fame with respect to any other places of trust and power. If the obnoxious Acts were repealed, Diffenters would not be admitted into offices but at the nomination of the crown, and certainly not in such numbers as to make them formidable. For if persons of all religious perfuafions were employed alike, in proportion to their numbers, there would always be the fame over-balance of officers belonging to the established religion; which would be fufficient to counteract the attempts of their brother officers of all the different fects, especially as these would, of course, be divided among themselves.

If, for example, there fhould be an hundred officers in the army or navy belonging to the established church, and ten, or even twenty, of half a dozen different sects, what is it that could be apprehended from them? In fact much. lefs than now. Because as things now are, all Diffenters have a principle of union among themselves, in their common cxclufion from civil offices, which would not then exist. All would rather be difpofed to pay their court to the chief magiftrate, who had the power of giving to each particular perfon what he wished to obtain, which would naturally give him a bias in favour of his religion, viz. that of the state. Confequently, the present system is as impolitic, as it is unjust, if the safety of the church be the object; and on this principle fome Diffenters prefer their prefent fituation. Admission to civil offices at the nomination of the court would, as they say, dispose men to favour the court, and to become lefs zealous as Diffenters; and the clergy themselves, if they were not blinded by their rage against the Diffenters, might fee this. But in this and in many other refpects, their conduct favours of a kind of infatuation, fuch as generally precedes ruin. If you, who are tradesmen, should act with no more judgment in the conduct of your affairs, than they do with respect to theirs, you would soon become bankrupts.

Mr. Madan fays, p. 17, that " the legislature has en"deavoured to provide for the fecurity of the ftate by those means which ought to be effectual with every man, as the " strongest

"strongest and most awful which can poffibly be used." But certainly this is faying a great deal too much. I have shewn you very plainly how it might have been made much ftronger; and if what I have above proposed should not be thought fufficient, let every civil officer be made to fwear allegiance to the church of England. Make them vow perpetual enmity to all Diffenters, and hoftility even to the prince upon the throne if he should ever be hoftile to the church, or be discovered to look with the least degree of complacency upon a single Diffenter. This method would be much more effectual, and certainly more decent, than the prostitution of a facred ordinance of religion to so prophane and foreign a purpose as the qualification for a civil office.

An oath exprefsly declares the purpose for which it is administered. A man is thereby made to profess some specific thing, which it may be proper for the government that he should profefs, in order that, if he was found to violate his oath, he might be fubject to a certain penalty. But the mere act of receiving the Lord's-fupper, without any declaration annexed to it, expreffive of the purpose for which it is received, implies no civil obligation at all. The communicant may confider the action in his own light, and many will do it as a token of chriftian fellowship with other chriftians of a different communion. On this idea the famous Mr. Baxter, though a steady Diffenter (having refused a bishopric that was offered him) chose to communicate once a year with the church of England; and other Diffenters have voluntarily done the fame; not as members of the church of England themselves, but to fhew their brotherly respect for it.

If the sense of the legislature may be admitted in the interpretation of any law, a Diffenter may have lefs fcruple in communicating with the church of England in order to his admission into any civil office, because it is well known that the law was not meant to exclude Diffenters, but only Catholics.

According

F

According, therefore, to the manner in which the Lord's fupper is required to be received by candidates for civil offices, it is no fecurity at all to the church of England; but an horrible prophanation of one of her facred rites, and fuch as must be the occafion of much fcandal to the truly pious members of your church. If a man perform any religious act, whatever it be, he fhould be left to his own. liberty to perform it when he finds himself in a proper difpofition for it. But in this cafe, whether a man think himfelf qualified or unqualified, whether he be difpofed or indisposed to the religious exercise, the ceremony must be performed. What pain then must this give to serious clergymen, who are directed by the canons of the church. not to give the communion to persons whom they deem to be unworthy, and yet are compellable by act of parliament to administer it, without distinction, to all who are appointed to public offices *?

Now, though I differ from you who are of the church of England with refpect to fome of your tenets, and the form of your church government, I trust we feel alike for the honour of what is common to us as chriftians; and this, you must confefs, is difgraced by the statutes which we petition to have repealed. They are fuch ftatutes as unbelievers would have made, in order to turn your facraments, and your religion, into ridicule. If, therefore, you really wifh to exclude us Diffenters from all civil offices, do it effectually, but in a more decent and proper manner, fuch as will fhew that it is your religion that you value, and that you wish to guard by this provifion. But if you find, as you must have done already, that no inconvenience has in fact arisen from Diffenters (among whom are to be reckoned Scotchmen, who, though Presbyterians, must take the Test

* A serious member of the church of England happening to attend prayers in a church where, without his knowing it, it was the custom to adminifter the Lord's-fupper for the fake of qualifying perfons to receive civil offices, chofe to communicate with them. But when he was afterwards taking his hat to walk out, the clerk stepped up to him and faid, "Sir, it will do you no good if you have not a certificate.”

as well as we) being in civil offices, and there are perhaps as many of them in such offices now, as there would be if the Telt was abolished, throw it afide at once, as a thing, that is equally disgraceful and useless, and provide no substi

tute for it at all.

How weak then, you fee, is this barrier which Mr. Madan fays, p. 23, "the wifdom of a former age has " erected for its defence," viz. that of your church, "and "which the experience of a century has proved to be effec"tual." I think, however, that I have abundantly fhewn that this is afcribing a great deal too much to this boasted ftatute, whereas it is only like a fly upon the chariot wheel, saying What a duft I raife. If the experience of a century has proved this barrier to be effectual, the experience of two preceding centuries, and also that of Ireland at present, proves it to be perfectly infignificant.

If you look into the Refolutions paffed by the clergy at their several meetings, to defeat our application to parliament, or into the pamphlets that have been written by the friends of the establishment on the fubject, you will find them triumphing moft of all in afferting the right that all men, and all focieties of men, have to chufe their own fervants, and to fay who they are that they think proper to trust with any degree of power. This country, they say, has even laid fimilar reftrictions on the exercise of kingly power, by making a Roman catholic ineligible to that office. What then, fay they, have Diffenters to complain of more than other claffes of perfons, even the highest?

Now, my friends, we never questioned the abfolute right of the legislature to país any act refpecting Diffenters, or any other description of men, but only the wisdom of their conduct. It will not be denied but that any man has a right to employ one of his hands to cut off the other, but would not all the world call him a fool for so doing?

The legislature of this country may, no doubt, carry their plan of disabilities, in a variety of refpects, much farther then they have done. They might exclude all officers of the army or navy, all lawyers, all tradefinen, and even all bishops,

D

34

Familiar Letters addressed to the

bishops, from a feat in either houfe of parliament. An act may be made to prevent the king employing in his fervice all men who have red hair, or, if that be complained of as a natural incapacity, all who fhould wear wigs. But the question is whether it would be wife to act in this manner, whether it would be confulting the good of the country to fubject the executive power to fuch reftrictions. Now we think it as unwise, and therefore, strictly speaking, as wrong, and as contrary to proper and natural right, to say that the king and the country fhall not be ferved by Diffenters, if, in other refpects, they be well qualified to ferve them.

I would farther observe that this bufinefs would be better conducted if Diffenters as fuch, were abfolutely prohibited from being admitted into civil offices; fo that their nomination and election fhould be null and void, and not permit them, as is the cafe at prefent in corporate towns, to have a regular nomination to an office, and to allow the validity of their acts while they are in it, and then subject them to a dreadful penalty, such as nothing but the greatest of crimes can juftify, for having accepted it. For the penalty is the payment of five hundred pounds, being difabled from suing or profecuting in any court of law, being guardians of any child, being executors or administrators of any perfon, and being incapable of receiving any legacy or deed of gift. There is nothing in the civil policy of any other country fo cruel, and at the fame time fo infidious as this. This is in a country the laws of which, and especially its criminal law, is fo much the boaft of its inhabitants! However, great numbers of the members of your church are just now in the fame fituation, fo that, if the Diffenters were fo difpofed, they might take ample revenge. For if the profecution be begun before the act of indemnity (which from the general neglect of complying with the Teft is always found neceflary every feflions of parliament) be paffed, the law must have its courfe. But I hope no Diffenters will follow fuch an example, if it fhould be fet them by any members of the church of England. I truft we are better chriftians.

I am, &c.