ty: that conforming and
non-conforming were contradictions; for nothing but a firm persuasion
that the terms of communion required are sinful and unlawful, could
justify the one; and this plainly condemns the other. The members
who opposed the bill argued, that the dissenters were generally well
affected to the present constitution: that to bring any real hardship
upon them, or give rise to jealousies and fears at stich a juncture,
might be attended with dangerous consequences; that the toleration had
greatly contributed to the security and reputation of the church, and
plainly proved that liberty of conscience and gentle measures were the
most effectual means for increasing the votaries of the church, and
diminishing the number of dissenters: that the dissenters could not be
termed schismatics without bringing a heavy charge upon the church of
England, which had not only tolerated such schism, but even allowed
communion with the reformed churches abroad: that the penalties of this
bill were more severe than those which the laws imposed on papists,
for assisting at the most solemn act of their religion: in a word, that
toleration and tenderness had been always productive of peace and union,
whereas persecution had never failed to excite disorder and extend
superstition. Many alterations and mitigations were proposed, without
effect. In the course of the debate, the dissenters were mentioned and
reviled with great acrimony; and the bill passed the lower house by
virtue of a considerable majority.

The lords, apprehensive that the commons would tack it to some
money-bill, voted, that the annexing any clause to a money-bill was
contrary to the constitution of the English government, and the usage of
parliament. The bill met with a very warm opposition in the upper house,
where a considerable portion of the whig interest still remained.
These members believed that the intention of the bill was to model
corporations, so as to eject all those who would not vote in elections
for the tories. Some imagined this was a preparatory step towards a
repeal of the toleration; and others concluded that the promoters of the
bill designed to raise such disturbances at home as would discourage the
allies abroad, and render the prosecution of the war impracticable.
The majority of the bishops, and among these Burnet of Sarum, objected
against it on the principles of moderation, and from motives of
conscience. Nevertheless, as the court supp