_Tres species tam dissimiles, tria talia texta
Una dies dedit exitio----_[2]
I write this paper for the sake of the Dissenters, whom I take to be the
most spreading branch of the Whig party, that professeth Christianity,
and the only one that seems to be zealous for any particular system of
it; the bulk of those we call the Low Church, being generally
indifferent, and undetermined in that point; and the other subdivisions
having not yet taken either the Old or New Testament into their scheme.
By the Dissenters therefore, it will easily be understood, that I mean
the Presbyterians, as they include the sects of Anabaptists,
Independents, and others, which have been melted down into them since the
Restoration. This sect, in order to make itself national, having gone so
far as to raise a Rebellion, murder their king, destroy monarchy and the
Church, was afterwards broken in pieces by its own divisions; which made
way for the king's return from his exile. However, the zealous among them
did still entertain hopes of recovering the "dominion of grace;" whereof
I have read a remarkable passage, in a book published about the year 1661
and written by one of their own side. As one of the regicides was going
to his execution, a friend asked him, whether he thought the cause would
revive? He answered, "The cause is in the bosom of Christ, and as sure as
Christ rose from the dead, so sure will the cause revive also."[3] And
therefore the Nonconformists were strictly watched and restrained by
penal laws, during the reign of King Charles the Second; the court and
kingdom looking on them as a faction, ready to join in any design against
the government in Church or State: And surely this was reasonable enough,
while so many continued alive, who had voted, and fought, and preached
against both, and gave no proof that they had changed their principles.
The Nonconformists were then exactly upon the same foot with our
Nonjurors now, whom we double tax, forbid their conventicles, and keep
under hatches; without thinking ourselves possessed with a persecuting
spirit, because we know they want nothing but the power to ruin us. This,
in my opinion, should altogether silence the Dissenters' complaints of
persecution under King Charles the Second; or make them shew us wherein
they differed, at that time, from what our Jacobites are now.
Their inclinations to the Church were soon discovered, when King James
the Second succeeded to the crown, with whom they unanimously joined in
its ruin, to revenge themselves for that restraint they had most justly
suffered in the foregoing reign; not from the persecuting temper of the
clergy, as their clamours would suggest, but the prudence and caution of
the legislature. The same indulgence against law, was made use of by them
and the Papists, and they amicably employed their power, as in defence of
one common interest.
But the Revolution happening soon after, served to wash away the memory
of the rebellion; upon which, the run against Popery, was, no doubt, as
just and seasonable, as that of fanaticism, after the Restoration: and
the dread of Popery, being then our latest danger, and consequently the
most fresh upon our spirits, all mouths were open against that; the
Dissenters were rewarded with an indulgence by law; the rebellion and
king's murder were now no longer a reproach; the former was only a civil
war, and whoever durst call it a rebellion, was a Jacobite, and friend to
France. This was the more unexpected, because the Revolution being wholly
brought about by Church of England hands, they hoped one good consequence
of it, would be the relieving us from the encroachments of Dissenters, as
well as those of Papists, since both had equally confederated towards our
ruin; and therefore, when the crown was new settled, it was hoped at
least that the rest of the constitution would be restored. But this
affair took a very different turn; the Dissenters had just made a shift
to save a tide, and joined with the Prince of Orange, when they found all
was desperate with their protector King James. And observing a party,
then forming against the old principles in Church and State, under the
name of Whigs and Low-Churchmen, they listed themselves of it, where they
have ever since continued.
It is therefore, upon the foot they now are, that I would apply myself to
them, and desire they would consider the different circumstances at
present, from what they were under, when they began their designs against
the Church and monarchy, about seventy years ago. At that juncture they
made up the body of the party, and whosoever joined with them from
principles of revenge, discontent, ambition, or love of change, were all
forced to shelter under their denomination; united heartily in the
pretences of a further and purer Reformation in religion, and of
advancing the "great work" (as the cant was then) "that God was about
to do in these nations," received the systems of doctrine and discipline
prescribed by the Scots, and readily took the Covenant;[4] so that there
appeared no division among them, till after the common enemy was subdued.
But now their case is quite otherwise, and I can hardly think it worth
being of a party, upon the terms they have been received of late years;
for suppose the whole faction should at length succeed in their design of
destroying the Church; are they so weak to imagine, that the new
modelling of religion, would be put into their hands? Would their
brethren, the Low-Churchmen and Freethinkers, submit to their discipline,
their synods or their classes, and divide the lands of bishops, or deans
and chapters, among them? How can they help observing that their allies,
instead of pretending more sanctity than other men, are some of them for
levelling all religion, and the rest for abolishing it? Is it not
manifest, that they have been treated by their confederates, exactly
after the same manner, as they were by King James the Second, made
instruments to ruin the Church, not for their sakes, but under a
pretended project of universal freedom in opinion, to advance the dark
designs of those who employ them? For, excepting the anti-monarchical
principle, and a few false notions about liberty, I see but little
agreement betwixt them; and even in these, I believe, it would be
impossible to contrive a frame of government, that would please them all,
if they had it now in their power to try. But however, to be sure, the
Presbyterian institution would never obtain. For, suppose they should, in
imitation of their predecessors, propose to have no King but our Saviour
Christ, the whole clan of Freethinkers would immediately object, and
refuse His authority. Neither would their Low-Church brethren use them
better, as well knowing what enemies they are to that doctrine of
unlimited toleration, wherever they are suffered to preside. So that upon
the whole, I do not see, as their present circumstances stand, where the
Dissenters can find better quarter, than from the Church of England.
Besides, I leave it to their consideration, whether, with all their zeal
against the Church, they ought not to shew a little decency, and how far
it consists with their reputation, to act in concert with such
confederates. It was reckoned a very infamous proceeding in the present
most Christian king, to assist the Turk against the Emperor: policy, and
reasons of state, were not allowed sufficient excuses, for taking part
with an infidel against a believer. It is one of the Dissenters' quarrels
against the Church, that she is not enough reformed from Popery; yet they
boldly entered into a league with Papists and a popish prince, to destroy
her. They profess much sanctity, and object against the wicked lives of
some of our members; yet they have been long, and still continue, in
strict combination with libertines and atheists, to contrive our ruin.
What if the Jews should multiply, and become a formidable party among us?
Would the Dissenters join in alliance with them likewise, because they
agree already in some general principles, and because the Jews are
allowed to be a "stiffnecked and rebellious people"?
It is the part of wise men to conceal their passions, when they are not
in circumstances of exerting them to purpose: the arts of getting power,
and preserving indulgence, are very different. For the former, the
reasonable hopes of the Dissenters, seem to be at an end; their comrades,
the Whigs and Freethinkers, are just in a condition proper to be
forsaken; and the Parliament, as well as the body of the people, will be
deluded no longer. Besides, it sometimes happens for a cause to be
exhausted and worn out, as that of the Whigs in general, seems at present
to be: the nation has had enough of it. It is as vain to hope restoring
that decayed interest, as for a man of sixty to talk of entering on a new
scene of life, that is only proper for youth and vigour. New
circumstances and new men must arise, as well as new occasions, which are
not like to happen in our time. So that the Dissenters have no game left,
at present, but to secure their indulgence: in order to which, I will be
so bold to offer them some advice.
First, That until some late proceedings are a little forgot, they would
take care not to provoke, by any violence of tongue or pen, so great a
majority, as there is now against them, nor keep up any longer that
combination with their broken allies, but disperse themselves, and lie
dormant against some better opportunity: I have shewn, they could have
got no advantage if the late party had prevailed; and they will certainly
lose none by its fall, unless through their own fault. They pretend a
mighty veneration for the Queen; let them give proof of it, by quitting
the ruined interest of those who have used her so ill; and by a due
respect to the persons she is pleased to trust at present with her
affairs: When they can no longer hope to govern, when struggling can do
them no good, and may possibly hurt them, what is left but to be silent
and passive?
Secondly, Though there be no law (beside that of God Almighty) against
_occasional conformity_,[5] it would be prudence in the Dissenters to use
it as tenderly as they can: for, besides the infamous hypocrisy of the
thing itself, too frequent practice would perhaps make a remedy
necessary. And after all they have said to justify themselves in this
point, it still continues hard to conceive, how those consciences can
pretend to be scrupulous, upon which an employment has more power than
the love of unity.
In the last place, I am humbly of opinion, That the Dissenters would do
well to drop that lesson they have learned from their directors, of
affecting to be under horrible apprehensions, that the Tories are in the
interests of the Pretender, and would be ready to embrace the first
opportunity of inviting him over. It is with the worst grace in the
world, that they offer to join in the cry upon this article: as if those,
who alone stood in the gap against all the encroachments of Popery and
arbitrary power, are not more likely to keep out both, than a set of
schismatics, who to gratify their ambition and revenge, did, by the
meanest compliances, encourage and spirit up that unfortunate prince, to
fell upon such measures, as must, at last, have ended in the ruin of our
liberty and religion.
_I wish those who give themselves the trouble to write to the "Examiner"
would consider whether what they send be proper for such a paper to take
notice of: I had one letter last week, written, as I suppose, by a
divine, to desire I would offer some reasons against a Bill now before
the Parliament for Ascertaining the Tithe of Hops;[6] from which the
writer apprehends great damage to the clergy, especially the poorer
vicars: If it be, as he says, (and he seems to argue very reasonably upon
it) the convocation now sitting, will, no doubt, upon due application,
represent the matter to the House of Commons; and he may expect all
justice and favour from that great body, who have already appeared so
tender of their rights.
A gentleman, likewise, who hath sent me several letters, relating to
personal hardships he received from some of the late ministry; is advised
to publish a narrative of them, they being too large, and not proper for
this paper._
[Footnote 1: No. 36 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2:
"Three different forms, of threefold threads combined,
The selfsame day in common ruin joined."
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: It is recorded in "The Speeches and Prayers of ... Mr. John
Carew," 1660, and in "Rebels no Saints," 1661, that at the execution of
John Carew, on October 15th, 1660: "One asked him if he thought there
would be a resurrection of the cause? He answered, he died in the faith
of that, as much as he did that his body should rise again." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: The Scotch General Assembly approved the "Solemn League and
Covenant" on August 17th, 1643; it was publicly taken by the House of
Commons at St. Margaret's, Westminster, on September 25th. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: Such a law was passed December 20th, 1711. It was entitled
"An Act for preserving the Protestant Religion" (10 Ann, c. 6), and
required persons appointed to various offices to conform to the Church of
England for one year and to receive the Sacrament three times. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: Leave was given for a Bill for Ascertaining the Tithe of
Hops, March 26th, 1711, and the Bill was presented May 10th. It does not
appear to have gone any further. [T.S.]]