Contesting the Test Act: Dissent, Parliament and the Public in the 1730s*

A N1) R E W T H 0 M 1's 0 N

The importance of the Test and Corporation Acts for early eighteenth-century dissent cannot be overstated. Legally speaking, these acts prevented dissenters from holding civil office. Dissenters viewed this as an infringement of their civil rights. Thus, a t various points in the eighteenth century, dissenters were iiivolved in attempts to repeal the legislation that required officeholders to be c~niniunicaiit nienibers of the Church of England.

This article concentrates neither on the mechanics of how dissenters organized repeal campaigns, nor on the court politics and parlianientary intrigue which acconi- panied them. Instead, one particular group of nietropolitan dissenting polemicists is considered. These authors entered the public sphere at various points in the early eighteenth century to justify the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. In other words, the emphaqis here is on attempts to influence parliament and the public from without, rather than on debate within the Westminster village. That said, it should be noted that the paniphlet interventions discussed coincided precisely with parliamentary nianoeuvres for repeal. Considering this group of authors indicates a continuity of dissenting argunient froni the 17 10s to the 1730s. However, it will also be necessary to consider the anglican response to dissenting argument. This, in turn, will help to indicate the particular points of disagreement.

The article arose from work on two periodicals. The Occasional Paper appeared on a roughly monthly basis between 1716 and 1719. It was a single essay publication and the 36 essays were subsequently published in volumes for the years 1716, 1717, and 1718.' The OH Wzig was a weekly publication. One hundred and sixty editions of the paper were published between March 1735 and March 1738. These contained a weekly essay, letters, and other news. One hundred and three of the weekly essays

The funding for the dissertation 011 which this article 17 partly bawd was provided by a studentship from the Art? and Humanitics Research Board. I an1 grateful to my then supervisor, Mark Chldie. for his help and advice. 1 a m alto grateful to Jaiiies Bradley, Andrew Starkie and Stephen Taylor for their coiiiinents after the paper wa\ presented at the 'Parliament and Ilissent' conference at Dr Willimis's Library on 16 July 2002.

I A Collcctiori <$ the Oirasional Paprryfiir t l ic Year 1716 (1716). Hereafter, reference9 to the three annual collections of the Ociusiorial Paper will be given in the forrn of OF', year (1 71 0, 17 17, 17 I H) , nuiitber of paper (1 - 12). page nunibcr. OP, 1718, 11, passim conridered the Salters Hall controverry which nieriii\ thdt it must have appeared iri early 171 9. There IS a i l account of the Salters Hall controversy i n Roger Thorns. 'The Non-Subscription Controversy amongst Protesta~it 13issenters in 1719',Jii~r~iu/ tf Ecrlcsiasrirnl Hirtory, IV (1953), 162-86.

Cotitextirig flit, Test Act 59

were published in a two volume collected edition in 1739.' The importance of these periodicals arises from the group of authors involved with their production.

Benjamin Avery and Benjamin Grosvenor wrote for both publications. Sinion Hrowne, Jabez Earle, John Evans, Nathaniel Lardner, Moses Lownian and Samuel Wright contributed to the Occasional Papv . George Benson, Samuel Chandler, Caleb Fleming, James Foster and Micaiah Towgood joined Avery and Grosvenor in writing for the Old W l i [ ~ . ~ All those mentioned were at one time ministers of dissenting congregations.

Benjamin Avery had left the presbyterian ministry after the Salters Hall controversy of 1719. There he had sided with the non-subscribers. After leaving the ministry, he practised medicine and became treasurer of Guy's Hospital. He was also chairman of the Protestant Dissenting Deputies for many years, as well as being involved with the New England Grosvenor, along with Simon Browne, Jabez Earle and Samuel Wright is now remenibered chiefly for his published sermons. George Benson published biblical paraphraws in a Lockean style. Samuel Chandler published numerous works defending the dissenting interest. Caleb Fleming wrote against the Test and Corporation Acts. Janie5 Foster and Micaiah Towgood were involved in polemical disputes about heresy and the legitimacy of dissent with anglican opponents. Nathaniel Lardner and Moses Lowrnan produced works of biblical scholarship. Sonie of Lowman's work has also been seen as providing an important conduit for Harringtonian ideas.' The most influential niembers of the group were probably Avery and Chandler. However. most attention will be devoted in this article to Samuel Chandler's work. Moses Lowman and Samuel Wright will also feature.

Sonie caveats should be added at this point. The first is that, as all essays in both the Occasioml P(7pw and the Old Wh<q appeared anonymously, it is impossible to be sure how far any one of these authors can be seen as responsible for a particular piece. The second is that not all the inaterial that appeared in the papers was written by dissenters." However, the content of both publications suggests strongly that dissenters held editorial control of the Occasioiial Paper and Old Wliig. Much of the material

7 . - I l r c Olif Wlrcq: O r , Cori,i,fenf f ro tcs f~ irr f (2 \ols, 1739). Hereafter, reference\ to the Old bi"/i(y w~ll be

gvc11 ii i the fiiriii OW, volume, nuinber of paper, p ' For the list of thosr involvrd re Zl.iY.B., 11, 274 (xticlr Aver);, Brgami i i ) . The reliability of thi\ hct

IS a w s s e d in c h ~ p t e r 2 of my ' I h c r n r and Old Whiggrr);: The O ~ ~ i s i o r i u l I'qwrs m d O/d I%'/i!q in Context', University of CCinibridge M.Phil., 1999.

Tlic fmtcrtorit Ilissoitirr~y Drpirfics (Cambridge, 1052), pp. 27. 29, 40, and Will~mi

' Short biographies of.111 thew authors can be found i n the D.N.B. See also George Uenson, A Paraphrase ilrid .L\;rtus OII r/ic Six Eprsflc~s <!j St f a i r / (1734, Caleb Fleming, Ddays Da~r~yeruirs: No To-~%i"irroi~~ j h r the Rq~col I$ tlir, TW arid Copirat ior i Acts ( 1 739). Jaiiies Foster, Aii Arrsuar to Dr Srchbirr,~'s Lcfter o i r tlrr Sul!jc3rf (f' Hcresy (1735), Micaiah Towgood, .4 I l b , ~ i f . f i ~ ~ t ~ tlic Cliitrclr of Err~ql~iird Frilly J r d f i c d (6th edn, 1787), Nathaniel Lardnrr, T/ic (:rcdihi/ i fy c!ff/re Cospd History: Port I (2 vols, 17'77) and Part I! (1 2 vols, 1734-55). Moses Lowmati, il Dissvtatiorr oii the Civil Gouerrinienf of thc Hebrews (1 740), a n d Caroline Kobbins, Tkp E~yl i ree~rf l i -C~r i rnry ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ r r ~ i ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a l ~ / r t ~ r a ~ (Chiibridgr, MA, 1959). p. 242.

"See H.M.C., E p i c i t i f Diary, 11, 253 (3 Apr. 1736) where Eginont describes a letter he recaved from the editor of the Old LWiiq accepting a piece Egmont had written on the church fathers for publication.

r t , q l ~ ~ i d C O W I ~ I I ~ , 1649- 1776 (19f>lj, pp. 170-3.

60 Andrew Thompson

in both publications was of particular interest to dissenters.’ The rest of this article provides a specific example of this by indicating the amount of space that was devoted to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. Moreover, by using the other known publications of the group associated with the Onas iona l Paper and Old wh(c, it is possible to discover continuities of argumentation between the anonymous essays in the periodicals and tracts where authorship is undisputed. This, in turn, suggests that the coherence of the group is more reality than construction. These two publications provide the first examples of specifically dissenting periodicals. Other dissenters, such as Defoe, had been involved in periodical publication before. However, these two periodicals can be regarded as the first to speak for the dissenting interest in the expanding public sphere of the early eighteenth century.

The repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts was an issue where the authors involved with the Occasional Paper and O l d Whig were not only interested spectators but active participants.’ The tinling of attempts to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts in the early part of the eighteenth century and the parallel periods during which the Occasional Paper and O l d Whig were published suggests that there is a chronological overlap worth exploring. To understand the importance of civil disabilities, however, it is necessary to recall the history of the dissenters’ treatment after 1660. This has a twofold purpose. First, it facilitates an understanding of context. Secondly, appeals to the historical origins and purpose of the acts formed the basis of-the cases for and against repeal in the 1710s and 1730s.

Despite Charles 11’s promise of ‘liberty for tender consciences’ in the declaration of Breda, the Cavalier Parliament had other ideas about how dissent should be treated after 1660. The Corporation Act (1661) required all members of corporations to take an oath eschewing the principles of the solemn league and covenant, something also required by the Act of uniformity (1662). Ministers were ejected from their parishes when the Act of Uniformity, which reintroduced the Book of Common Prayer, became law. The Test Act was passed in 1673. It was part of a parliamentary reaction to the suspension of the penalties of the Clarendon Code brought about by Charles’s declaration of indulgence of the previous year. The act required all office holders to take the sacrament annually.

Freedom of worship was granted by what became known as the Toleration Act in 1689, but the Test and Corporation Acts remained in force. This, and a Comprehension Bill, which failed despite royal support, left a situation of potential ambiguity.’ What in retrospect became part of the great Whig tale of the growth of liberty and progress, in which the toleration of religious dissent was a significant mark,

’ See also my ‘Popery, Politics, and Private Judgement in Early Hanoverian Britain’, HirforitalJiinmnl,

’ One of Beiijainiii Avery’s few published works was the preface to a reprint ofBenjaniin Hoadly’s T h c O/?jections A ~ p i m f f h c Repeal y f t k e Ciitporatiorr and Tr.sf Acts C m s i d p r e d : Beiticy an Ansuwr to a Pamphlct ititifled T h e Dispr~e Adjiristrd (2nd edn, 1739). Avery concluded the preface with a note that the reader ‘will be easily able to conjecture without my assistance’ the reasons for the reprint (p. iv).

“ F o r a concke account of the events surrounding the passing of the Toleration Act, ree M. A. Goldie, ‘John Lockz, Jonas Proast and Keligiow Toleration, 1688-1692’, in The Ckrrrrk of Enyland, c. 1689- ( . 1833, ed. John Walsh, Colin Haydon and Stephen Taylor (Cambridge. 1993), pp. 156-8.

XLV (2002), 333-56.

Corztedng the Test Ar t 61

was not nearly so straightforwardly progressive for those caught up in this transhistorical process. There was not one logc of toleration but several competing versions.

These differing logics were the properties of the various religious groups. It is important to remember them in order to niake sence of the positions adopted in the debates discussed subsequently. Advocates of the establishment contended that toleration ofworship was toleration enough. This was a concession, not a right. While this was granted, there was no sense that the continuance of civil disabilities was incompatible with thi5 view.”’ Indeed, given that office holding could be regarded as both a privilege and a burden, exclusion from it was not a disability. Religious tests existed to defend the state, of which the established church was an integral part.” The opposing view, advocated by dissenters in particular, resisted the notion that the egtablished church was properly part of the state. Rather, following Locke, they maintained that a church was a niere voluntary society.

This article emphasizes the evolution of arguments more than the practical coiise- quences of the Test and Corporation Acts. Some historians have argued that in reality the penalties were seldom as severe as the law demanded. This is probably true. The gap between legislative proscription and enforcement is a coninionplace of early modern legal history.” Yet, it is the interpretation of this gap that is at issue here. James Bradley has argued that because it required activism on the part of dissenters’ opponents to remove them from corporations, it was still possible to discover areas of dissenting political strength, even under the acts.’3

Jonathan Clark has used this argument as well. However, his aini is niore to undermine the legitimacy of the dissenters’ complaints, or, at the very least, to cast severe doubt on their effectiveness.14 His case will be contested on two grounds. The first is that the attempt to secure these rights was both important and legitimate. The second area of dispute is Clark’s claim that those who sought repeal did so on the grounds that anglican Christianity was ‘untrue’. This characterization may be applicable to later repeal campaigns, but is inappropriate for those of the early eighteenth century. Furtherniore the existence of a repeal argument not based solely on the denial of the legitimacy of the anglican church, as a doctrinal entity, casts doubt on the central heterodox/democratic thesis which lies at the heart of Clark’s Erglish Society.

Three contexts for attempts to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts after 1714 should be considered. The first was the tory attempts from 1710 to put further

I” For a discussion of Ulackstoiie and hir use of this sort of logic, see Jonathan Clark. Eti,qlis/i Soricfy, 1688- 1832 (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 204-9.

” See the discussion of the anglican positioii 111 the 1730s in Stephen Taylor, ‘Church nnd State in the Mid-Eighteenth Century: The Newcastle Years, 1742- 1762’, University of Cambridge t’h.L)., 1987, pp. 41 -65.

” S e e , for example, the essays in Atr Uipwnabk P q h . T i e Eri,qlish arid r/ic>iu h i > it! r/!c

”James E. Bradley, Rel(qioti, R r u o h f i u n , arid Eizylish Rdiralisrw (Cainbridge, 1 990), pp. 69-70, ’’ Clark, Eti&h Soriery, p. 352. An exaiiiination of the second editioii of Eiiylisli Soriery (Catiibridge.

2000) suggests that Clark may have modified his view5. The wction from which this referencc c.ornes has been rewritten (pp. 501 -5) and 11. 35 on p. 32, Clark writes ‘it I S sometimes argued that England cannot be viewed as a “confessional state” since the practical penalties suffered by Disrenterr were few, and their involvements in public life inany. This is to miss the Nonconfomiista’ essential point.’

E(qhfrutrth Chtirr ies , ed. John Brewer and John Styles (1 980).

6 2 Al ldWl l~ ~/ll l l l l~J~ll?f

pressure on dissent tlirougli the Occasional Confbrniity and the Schism Bills. The l‘itter was due t o come into force o n the day that Anne died. I~lissenters viewed her d e d i as .I work of providence b e c a w it had saved thein from the penalties of the Schism Uill. Ii Ilissenters expected niuch from George 1’s whig ministry. It was hoped that their loycilty t o the protestt”nt succession and the Whig cause would be justly rewa-ded, puticularly becausr of the torics’ recent actions. Indeed Wolfgang M i c l d cited ‘1 report fi-om the l’russian resident to London in 1719 in which Bonet, the resident, clainied that the dissenters had sent a deputation to Hanover, even before (;eorge’s succession, to alert him to their grievances. “I T h e second context for dissenting liopes of-repeal was the 1715 rebellion. This added to the feeling that attachment to the Haiioverians w a s deserving of inaterial benefits. Hence, historical memory provided gi-ounds for coinplaint but more recent loyalty apparent grounds for hope. Action was taken to repeal the Occasional Conformity and Schism Acts in parliaiiierit in the 171 8- 19 session. This rn as co-ordinated by John Shute, later Viscount Uarrington, himself an officeholding dissenter. l i However, in seeking to understand the involvenient of the publicists of- tlie Orcnsiorrnl Pnpcr, there is a third context to be recalled. Their involvenient, and particularly that of Moses Lowman, stemnied from the publication of a work by Thomas Sherlock.’x

Sherlock was h i ious ly involved in the controversy which followed Benjamin Hoadly’s sermon ‘My Kingdom is not of- this world.’“’ The 13aiigoriaii controversy questioned the received view on the relationship between church and state. The relevance of Ho~idly and the Bangorian controversy should become clearer once the arguments advmced by the dissenting propagandists are considered in detail. The best pldcc to begin discussion is the ~ r r a s i o r i o / P~w.’”

( :~r~tcs t i r /~q r k T w .4cr 63

The h u r t h issue of the Orcasiownl Pqiw for 1717 was entitled ‘ O f reinoving the incapacities of Protestant Disrenters.’” T h e piece justified the consideration of the issue on the basis of the important questions ofliberty which were a t stake.” This, it should be remenibered, was a position in itself. Opponents ofrepeal did not view it as a niatter where liberty was threatened. T h e paper aimed to illustrate the ilicgitiiiiacy of the acts in two ways. T h e first was through sho\ving that they had originated for purposes other than those on which they were being defended currently. The second was that their design was wrong in principle. Historical evidence was utilized to illustrate the first contention. T h e first earl of Shuftesbury’s support for the Test Act ‘proved’ that it niust have been directed against catholics, rather than dissenterc. It was assumed that, as a friend of dissenters, Shaftesbury would never have sought to harm them. The next part of the argument played the loyalty card. T h e attacks on dissent by tories, such as Uolingbroke, from 1703 onwards were viewed not simply as a series of attempts to defcnd the Church of England. Rather, thcy were designed to support the Pretender and popery by secret nieaiis. This a i m had been fully revealed in 17 15. Hence the conduct of the dissenters, in the fiice of provocation and persecution, was worthy of commendation and reward. T h e acts had bee11 origindly intended to guard against popery but they had been completely subverted and turned against the enemies of popery by its secret defenders in the tory party.”

The Onasicirinl P ~ ~ Y ’ s case for wrong designs w a s based upon a theoretical argunient supported by a number of practical contentions. T h e assuniption, which seemed to be embedded in the acts, that the Church of England was different from dissent and other protestant cornniunions was simply false.” Acconipanying this vicw were examples of the practical evils arising from this exclusion of dissenters froiii public office. Ilissenters could not act as justices of the p e ~ c e . ’ ~ N o r c-ould they help combat the catholic threat in Lancashirr. More generally, it was claimed that repeal would serve truly ‘catholick’ principles. It would promote virtue, by furthering the work already begun by societies for the reformation of manners. It would also bring honour on the Church of England, because it would no longer be associated with a persecuting spirit.”’ The paper attempted to redescribe the problem by placing all the emphasis on the need for a united protestant interest to ensure that no s ~ ~ c c o u r was offered to

This sort of tactic was deployed by these dissenting authors in a variety of contexts. Its directness made it particularly suitable for the medium of the periodical, with a clear enemy and a siniplc solution.

” Or’, 1717, 4, p. I . The quotation oil the fronti\pirce wa\ from Gilbert Uurnrt. ‘We ‘ire freed, I hope for wer , of ‘111 the Keiii i imts of the worst Part of Popery t h x we had retained, I iiieai the Ypirit of persecution. If thi\ give^ Unea\inr\\ to .Iny, i t \hew\ thdt their Eye is E \ d , b e c ~ ~ i r e the Eye o f our Lrgirlciturc 17 good towards Thorr , who tho’ they may be mistaken in their Notioiis, yet Ii‘ive \till the KightY of Men u id of Chri\tiems.’ Set Uurnet, ‘An Exhortation to I’ex-r . i t id Unlty’. i n 7 k 7 r r 5 (3 v o l ~ , I l r X Y ) , II. 22.

12 011, 17 17, 1, p. 3. 23 rhd , p. 8. ” ~ i i d . , p. 13. 2i /hi(/., pp. 14-16, ’‘I /hid. . pp. 18-21.

/hid., p. 29. ?7

64 Andrew Thompson

Four pieces in the Occasional Paper have been attributed to Moses Lowman - more than any other author.’x The piece on the rights of protestant dissenters could, plausibly, have been written by him. Part of the reason for suggesting this is that Lownian put his name to a response to Thomas Sherlock’s Vindication o f h e Test and Corporatiow Ac t s . Lowman’s tract was entitled A Dcfince qf the Protertant Dissenters, in Anstiwv to the Misrepresentations of Dr Slzerlock, i n his Vindication qf the Covporation and Test Arts - hardly the most original of titles but effective, iievertheless.

Lowrnan was annoyed that Sherlock had attacked dissent and thus drawn dissenters into the pamphlet war surrounding the Bangorian controversy. Sherlock, Lowman maintained, had ignored the key issue raised by Hoadly - the nature of the Kingdom. Hoadly’s use of reasoned argument contrasted strongly with Sherlock’s abuse and invective. This, of itself, indicated clearly which side was in the right.’9 Lowman’s defence of dissent countered the accusation, which Sherlock took from Strype’s biog- raphy of Whitgift,3” that the dissenters had always caused trouble in church and state.3’ The supposedly paradigniatic case of this was their behaviour during the civil war and interregnuni. Lownian denied that the dissenters’ behaviour in this period justified the Corporation Act. This distracted from the real issue. Dissenters’ civil rights had been illegitimately abrogated. Sherlock’s intention, it was feared, was to deprive the dissenters of the small liberties they currently enjoyed, allegedly to defend the Church of England. This was despite the fact that niodern dissenters were far more moderate than their seventeenth-century predecessors.32 Lownian also argued that the Corpo- ration Act w a s designed to defend the civil and not the ecclesiastical constitution.”

It is the categories employed, rather than the validity of the argument, that should be noted. Lownian denied that the civil and ecclesiastical constitutions were one and the same. Consequently he argued that if the continued existence of the acts was merely to protect the ‘Church in Danger’, then this was illegitimate, because the acts were intended to combat threats to the civil, not the ecclesiastical, constitution. The particularly anti-Catholic nature of the Test Act was seen as confirniation of this view (and it should be noted, evidence that the threat posed by popery was conceived in ‘political’, as well as religious, terms).34 The fear was that Sherlock was adopting a popish conception of the Church of England. He was denying its true ‘catholicity’ by arguing that other churches were not ‘true’ churches.35

In a second tract Lowman also defended occasiond conformity.”’ He rejected Sherlock’s argument that occasional conformity was equivalent to the doctrine

”See Thompwn, ‘Dissent and Old Whiggery’, p. 19 nn. 41-2. Moses Lownian, A D+rie i f t h c Protestant Disscntcrs, in Ansuwr ~ I I thu i2.1isr~prcscrrtafions cf Dr Sh~rlork,

Thomas Sherlock, A Virrdication q f t h e C ~ i r p r a t i o n arid Test A r t s (1718). p. 33. Lownian, D+we of the Pvotcstant Disseritcrs, p. 10. The accusation was a recurrent one for post-

2 0

itr his Vindicatiutz o f t k c Corpovatiorr and Tr.st A r t s (1718), pp. 3-6. 30

3 1

restoration dissenters. 32 Ihid., pp. 12-16.

l / l i l f . , p. 32. 3* [ / i d , p. 38. .” Ibid., p. 42. ”) The dissenting positions on this issue are discussed in Michael R. Watts, T h e Dimvifers . From thc

Kef;~rtnat im to the French Rcuoluriorr (Oxford, 1978), pp. 265-6, 482-5. Generally, Presbyterians were iiiore rynipdthetic towards the practice than independents.

33

Contestin? the Test Art 65

of mental reservation and eq~ivocation.~’ He argued that the Test remained an appropriate bar to Catholics, because they denied that any other church than Rome was a true one. However, it was ineffective for dissenters, because they could take communion within the Church of England, without any concomitant negation of prin~iple.~’ Lowman focused on four points. The first was that it was necessary to worship God in the way judged to be most agreeable to Him and that, secondly, the determination of this judgment had to be free from civil and ecclesiastical authority. Thirdly, the different religious societies were severally acceptable to God and that fourthly, it was possible to express charity towards brethren in other societies by sharing communion with them. Hence, although the dissenters regarded their own society as closest to God’s word, they were still prepared to share communion with the Church of England.39 Lowman utilized familiar Lockean arguments about the absolute necessity of worshipping God according to the dictates of conscience and the imperative nature of private judgment and the study of scripture in the determination of right

His next move, however, was more unusual. He used the 39 Articles to justify his position. Lowman invoked Gilbert Burnet’s authority to interpret article 22 as being about the potential errors of councils. The conclusion he drew from this was that imposing adiaphora as necessary t e r m of communion was very dangerous.4‘ Article 34 was used to justify a diversity of ceremonies. To reinforce this position he portrayed the practice of occasional conformity as a means by which dissenters could own the Church of England to be part of the universal church. He pointed to the conmiunion between the Church of England and other protestant churches abroad, as evidence that the treatment of dissenters was inconsistent. He then drew attention to the practice of the early church, which allowed conmiunion through a letter of introduction and, moreover, encompassed both jew and gentile.42 His final defence of occasional conformity was, however, more aggressive. What really needed to be proved was not whether occasional conformity was legitimate but on what authority the necessity of ‘consistent conformity’ within the Church of England was justified. This had yet to be proved, and, thus, private judgment remained in religious matters the ultimate arbiter.43

This analysis of arguments in the 1710s is far from exhaustive. However, as will become clear, a nuniber ofthese themes were also prominent in the 1730s. I t would appear that it was possible to construct an attack on the legitimacy of the acts, without resorting to the accusation that the Church of England was not a true church. Rather, dissenters were perfectly willing to accept that the Church of England was one of a number of true protestant churches. However, for them, the continuance of the

66 Atidvew Thornpsori

acts suggested that the Church of England had separated itself from true protestant notions. The Church of England was protestant but it was coming dangerously close to popish practice in not recognizing other true protestant churches, both at home and abroad. What needed to be redefined was not the existence of the Church of England, but its relationship to the state. It is this nuance that Clark’s argument lacks, in part because he listens predominantly to those voices that feared destruction and less to those supposed perpetrators of this heinous crime.

The debate in the 1730s followed similar lines. However, now it was Samuel Chandler, rather than Moses Lowman, who stepped forward to defend dissent. The initial salvo in this debate was fired, albeit anonymously, by Edmund Gibson, the bishop of London and Walpole’s chief ecclesiastical ‘fixer’.44 Gibson was responding to a dispute amongst dissenters about whether the end of the old parliament or the beginning of the new was the best time to try and achieve repeaL4j It is clear from a variety of sources that serious thought was given to attempting repeal of the acts in the 1732-3 ses s i~n .~”

Gibson argued, unsurprisingly, that the acts were designed to defend both the establishment and the constitution, with the Corporation Act being aimed at dissenters and the Test Act at catholic^.^' The practice of occasional conformity implied that the Church of England was a legitimate church (something Lowman did not deny). Earlier debates between Hoadly and Sherlock had turned primarily on the applicability of the sacramental test. Gibson argued that this had drawn attention away from the real issue of whether there should be any sort of test at all.lx He claimed that the test was the only way to exclude papists,49 but then turned his attention to the dissenters’ case for repeal. Dissenters claimed that the acts infringed their natural rights. In contrast, Gibson argued that society and government were ‘founded in an Abridgement of Natural Rights’.”’ Quite clearly, Gibson did not accept the premise that natural rights, of themselves, justified change. Instead Gibson thought that the simple existence of the status quo was self-justitj.ing. T o indicate the absurdity of arguments based upon natural rights, Gibson produced an example. If natural rights were properly applied, all property holders should be able to vote. That they were not, indicated that natural rights were useless and inapplicable.”

Gibson’s conclusions were twofold. He concentrated on the pragmatic argument that those, such as dissenters, who viewed the establishment as unlawful and sinful

’’ For Gibson see Norman Sykes, Eduiund Gibson, Bishop l ! fLot idot i (Oxford, 1926) arid Stephen Taylor, ‘Sir Kobert Walpole, the Church of England, and the Quakers Tithe Bill’, Hisforical Jiurrial, XXVIII (1985), 51-77. ’’ [Edniund Gibson], The Dispute Adjrufcd, About the Propcr Time cJfApplyirqjiw a Rqml ofrhc Corperafiotr

and 7 i s f Acfs: B y Shciritzy, flint NCJ T i w e is Propcr (1732), p. 5 . See, for example, H.M.C., @ y o n t Diary, I, 303-4 for comments on iiioves for repeal amongst

dissenters in December 1732. 47 rbid., p. 6 .

Ibid. , pp. 8-9. In 1736, the Old W71(q addressed three issues to Gibson on the subject of the wxamental test, claiming that his analysis in the Codex Jlrris was inconsistent with his attitude towards repeal. See OW, I, 41-3, passim.

“’ Gibson, The Dispute. Adjirsted, p. 10. ”’ [loid., p. 1 1 . ’’ [bid., p. 12.

Coritestirig the Test Act 67

ought to be excluded from it, because they would seek to destroy it ifallowed inside.52 Specifically such people viewed established religion as an unjustified usurpation of civil power. Gibson clearly thought otherwise. This illustrates the extent to which the Church of England and the state were viewed by anglicans as part of one necessarily linked establishment. This was underscored by Gibson's second conclusion. For him the real question was whether civil power could establish a national church. His answer to this question was in the affirmative. The question itself automatically excluded natural rights, ability to serve, and loyalty as relevant considerations, thus neatly bypassing the main thrust of dissenting argument.s3

Chandler's response to Gibson was not a direct answer but an attempt to change the parameters of the debate. Admittedly Chandler began by mentioning that the acts were designed to protect the establishment, although this, of itself, did not mean that they were either equitable or just. Rather the question was whether it was possible to square such an abuse of the sacrament with individual c o n ~ c i e n c e . ~ ~ Chandler did not avoid the issue of security, which he accepted the acts were designed to provide, but questioned the value that should be placed on security alone. The dishonour done to the church by such measures was a greater danger. Moreover, if such security was achieved by coercion, it was worthless. Indeed, such practices smacked of the inquisition." O n a historical point, Chandler, like Lowman before him, considered the position of seventeenth-century dissenters. He pointed to the role of the Presbyterians in securing the restoration as evidence of their attitude towards monarchy.s6 He denied the claim that dissenters wished to destroy the Church of England. To legitimate occasional conformity, he denied that they regarded receiving the sacrament within it as sinful." Rather the aim was for peaceable reform of the Church of England.s8 His view on the test itself was that it was ineffective. Those, such as deists, who were prepared to go against their conscience and take it would do so anyway, which would leave the Church of England less, rather than more, secure." By turning the sacrament into a qualification for civil ofice, its religious significance was cheapened.

Chandler denied that society was founded upon an abridgement of natural rights. It existed to protect liberty and property, as the right to the fruits of one's labour indicated. The real problem was that the test did not protect the church against the enemies of the state and unbelievers and, hence, little was done to protect Christianity

"The Old W'h& remarked that this argumetit did not hold water because the abolition ofthe Occasional Confornnty Act already allowed dissenters within the establirhnient and it had not been destroyed. See

ri son, T h e Dispute Adjusred, pp. 13-14. The arguments about loyalty and natural rights were nevertheless used by the Old M/?z(q in its support of the 1736 repeal campaign. See OW, I , 37, pp. 321-2, and 38, pp. 330-4. '' [Samuel Chandler], The Dispute Better Adjitrted, Ahout the Proper Time ofApplyiri,qj& a Repeal uf thr

Corporation and Test Acts. By Sheuhg tknr Sor~rc Time is Prup~r. I n a LCtter fo the Antkor ($the Dispirte adjirsted (1732), p. 5 .

ow, I, 40, p. 347. s3 C'b

" I b i d . , p. 6. " I b i d . , p. 7. j7 Zbid., p. 13. "Zbid., p. 16. '" Ibid., p. 21.

68 Andreti, Thompson

by it.6” Gibson, however, was more concerned to protect the Church of England than Christianity in general. Chandler claimed that the present constitution was not so perfect as to be above improvement and reform. The situation in Rome and Japan illustrated the evils that could arise from religious tests. Holland and Scotland, where office-holding was not conditional on certain religious opinions being espoused, were infinitely better.“

Chandler’s interest in repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts utilized some of the arguments that he had already used in his work on the history of the inquisition.62 The interrelatedness of these concerns was not lost on the contemporary audience. Indeed Chandler became involved in a pamphlet exchange with William Berriman on this matter.63 Berriman disagreed with a number of Chandler’s translations of patristic texts in his work on persecution. This was especially the case in his treatment of Athanasius and Arius, and on the question of the pre-existence of the son.h4 Berriman was keen to defend the reputation of Archbishop Laud. He also claimed that Chandler’s plain purpose was to defame all establishments under the cover of his attack on persecution. In reality, however, it was only the majority view that could promote establishment and its necessary accompaniment of decorum.6s

Chandler claimed in his response to Berriman that the allegation of a covert attack on the Church of England was ‘dubious’.66 He was also less than eager to concede that his characterization of Laud had been inaccurate. Indeed Laud had practised ‘persecution for conscience sake’ and so ‘was a papist in the worst sense of that

This was a theme to which Chandler returned in his second response to Berriman. When pressed on his description of ‘popery’ and its potential consequences, Chandler was unequivocal. Even Presbyterians who favoured persecution were ‘Papists in the worst sense of the word; because persecution is the distinguishing principle, and the grand support of Popery, and of infinitely worse consequence to mankind, than any whimsical notions about wafers, scraps of bone, and bits of wood’.68

If Chandler’s response to the debate over the Test and Corporation Acts exhibited particular subtlety, he was not alone in writing to defend the dissenting position. Samuel Wright’s treatise pointed to the hollowness ofthe Test Act as a decent security

‘I“ Ibid. , p. 29. The Old Wi<q argued that the oath of supreniacy was by far the most effectwe weapon

‘’ Chandler, The Dispute Better Adjnstcd, pp. 31-4. ‘I2 See Samuel Chandler’s Introduction to his translation of Philip Limborch, The History ofthe Iriquisifiow

h3 See D.N.B. , IV, 394-5 for Berriman.

against papists. See OW, I, 35, p. 310.

(2 vols, 1732).

William Berriman, Sonic BriCfReiwarks oil M r Chandler’s Irifroductim to the History ofthe Itiqirisition sofar as it Rdates to the Cairsc, qfArianisni , and the Two First Gerieral Gurncils: 6 7 which his Gross Misrepre.cerifation of Fact are Detected and Exposed. Together with a Short Rc$y to his Calumnies agairrst Arc/tbis/iup L a d (1733), p. 5 .

66 Samuel Chandler, An Arrswer fo the B r k f R c w a r k s c!f W i l l i a m Berriinari, D.D., Rector of St Aridrew’s I~irdershuj?, and Fellow ojEtorr Collqe: OIT M r Charidlcr’s Infrodi~rtiori to the History cfthr Iwqnisiriuri. It? a Lrffer to the said Doctor (2nd edn, 1733), p. 5.

h5 r id . , p. I.

‘” Ibid., p. 51. ‘IX Samuel Chandler, A Semrid Letter to U’illiani Berrinian, D.D., Rector c!f St Arrdrew’s Uvidershf i , awd

Fellow @on College. In which His Rrwieu, qf his Reriiarks o n the Iutrodnctiori to the History qf the Inqirisitiori is Comidered, arid the Characters gf St Athanusins arid Martyr Laud arej’fitrther Stated arid Sicpported (1733), p. 49.

Contesting the Test Act 69

for the Church of England, precisely because it only required a single taking of the sacrament.” Wright’s chief concern was that the Test Act provided no real security against papists. He claimed that the act was being maintained and supported by them to keep the protestant interest divided. If evidence were needed of the ‘security’ provided by the acts, it was only necessary to remember that the leaders of the 1715 rebellion were supposedly members of the Church of England and, yet, this had not stopped them supporting a popish prince, whose return would surely have endangered the Church 0fEng1and.~” Wright was keen to distance dissent from the excesses of the civil war. For him, all that was done for political purposes, under the pretence of religion, was ill done.” Indeed he could only observe, ‘that the Murderers of that Unfortunate King were men of different Principles from them who sollicit for the Repeal, and who have that tragical Act in equal Abhorrence with their n e i g h b ~ u r s ’ . ~ ~ Wright enipha- sized the trans-national context of protestantism in a different way by pointing to the Presbyterianism of foreign monarchs in Brandenburg, Sweden and Hes~en-Kassel.~~

These pamphlet exchanges appeared in 1733 and related more, or less, directly to talk about repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. The next point at which the question of repeal became a live political issue was in the 1735-6 session. At this point it is necessary to turn to the Old Whig. The arguments made in its pages in late 1735 and early 1736 mirror those made by this group of dissenters on previous occasion^.^^

In December 1735 the Old Whig printed an essay which argued, as Chandler has in 1733, that the real problem with popery was not that it was ‘wrong’. Rather it was the misuse of power, which it invariably entailed, that was the real Two issues later, a letter to the paper declared that as the topic of repeal was now part of common discourse, it was impossible for an old Whig to keep silent on the matter.76 Whilst accepting that some thought repeal would strengthen popery or damage the adminis- tration, the author claimed that this was an issue which would sort the sheep from the goats: it would prove whether the Whig in power was any better than a tory by allowing the Whigs to show that they believed in principles and not simply re ferment.^^

In the middle of January the Old W@q expressed its annoyance that ministerial writers such as Osborne were disputing the natural justice of the dissenters’ case for repeaL7’ The next issue considered who would be for and who would be against repeal. The rhetorical claim was made that all lovers of liberty and supporters of the administration should support repeal because it could only strengthen it. Indeed even

‘’) [Samuel Wright], The Church in Perils amotig False Brethren; or , The Dariger of the Church .from her Pretetided F r i e d hut Secret Enemies, Revieiu’d. 61 r v h i h 06jeccrions agaimt the Repeal qf the Sacrauienral- Tc.st5, arid h e A t p m e n t s j b r it, are Consider’d in their Religious arid Pulitiral Asperfs (1733), p. 5.

7” Ibid., p. 20. 71 Ihid., p. 21. 72 Ihid. , p. 23. 73 Ibid., p. 46. ’‘ There is an account of dissenting repeal campaigns in N.C. Hunt , Two Early Pulitiral Assuriations

(Oxford, 1961), pp. 130-52. ’j ow, I, 33, p. 290. 7h ow, I , 35, p. 308. 771bid., pp. 311-12. 7H OW, I, 37, p. 321 (22 Jan. 1736)

70 Andrew Thompson

anglican clergymen should welcome repeal because it would restore the purity of the Sacrament (echoes, again, of some of Chandler’s earlier claim^).'^ The Old Whig also devoted three issues to showing Bishop Gibson how his praise for the sanctity of the sacrament ought to mean that he was in favour of repeal as well.“) Given what we have seen already of Gibson’s attitude to repeal, the fact that he was singled out was hardly coincidental.

As things turned out, the 1736 campaign was no more successful than its prede- cessors, although there was at least a debate in the Commons on this occasion. After the parliamentary moves had failed, the Old Wik attributed the lack of success to a number of factors. O f course, jacobites and enemies of the establishment had opposed it. There had, however, been others: ‘The next sort of enemies are bigots and worldly hypocrites. I will not call them churchmen; they deserve not the name. Little sticklers for a l e p l faith and practice; or rather for the glories and incomes of a religious establishment.’ There were also the true politicians: ‘I mean those who plainly see and know the attempt to be right and just in itself; and yet oppose it, as hurtful to the publick peace, or the measures of the administration; or as ill-timed and out of season.’ Politicians included those who meant well but were simply mistaken, as well as those only concerned about place. Even though the latter knew what was right, the power of interest was too strong to convince them to act justly. Finally, there were those who were ignorant of the truth and simply unconcerned about either liberty or happiness.”

The case advanced against the Test and Corporation Acts involved a series of interlocking parts. For dissenters, abolition was the only course for true whigs. It was necessary to resist those ‘tories in the church and whigs in the state’ who disagreed.x2 The case for removing these acts relied upon a positive affirmation that dissent had moved away from the ‘rude, mechanick preachers’ and enthusiasm of the previous century. It also identified their continued retention with a covertly papist party within the Church of England. Even if not committed to the theological tenets of Catholicism, such people were, according to Chandler’s definition, still ‘papist’ because of their persecuting zeal. The reforms sought within the Church of England would have loosened its relationship with the state but, gven the rhetorical emphasis on the importance of protestant unity, it seems unlikely that a total destruction of that institution was intended. Rather, a redefinition of the relationship between church and state was desired. It was in this redefinition that the problem lay. While prepared to accept that toleration of worship was acceptable, anglicans argued that this was toleration enough. Civil rights, as such, did not enter the picture. Therein lay the difference of opinion. It was not so much a question of whether dissent should be tolerated, as how much and in what ways. For all the emphasis on protestant unity, it remained difficult to remind anglicans that true religion existed outside their parish churches.

”’ OW, I, 38, pp. 327-34. See also ihid., I , 40, passim. “’ Ibid., 41 -3, pnssim. ‘’ OW, I I , 52, pp. 23-7.

See OW, I, 35, p. 311, and 37, p. 323 for the arguments about true Whig principles. The phrase is taken from OW, I, 21, p. 180. For the ministerial response, see Simon Targett, ’Government and Ideology during the Age of the Whig Supremacy: The Political Argunieiit of Sir Robert Walpole’s Newspaper Propagandists’, HisturicalJourna(, XXXVII (19Y4), 313- 17.

82.