom they have no Dependence, and in whom they can as little Trust, or can he think, that such Gentlemen will chearfully Raise and Command Forces in such an Exi­gency, when instead of any prospect of having their Services consider'd or rewarded, they must rather expect to pay 500 l. for their Presumption. What Encouragement is this to induce Men to venture their Lives and Fortunes to save their Country, when they are in hazard of being punisht for endeavouring it: Nay, Who does he think wou'd be tempted to stay in a Country where his Danger from a common Enemy [...]s so great, and where he is put under such a disability of doing any thing considerable to prevent it?

Thirdly for the Argument drawn from the Parliament of England, the Author urges it no farther then as a probable presumption that they thought no other Te [...]; needful to qualify men for Employments in this Kingdom then they there Enjoyn. And if they had thought the Sacrament Test needfull here, they cou'd easily have added it as They have the Test against Popery mentioned in the same Act. For they were not Ignorant, That it was not in force here. And against this there is nothing to the pur­pose in the Answerers Reply.

Fourthly, For the Authors Argument to prove the Test unreasonable. Viz. That, it will put the Protestant Dissenters into worse Circumstances then they are at present The Answerer seems to grant it, but suggests on the other hand. ‘That a Tolleration without such a Test, will put the Members of the Establisht Church into worse Cir­cumstances then they are in at present; Therefore since the Conformists appear'd as ear­ly and with equal Zeal for this Goverment as the dissenters The former (he thinks) will have reason to think themselves severely dealt with, if no other way can be found of rewarding the service of dissenters, without hazarding the most valuable Rights of the Conformists, by admitting the dissenters into such office [...] may give e'm power and oppotrunity to alter the whole frame of the present Church Govern­ment.’

Answ. I cannot imagine how the granting dissenting Protestant 's what they now desire shou'd put the Establisht Church into worse Circumstances then they are now in, when the Dissenters desire no more then that things may continue in the same peace­able and amicable posture they are in, or (what is the same) that a Legal Tolle­ration may secure to 'em what they now enjoy through the favour of the Govern­ment. And I wou'd fain know what Rights of the Church have been hazarded since this Revolution, unless the Answerer supposes it the peculiar Right of Confor­ming Protestants, that none shou'd serve the Government but themselves. But why may not the Government employ a few Protestant Dissenters in a few inferior Offices, (as they now do) without admitting them into so many and so Important ones as should give 'em any power or opportunity to alter the present Church-Go­vernment? These things are easily consistent; And the answerer knows well enough, There is no ground to fear lest the Government here shou'd so fart Deviate from the measures of England, as to be guilty of so great a mistake, as to put the Dis­senters into any Capacity of overturning the Establisht Church. Much less need the Answerer fear that the Conformist Officers at Derry, Iniskillen, Crum, &c. should apprehend themselves wrong'd that those who were embark't with 'em in the same Cause, should have some small share with 'em in the Rewards of their Courage. None that are generous enough to value true merit wou'd envy the just recompence of it. And I perceive the Answerer himself has so much of that good quality as not to think it altogether inconvenient that such Persons shou'd be excepted from the proposed Test. But I am sorry that he should think it Convenient to disable all Dissenting Protestants 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 occasion for their assistance [...] preserve their Country.

For the Argument drawn from the unfitness of the Sacrament Test; I need only suggest the fol­lowing particulars to invalidate the Answerer's Replys.

1. The Government may have occasion to employ many in publick Offices (especially military one [...]), and apparently does employ many, that shou'd be rather according to the Rubrick, debarr'd from the Sacrament, then thus driven to it.

2. If those be the fittest to be employed by the State, that give the greatest Evidences of their Piety to Almighty God; Then I suppose the Answerer will allow us to estimate the Piety of the E­stablisht Church, by that of those who enjoy Civil and Military preferments in it, And then I hope also that such shou'd not be excluded from this Priviledg who give equal Evidences of their Piety with any of their Fellow subjects.

3. To make the different Mode of Receiving the Sacrament, such a Test is to make it the En­gine of a State-party, and consequently a means to divide the affections of those whom the Sacra­ment it self shou'd unite in mutual Love.

4. It will no way justifie the reasonableness of making the different Mode of Receiving the Test of all Offices in the State▪ because the Interest of Religion is little concern'd in it, and 'tis but com­paratively a trivial thing.

For the more trivial it is. The less weight shou'd any wi [...]e Government lay upon it, and the more willing shou'd they be to leave Men to their Liberty about it.

But says the Answerer. ‘Why shou'd any separate for so trivial a matter, and why shou'd the State employ those that refuse to give so trivial and inconsiderable a mark of their complyance with it's Orders?’

Repl. The Answerer sure cannot be ignorant, that when these different Modes of Worship, are call'd trivial, 'tis in respect of their Intrinsique Importance, not in respect of the Consciences of those that scruple 'em. Now that may be in it self an inconsiderable thing, which yet the Consci­ence of a wi [...] Man may for fear of sinning, not dare to comply wi [...]h. For instance, The Eating or not Eating of Blood, is comparatively a small and trivial matter. And yet many Men no way in­ferior to the Answerer in either Learning or Wisdom, have thought the Eating of blood unlawful among Christians themselves, Now let us suppose the number of such were as considerable in the Kingdom, as that of Protestant Dissenters is. Wou'd it be any way becoming the prudence of the Government to make this trivial difference the Test of a State-party [...]. Wou'd it be a fit Law for the wisdom of a Nation to enact. That none shou'd be admitted to serve their King and their Countrey, that scruples the Eating of a black Pudding. And yet the Interest of the State wou'd be as much con­cern'd in the decision of this Question as that of the Church, and of real Religion in the other. There are indeed some, whose judgment has that latitude that they cou'd Receive the Sacrament, either Kneeling, Sitting, or Standing. But there are many no way inferior for Wisdom or Inte­grity, (whatever the Answerer insinuates to the contrary) who think themselves oblig'd to Re­ceive in the posture most suitable to a Religious Feast, and really scruple Kneeling in the Act of Re­ceiving, tho they either kneel or stand, at the solemn worship offer'd before and after. I shall not here either espouse their Opinion, or examine the grounds of it, but only infer how unreasonable a stress those lay on a dubious Rite, that is comparatively of so small moment, who wou'd render all those unserviceable to their Country, and thereby debar 'em from the common Rights of all Duti­ful and Well-affected Subjects, who cannot comply with it. Whereas often the best of Men are pronest to scruple what the worst can without any difficulty swallow.

Lastly, The Author argues, That the Establish't Church will be no way endanger'd by the Indul­gence.

To which the Answerer replys. ‘That tho the Horors & Revenues of the Clergy are secur'd to 'em, yet none can foresee the difficulties, the Conforming Clergy may possibly contest with, in asserting the Rites of the Church, if Non Conformist's were qual [...]fied for Civil offices.’

Reply, the Non Conformist's have been both before and ever since the Revolution qualified for 'em and yet the Clergy have met with no opposition in asserting the Rites of the Church; and I agree with the Answerer that no wise man can foresee any difficulties they are in danger of meet­ing with for the future.

‘But the Answerer adds, besides we are far less concern'd for the security of our Temporal In­terest then for the Establishment of our ancient, holy and peaceable Religion.’

Reply, If the Establishment of their ancient, holy and peaceable Religion be the great matter the Answerer is concern'd for. Those who desire the Toleration will openly declare their embra­cing the same Religion and Faith with 'em. And for the other matters in difference we must beg the Answerers pardon, if we think that 'tis chiefly Temporal Interest has hitherto rendred some men so deaf to all Proposals for an accommodation of 'em.

I am glad to find, that the Answerer not only owns the good services of the Dissenters in this King­dom, but declares he wou'd not exclude 'em from a capacity of concurring to preserve their Countrey a­gain. But 'tis strange how he shou'd think they wou'd be in the same circumstances (if a like juncture shou'd happen) to serve their King and Countrey tho not legally qualifi'd for Offices. For they did not then run any risque of severe penalties by commanding the forces they rais'd, as now they wou'd do. Their hands were then loose, whereas now they will be ty'd up, and a Legal Pad­lock clapt on the swords of all that have interest enough to bring men into the Field.

For what was said of the peaceable behaviour of Protestant Dissenters in this Kingdom, since the Answerer does not deny it; Why shou'd he go about to detract from it, by imputing it to their want of opportunity to shew their turbulency and disaffection to the Government? For Scotland, I have already shewn him his mistakes about their present practice there. For England, if he refer to the Civil Wars, he has been often told, they were begun by Conformists, with whom it was no wonder if the persecuted Non-Conformists did concurr, to be shelter'd from their Perse­cutors. And for their Principles in reference to Civil Government. I wou'd desire the Answerer to shew me any difference between those contain'd in the 39 Articles, and in the Assemblys Con­fession of Faith.

The Answerer concludes, That no Motives ought to prevail on 'em to make such large Concessions to the Dissenters, as will in all probability shake the foundations of the Establisht Church.

Reply. Nor are any such large Concessions desir'd. But I hope the Answerer does not take it for one of the foundations of the Establisht Church, that none shou'd serve the Government hu [...] themselves. For if he do, nothing can in this Kingdom so probably shake the Establisht Church, as the making its foundation too narrow, and nothing can so effectually strengthen it, as the making it a little wider, to comprehend those whom in this case, interest as well as gratitude, will ob­lige to support it.

All I shall add in reference to the Answerer and all others that are of his opinion in this matter is this, If what is here suggested, do not convince him of the necessity and reasonableness of granting to the Protestant Dissenters a Toleration without this Test, yet the Protestant Dissenters do at least desire that a Toleration with it may not be obtruded upon 'em as a favour. For to allude to the Answerer's Expressions concerning it; such a Toleration they think wou'd be as prejudicial to their health, as 'tis distasteful to their palars; and to force it on 'em, wou'd be to act like those churlish Parents, that when their children ask for Bread, give 'em a stone; and when they ask for fish, give 'em a serpent.

Since the writing this Paper, I have seen another, (which is only a Transcript of the 2d part of the Answer, with Enlargements indeed, but little or no amendments) Entituled, The Case of the Dissenters of Ireland considered, in reference to the Sacramental Test. But since there is little oc­curs in it that is material, more than what has been already examin'd in the Answer, I shall only add the following Reflections on it.

1. The Establisht Church in Ireland can never be in any real danger from Protestant Dissenters while Ireland is in such entire dependence on England, and nothing can be done here, but under the conduct and controll of the Government there. Nay, the Establisht Church will be much more hazarded then secur'd by narrowing the common Protestant Interest here. So that both the Answerer and the Considerer from their eager concern to obviate an imaginary and improbable, almost wholly overlook a real and certain danger.

2. The Considerer seems ill-employed in reviving these common but groundless jealousies con­cerning Protestant Dissenters here. He does not indeed, as the Answerer, call those he is jealous of, by their own name of Scots, but out of a certain tenderness styles 'em Brittish. But whereas he takes a peculiar pleasure in repeating the out-worn story of the Solemn League and Covenant. (as if the Answerer had not said enough of it). I wou'd gladly, for once, ask him, whether the most intemperate heats of the Scots Covenanters ever came to that extravagant height as the zeal of the Episcopal Party in that Kingdom, when they made it death to Preach, or even to Pray in a house with five more present then those of the Family? And why shou'd these Gentlemen then delight to rake such matters as these out of the Grave of Oblivion in which they have lain so long, when they know that Recriminations are so obvious, and may be made to so great advantage? Since Time and Experience have done so much to mature the Judgments, and mellow the Tem­pers of men on both sides to more of Wisdom and Peace; Why shou'd so much pains be taken to blow up those sparks that are almost wholly extinct? And whereas the Considerer starts a new suspicion from the Assemblys Catechism, which he tells us, declares That a false Worship is not to be Tolerated, and that they account that of the Establish't Church to be such.

To remove this bug-bear also out of the way, I need do no more then acquaint him, that 'tis only a Toleration of a false Religion, that the Assembly accounts a breach of the 2d Command, But they never accounted that of the Establisht Church to be such (as the Considerer here very groundlessly asserts.) Nay, the Protestant Dissenters are ready to give the highest assurance of the contrary possible by subscribing its doctrinal Articles of Religion. Nor do the Dissenters desire any other Toleration for their own Worship then what they wou'd think themselves oblig'd in Conscience to give to all their fellow-Protestants. So that this Stumbling-block is easily remov'd out of the Considerer's way.

3. The Considerer has discover'd the mystery of Church-politicks in the Framing of that Act in England, which enjoyns the Sacrament-Test, the specious Title whereof is only to prevent dangers from Popish Recusants but it seems the real intent was to choke the Dissenters as well as them.

4. The Considerer need not have follow'd the Answerer in boasting of the inclination of French Protestants to their worship when in this Kingdom there are 4 or 5 Churches that adhere to their own, tho under all possible discouragements; and but one that embrace theirs, tho drawn to it by the lure of publick maintenance.

[Page 13]5. 'Tis a new way of mercy to Dissenters to cure the Errors of their minds, by laying the dangerous Temptation before 'em of counteracting their Judgment or their Interest. But sure the Estab­lish't Church wou'd have small ground to boast of those proselytes who flee to her only to repair their broken fortunes. If the Considerer, be for rousing us to the Consideration of our scruples by new penalties. There is no Argument so awakening as the old one of Fire and Faggot, or the mo­dern one of French Dragooning

6. If the Sacrament Test be intended as such a happy Expedient to discriminate the good from the bad, it seems to have been hitherto but in apply'd.

7. The Author of the Case is as much against making sitting as kneeling or standing, the only po­sture of those that are admitted to the Lord's Table, and thinks it shou'd not come under any of those narrow Inclosures.

8. For the mode of receiving, the Considerers Arguments run all upon a wrong Supposition, that whatsoever is accounted a thing of inconsiderable importance in Religion shou'd be therefore ac­counted indifferent. So that all this mighty noise of the Churches power in determining indifferent things (which it seems we must grant for fear of bidding farewel to all Government in Church and State) will signify little. For there are many things that are comparatively of small moment which yet a good man dare not counteract his Judgment in. And in such things all prudent Church-Governours shou'd in imitation of the Apostles advice, exercise forbearance and tender­ness, See 14. Rom. —And such dubious matters, are of all others most unfit to make such pub­lick Tests of. For those Tests are only snares to keep out those whose Consciences are truly fearful of sin, and to let in those whose Stomacks (as the Considerer speaks) are not so tender and squ [...]amish. Tho on the other hand, I am sorry to find the Considerer so severe on the doctrine of occasional Communion. For I take those Protestants who can occasionally communicate both with the Establisht Church and with the Dissenters, to be the most judicious, as well as the most mode­rate persons, and most likely to be the happy instruments of healing those Breaches, which per­sons of narrower judgments on either hand do unhappily wide [...].

9. If the Considerer think the Dissenters separation so mischeivous to the souls of men, and be more concern'd to prevent their seduction, then to secure the temporal Interest of the Clergy, He shou'd be much more earnest against the Indulgence it self then for the Sacrament-Test. Whereas he seems 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 increase Errors or Irreligion among the People. Nor need any that diligently feed their Flocks fear others stealing their hearts from 'em. And if our Author be so Zealous to put a period to separation, he need not reduce himself from Episcopal grandure to Apostolical Poverty, 'tis but making things necessary the only Terms of Communion, and leaving things unecessary indifferent, and both Peace and Charity wou'd easily be restor'd. And all this may be done without retrenching either the dignity or Revenues of any of the Clergy.

10. If the Considerer is not offended that a few Dissenters now enjoy the Effects of His Majesty's favour he need not fear that the Toleration (as 'tis desir'd) wou'd open a door to let the whole Party in; he may very well trust the prudence of the Government to dispence those favours to 'em with as moderate and sparing a hand for the future as they have done hitherto

11. The Considerer shou'd have been more Ingenuous then to suggest, that the Author of the Case ascrib'd to Dissenters alone the preserving this Nation from ruin, when he never speaks more of 'em, then that they concurr'd with the Conformists in doing it.

Lastly, Since the Considerer very kindly professes that if a Medium can be found to secure the Church and yet content the Dissenters, he will not be against it, we thankfully own his moderation therein; for if we were not perswaded that all the favour the dissenters desire is fully consistent with the security of the Establish't Church, we shou'd never presume to request or expect it from a Parliament, whose Honourable Members are almost all of that Communion. But if what we propose, will truly unite and Strengthen the Protestant Interest, we may hope it will be favourably receiv'd by those who in all other Cases express so hearty a Zeal for it.