THE Rights and Liberties OF SUBJECTS Vindicated.
&Tic;HAT Happiness is infi&rehy;nitely preferable to Misery, is a Truth, which every intelligent Being will al&rehy;low, and every good Be&rehy;ing will prove by Action. However differently Men may conceive about other Things, in this they will all unanimously agree, as a Point that ad&rehy;mits of no Debate. The various Methods they take to procure Pleasure demonstrably shew they love it above Pain. And though they may mistake in their Choice of Objects, yet none choose the latter for its own Sake.
For this Reason it is, that God be&rehy;ing infinitely Wise and Good, and uncapable of erring in his Judgment of Things, could form Mankind for Happiness only; and could have no other View in creating them, than to diffuse Bounty and Goodness among them, and communicate such a Va&rehy;riety of Pleasures, as might be suita&rehy;ble to their compound Nature. To say that he formed any of them for Misery, is to say he is neither Bene&rehy;volent nor Wise, since that of itself, could answer no wise End. Or to af&rehy;firm that he works upon them like Machines, and determines them always in their Choice of Things, is to deny they are indued with Reason or Un&rehy;derstanding, or subject either to Re&rehy;wards or Punishments.
That there can be no true Happiness but in the Way of Liberty, is a Truth, I believe, next to Demonstration. And that there can be no Liberty without Free-agency, is as certain and evident, as that Liberty is Freedom. The Plea&rehy;sure we receive from external Objects, must be suited to the Appetite we in&rehy;tend to gratify. And that which re&rehy;sults from the Actions of our Lives, whenever we would have it intense or durable, must be supposed adapted to our reasonable Faculties, and to spring from a Consciousness of having done well. But, if we had no Liberty to choose in either respect, we could have no Relish of Pleasure or Happi&rehy;ness.
Upon these Accounts the Divine Being, through his innate Wisdom and Goodness, formed Mankind naturally free, that they might perceive the Dif&rehy;ference between Good and Evil; and that the Happiness he designed them, here and hereafter, might, in some Measure, depend upon the right Exer&rehy;cise of their Faculties, and the wise Choice they made of such Objects, as they might be conversant among. And therefore as he formed them after such a Manner, they must all have a natural Claim to Liberty, an equal Right to persue Happiness, and to take such Methods for the Security of both, as in their own Nature are equitable and just.
Hence it is, that they being sensible of this Truth, and knowing the kind Intentions of the Deity concerning them, have commonly formed them&rehy;selves into Civil Societies, that they might secure the Privileges of their Free-born Nature, from all Attempts that might be made to Invade them. And knowing that these might be im&rehy;proved to Advantage, have generally elected some proper Person or Persons, to whom they commit the Government of their Affairs; whom they intrust with their common Power, and sup&rehy;port out of their common Expences, for their general Advantage and Wel&rehy;fare.
Every Society thus formed, is to be considered as a Body Politick, wherein all the Members are to consult the Good of the Whole, and not do any thing might damage any Part, how&rehy;ever it might tend to their own private Benefit. And as each one may be supposed to have a Share in the Choice of such Person or Persons as by publick Consent are authorized to Govern; as he trusts them with his Power, and contributes to their Sup&rehy;port; he has, in Consequence of that, while he behaves well, a Claim not on&rehy;ly to Protection and Defence, and to be secured from Injury, Violence and Oppression; but also to partake of all such Advantages, as accrue from the Government so erected and maintain&rehy;ed; and as are common to others of the same Society. Nor is there any thing, but an Evidence of an injuri&rehy;ous Behaviour, can cut him off from it, or, justly deprive him of it.
Mean time we are not to imagine, that every individual Person, who is a Member of the Community, and a Good Subject, must be preferr'd to Posts of Honour or Profit, or intrust&rehy;ed with the ordering of publick Affairs; for that, in the Nature of Things, is not possible; or if it were it might sometimes be imprudent, since Honesty alone is not a sufficient Qualification; and since it is not material to a So&rehy;ciety, whether a Man through Indolence or Design mismanages a Trust, providing in Reality he does not ma&rehy;nage it. That there should be some inferiour Stations in Life, is as reason&rehy;able and fit, as there should be others superiour. Persons in both need each others Assistance; and their Interests ought not to be looked upon as opposite. And, as Government is necessary to the Welfare of a People, it is requi&rehy;site there be different Classes of supreme and subordinate Rulers in it, for the better accomplishing the Designs of it, and facilitating the Management of publick Affairs, which, otherwise, could not be done to Advantage. But all cannot be Magistrates; nor ad&rehy;vanced to Offices of Dignity and Ho&rehy;nour. To suppose such a thing would be as absurd, as to expect or look for it, would be ridiculous, The Princi&rehy;ple, then, which I have laid down, will not, I believe, be understood in such a large and unlimited Sense, as if every Citizen or Member of a So&rehy;ciety, who behaves well or does the Duty of a Subject, should, for that ve&rehy;ry Reason, be preferred or advanced. But only, that no one in it, who answers this Character, whose Capacity is equal to his Neighbour's, and who is well qualified for serving his King and Country, should be debarred or excluded from it, for his Religious Sentiments, unless they are dangerous to the Publick Welfare: But he ought to have an equal Chance with others, as he stands upon the same Founda&rehy;tions of Claims.
The Rights of Subjects to their temporal Interests are natural, be&rehy;cause the Lord of Nature allows them. And their Rights to those which are spiritual, are natural, because the same Indulgent Parent grants them. Neither of them owe their Original to the Decisions of the Majority; be&rehy;cause Nature is prior to any Civil Con&rehy;stitution, and Men are first in their natural Capacity, before they incor&rehy;porate in Neighbourhood and Com&rehy;merce, or form any Scheme of Go&rehy;vernment among them.
The Primary Design of Authority and Laws, is to maintain the Privileges of the Society, who associate on the Foundation of natural Equality; and either to advance each Member to, or secure him in the Possession of his Rights. So that if any Person invades another's Property, whether by Ra&rehy;pine or Violence, Oppresion or Fraud, or by any other unwarrantable Me&rehy;thods; the same Authority can punish him for it: And this very Punishment is founded in Justice; as 'tis intended to secure the Happiness of the whole Body, which all it's good Members have a natural Claim to, and for the Preservation of which they unite their respective Interests. But the Rights themselves are centred in E&rehy;quity (which is an independent thing,) and can only receive a Sanction from the Civil Power, so far as they appear to be valid in themselves. And with&rehy;out this Concession, it would neces&rehy;sarily follow, either that no Laws or Statutes could be just, though they might bear the Stamp of Authority; or else, that all enacted by a former Authority, be they ever so pernicious in their Nature and Tendency, should be looked upon as sacred and immu&rehy;table, and incapable of being repeal&rehy;ed by a subsequent Legislature. Both which would not only reflect upon the best Government in the World; but would also so limit them in the Exercise of their Power, that they could not employ it for the Publick Good.
Hence it follows, that Government is not (as the Author of The Dispute Adjusted, foolishly asserts) founded on the Abridgment of natural Rights, but upon these considered in their full Extent, it being the Right of every good Subject to bear a Part in erecting it; as he discovers no Designs, and maintains no Principles that are de&rehy;structive to the Society. Whereas if any one discovers such Designs, or maintains such Principles, or gives Oc&rehy;casion to suspect his Capacity for Ser&rehy;vice, he cannot possibly have any such natural Right, but is cut off from it by the Laws of Equity, and therefore may be incapacitated by the Laws of the Community. And this is the Reason why a Papist is disabled from enjoying such Privileges as are common to o&rehy;thers. It is not merely because he is not a Churchman, but because his Prin&rehy;ciples make him a professed Enemy to the Society, and prove him no Subject, but rather a Rebel. And therefore as he has no Claim to a Subject's Right, it is just in the Law to deny it him un&rehy;til his changing his Principles entitles him to it. And this is the Reason too, why some Protestants, are disqualified for being Representatives of their Country. It is not, sure, because they are Protestants, but because their low Circumstances incapacitate them for Service, and render them obnoxious to Bribery and Corruption, and liable to betray, or at least to mismanage a Trust, which they have no Right to dispose of as they please, when it might vast&rehy;ly prejudice those they would represent. And therefore they are cut off by the Law of Equity, which the Civil Pow&rehy;er might inforce by Authority. Nor is there any Abridgment of natural Rights in either of these. Much less are they Cases in the least parallel to what the Adjuster compares them, as any un&rehy;prejudiced Person will easily perceive. For the not receiving the Sacrament in the Church, cannot incapacitate any Man from serving his Country; nor deprive him of any natural Right. Whereas either his being a Papist, or being in low Circumstances, may unfit him for several Offices or Posts, and cut him off from any Claim to them, until he is possessed of such Qualifica&rehy;tions as in the Nature of Things put him into a Capacity of managing them.
I must assure this Author (who ap&rehy;pear to be a Papist, or something worse) that on these Principles, which I have advanced, our present Constitution is entirely founded, is built as on the firmest Basis, and rests as safe as it is happy and glorious.
To these (maintain'd under God) are owing our Prosperity and Free&rehy;dom, and all the Advantages we en&rehy;joy beyond other Nations, which make us the Envy of all Europe, and a Terror to the whole World about us.
Nay, to these (asserted by brave and magnanimous Heroes) not only our own publick and private Felicity is to be attributed; but that also which the World partakes of. All it's Inha&rehy;bitants taste the Fruits of our Liber&rehy;ty, subsist, in some measure, by our extensive Freedom, which we im&rehy;prove into Principles of Generosity and Benevolence, and diffuse among them with a bounteous Hand.
And, therefore, I think we may justly infer, (let the Adjuster think what he pleases) that, if ever there should be a Change of Government, and the Papists should gain the Ma&rehy;stery over us, obliging us to unreaso&rehy;nable Terms of Communion, as a Test of Orthodoxy, or a Civil Qua&rehy;lification, without complying where&rehy;with we must forfeit our Immunities, and be looked upon as having no Claim to them; their Methods of treating us would be very unfair, and contrary to all the Rules of Justice. And,
Yet, if ever they got uppermost they would undoubtedly take such Methods with us, make a Monopoly of Common Rights, and confine them wholly to their own Party, because they reckon themselves the Church. Now would not this be very unreaso&rehy;nable in them and contrary to every Thing that is Civil or Humane? Most certainly it would. For why should they imagine that we must think or believe just as they do, or that our Principles should exactly chime with theirs? There is no Reason, sure, to expect it from us. Nor can any of them, even the Pope himself, have a Right to demand it. Our Under&rehy;standings are as much our Property as our Estates; and they might as well pretend to deprive us of the Use of the latter, as of the former. And therefore their proposing publick Or&rehy;der and Peace, and the Advancement of Religion in their National Church, could never justify them in establish&rehy;ing it, upon Terms which would de&rehy;stroy our proper Privileges; because these can no more depend upon a Conformity of our Sentiments (while they are innocent) to those of a Ma&rehy;jority or a Party, than they can upon the Resemblance of our Faces, or the Similarity of our Noses with their's. This the Adjuster might easily see, if he regarded any thing that is just or honourable.
As every Man receiv'd his Being from God, and was distinguish'd by him from the brutal World, he's ac&rehy;countable to him for his whole Con&rehy;duct, and answerable to him alone for his Religion. Upon the good or bad Improvement he makes of his Facul&rehy;ties, his Happiness or Misery, hereaf&rehy;ter, must depend. And accordingly as he obeys the Voice of Reason and Conscience, so must it eternally fare with him. But as God alone will be his Judge; as future Happiness is of the highest Importance to him, and infinitly preferable to all temporal In&rehy;terests; therefore Religion must be his chief Concern, and shou'd be always allowed him as a Matter of free Choice; since it is as much his Claim, as any other thing he can, possibly, be inti&rehy;tled to, or possess'd of. And conse&rehy;quently it would be ungenerous, to say no worse, to force or even tempt him either to give up one right, or to de&rehy;prive him of another.
'Tis possible, they might tell us, that Religion ought to be their princi&rehy;pal care, the Church of God always protected, and the Laws of the Land on its Side, and in its Favour. And this is really no more than Truth, and what many of us would frankly allow. But certain it is, at the same time, that Persons of every Denomi&rehy;nation whatever, whether Christians or Infidels, who are sincere in their Sentiments, unbiass'd in their Judg&rehy;ments, and virtuous in their Practice, do all belong to the Church of God, and in some Sense might be said to be Believers. And my Reasons for this Assertion are, that they, who live up to this good Character, make the best Use of their own Understandings they can, which the Gospel was intended to bring them to, and which could be the only Design of any Revelation; and withall they act agreeably to their Belief of Things, which are the Terms of Acceptance required in the Gospel, and the only Qualification for the Di&rehy;vine Favour. And as the Scriptures allow a bare Belief to be of no Impor&rehy;tance, without a Conversation answer&rehy;able to it, therefore it must be a Man's Practice that chiefly recommends him. Consequently, every one who acts an honest Part, who rationally and impartially judges of Things, and lives a good Life, is equally with others in&rehy;titled to the Favour of God, since he believes all that any Being could re&rehy;quire of him.
Besides, the Church and Religion, in this Respect, are one, though Mens private Sentiments be ever so diffe&rehy;rent; since every Person acts accord&rehy;ing to his own Judgment, which could only be the Case, if all were of one Mind, or were ever so Unanimous in their Way of Thinking. And for these and other Reasons, that I could mention, it is strange and surprizing, methinks, that the Adjuster, and o&rehy;thers of the Papists who live among us, and have so great Opportunities of Improvement, should entertain so unworthy Notions of the Deity and Religion, as to imagine the Church is confined to a Party. What is this but making an Idol of Stone, and worshipping the Works of their own Hands? We are now, blessed be God, free from their Iron Yoke, not sub&rehy;ject to their Authority; but are esta&rehy;blished on Principles of genuine Li&rehy;berty, which makes us the Glory of the whole Universe, and our OEconomy to bear the nearest Resem&rehy;blance to Heaven's. Nor is there, scarce, any Thing wanting to com&rehy;plete our Felicity, but that which I shall now briefly mention, and which, if rectified, would perfectly finish it.
We have, for a considerable Time, even since the Twenty-fifth Year of King Charles II, been under Obliga&rehy;tions which tho' design'd for our Good, do really tend to our Disad&rehy;vantage upon the whole, and are a sort of Embarrassments upon the best Subjects. I need not be more parti&rehy;cular in my Account of this Affair, because, I am persuaded, every one understands it.
How lamentable is it, that a Cler&rehy;gyman who may be supposed to un&rehy;derstand his Master's Will, and know Christ's End in dying for the World, is obliged, against Reason and Con&rehy;science, to give the Sacrament to Re&rehy;probates, purely because he is ordered to do it? Or how great a Profanation must it be of the Ordinance that he must be bound to administer it to a downright Unbeliever, when he thinks he ought not to be admitted to it? Must it not be a deadly Sting to his tender Con&rehy;science, and rob him of his inward Peace and Repose; nay, of all the Happiness and Liberty, which by the Laws of Nature and of God, he is in&rehy;titled to? Undoubtedly it must. For tho' I am of Opinion, (and say it for the Good of Christians in gene&rehy;ral, and the poor Clergy in particu&rehy;lar) that any Person who desires the Sacrament at their Hands, be he ever so immoral in his Life, should have it given him, the principal Intent of it being to perpetuate the Memory of the Death of Christ, who died to con&rehy;firm the Revelation he gave us, and suffered in the Cause of Virtue for our Imitation of his Example, which a wicked Man has most Reason to imi&rehy;tate; yet as every one cannot, per&rehy;haps, have the same Faith with me, nor the same Clearness to do what I could, 'tis pity he should be obliged to obey a Diocesan contrary to his own Persuasion of the Thing. It were bet&rehy;ter for him there were no Establish&rehy;ment, than thus to be establish'd in Con&rehy;finement and Misery. And I wonder indeed, that the Clergy in general (at least the inferiour Part of them) do not give in their humble Petition, that the Test Act may be repealed, and that they may be freed from the great In&rehy;cumbrances and Uneasinesses they suf&rehy;fer by it. But,
It is still more deplorable, that a Person who is a Christian by Profes&rehy;sion, a Protestant in Principles, and dissents from the Church, only, for her Ceremonies, which he cannot safely comply withall, shall for that very Reason be cut off from his Share of Common Rights, or be marked with a Stigma of Disloyalty, when he is a Staunch Friend to the present Constitution. This cannot be con&rehy;formable to the Religion of Jesus, nor agreeable to that Justice and Cha&rehy;rity, Lenity and Forbearance, which it earnestly recommends; and that gentle and good Spirit which it every where breaths. On the contrary 'tis punish&rehy;ing Persons for acting according to their Consciences, which no Power in Hea&rehy;ven or Earth can warrant. But,
Perhaps it will be said, that they who dissent from the Church or don't conform to her rules are not punish'd; but all good Subjects are allow'd Liber&rehy;ty of Conscience, and to think and speak their own Sentiments without being, in the least molested, or disturb'd for it.
And, in answer to this, we may ob&rehy;serve; it is as true and certain, that a Man suffers by an absent Pleasure as well as by a present Pain, as that the latter is the Privation of the former. Remove the one and you give him the other, or give him one, and you take away, t'other. This, I believe, can admit of no dispute. But every Re&rehy;trenchment of common Rights, or the monopolizing them to one Party, is a Kind of Punishment which the De&rehy;prived suffer. It prevents them from enjoying that Pleasure and Happiness which they might receive by them, or, even, by the Hopes of them, both which such Retrenchments entirely frustrate. And if they do nothing at all to for&rehy;feit them, then, such Punishment is very unjust. Now, this is exactly the Case of the Dissenters at present; and a melancholy Case it is, upon several Accounts. They are excluded the Benefit of some natural Rights, because they will not consent to part with o&rehy;thers; which, they imagine, is not a&rehy;greeable to the Laws of Equity, e&rehy;specially when it throws such gla&rehy;ring Reflections on them and singles them out as Enemies to the State. And though I love the Establish&rehy;ed Church as well as any Man, yet I cannot but say, the Dissenters have some Ground for Complaint. They have always behav'd like Good Sub&rehy;jects, and been active and cordial in the Cause of Liberty, which is the grand Support of our present Con&rehy;stitution: And therefore it is pity they should be so stinted in the Fruits of their own Labour, or taste so little of the Hapiness we enjoy. If Clarke or Woolaston were living, they would say this is acting contrary to Reason and Truth; (And tho' they are dead they yet speak it to us) because 'tis treating those like dangerous and profess'd Enemies, who should be valued, and esteem'd, and encourag'd as, in truth they are, the firmest Friends we have.
I know it has been alledged, that the Test Act has been the Security of the Church; and whenever it is repealed, the Church will be in Danger. But this cannot possibly be made appear to be true. On the contrary, it will be found to be the Discredit and Ruin of it. And by the Church here, I shall, for the Sake of one Party mean, only, the Establish'd Church. And what Service, I pray, has the Test Act done it? Has it not crowded it with Num&rehy;bers of Persons, like the Adjuster, with popish Souls in protestant Bodies, who could see it sunk down the Stygian Lake; and who make no Scruple of conforming to her Rules, because they believe they at any time have an Indulgence for it? And does it not make the Dissenters on some accounts prejudic'd against her, and look upon her as an unchari&rehy;table Body, that denies Liberty and Property to her Neighbours? For tho' it might be said, that the Church is not so Chargeable with it, and that is the Civil Power has order'd things to be as they are; yet while there are so many B--ps in P---t whose Power and Influence are so extensive the Church (tho' the best part would rejoyce at the News of a Repeal) will always bear the blame of it; and the Dissenters will think they suffer by her. Whereas if their grievances, in this respect, were redress'd, they woud not only have a better Opinion of the Church, but wou'd Love her Ministers as they do their own, and make very little distinction between them.
After all, it is a melancholy Reflecti&rehy;on that the Christian Sacrament, which was intended to mind us of our Obli&rehy;gations to the Deity, and to improve us in the Practice of Moral Virtue, should be prostituted to the low Pur&rehy;poses of secular Interests. This is very contrary to the Institution of it. It is inverting the very Order and Nature of Things; making the future World subservient, or rather inferiour to the present; and Heaven itself a Handmaid to Earth.
The greatest Enemy to the Christian Religion (which I firmly believe of divine Original) is the great Profana&rehy;tion of this Ordinance. It causes ma&rehy;ny, when they see it used as a Test, imagine it nothing but a political En&rehy;gine, no ways binding the Consciences of Men, but as their temporal Interest leads them. Nay, it is certainly the Occasion of the Growth both of Popery and Deism; because wherever Men see it thus prostituted to every mean and common Use, it confirms them in their Belief there is nothing in Reli&rehy;gion; which makes them take up with any Scheme of it, when they have a Prospect of Pleasure or Gain. And this leads them on to a Dissolution of Man&rehy;ners, Contempt of moral Obligations, and all the Wickedness which destroys Society, to the great Dishonour of Al&rehy;mighty God, and the vast Discredit of the Gospel of Christ.
And now let any Man judge, if such a Thing can be the Security of a Church, which is so destructive of Virtue and Happiness: Which tempts some Men to sin against Light, others to violate the Laws of Conscience; some to contemn every thing that is sacred, others to believe there is no Religion. Let him divest himself of all Prejudices of Bigotry and Party, Education and Interest, and let him judge impartially of the Nature and Consequences of it; and, I am per&rehy;swaded, he will find it the Bane of Christianity.
For these Reasons which I have (and others I might have) advanc'd, many in the Church desire the Repeal of it. They see the several Grie&rehy;vances which now attend it; and are under no Apprehensions of Danger, in case it were null'd. They know our Lawgivers to be Men of Renown, and sufficiently qualified to defend them from Popery, by substituting a&rehy;nother Act in lieu of the Test.
And, therefore, I think it need be no Dispute with any Man, or Society of Men, whether or no they should push for the Repeal of it; or whe&rehy;ther now is a proper Time for it. Of this the Legislature are the best Judges, and can only know it when it comes before them. Yet, some Men are al&rehy;ways as timorous of Pushing, as if they had a desperate Adversary before them, and dreaded the Danger of a Home-thrust. But
If ever there can be a proper time for the Tryal of this affair, 'tis certainly now, when we are not disturb'd with the noise of War abroad, nor with a facti&rehy;ous and Party Spirit at home, but en&rehy;joy perfect Tranquillity and Peace, and are easie and quiet among ourselves. And when, besides, we have such Noble and Illustrious Senators who are as Remarkable for their Love of Liber&rehy;ty, as they are Celebrated for their Consummate Wisdom and Vigilance, and hearty concern for the Publick Welfare.
So that there can be no excuse for now deferring it, but what will eter&rehy;nally appear as plausible as Now. Let us therefore stand fast in this true faith; quit ourselves like Men when we are call'd to it; and be strong in a Cause on which so much depends.
FINIS.