The great and popular objection against the repeal of the penal laws & tests briefly stated and consider'd, and which may serve for answer to several late pamphlets upon that subject / by a friend to liberty for liberties sake.

The great and popular objection against the repeal of the penal laws & tests briefly stated and consider'd, and which may serve for answer to several late pamphlets upon that subject / by a friend to liberty for liberties sake.

Table of contents

Title page

THE Great and Popular OBJECTION Againſt the Repeal of the Penal Laws & Teſts, &c.

THE Great and Popular OBJECTION Againſt the Repeal of the Penal Laws & Teſts, &c.

[Page]

IF the Conſequences that are imagin'd to follow the Repeal of the Penal Statutes and Teſts (and which ſo many give for the reaſon of their diſlike to the Liberty that is ſought by it) were indeed ſo Terrible as they are induſtriouſly repreſented, I ſhould readily fall in with the common Jealouſie, and help to augment the number of thoſe that are for their Continuance; but when I conſider how long our Government was Happy without Them, how much of Heat and Partialty prevail'd in their Conſtitution, and how troubleſome and impracticable their Execution are, and that, in our preſent [Page] Circumſtances, They appear a plain Barriere to our Happineſs, inſtead of a Bulwark to our Religion, I cannot but lament the misfortune of the Publick, that thoſe Gentlemen are yet under the fatal miſtake of thinking Them neceſſary to our Safety, that with more Reaſon and Charity, in my opinion, ſhould Endeavour to ſave us from the Inconveniences of them.

For the Queſtion being gain'd againſt Coertion in Religion, and the impiety & impolicy of Perſecution, agreed on all hands, all that is ſaid by the moſt averſe to the extent of the Repeal deſired, iſſues here, If the Papiſts ſhould happen to have Power or Eaſe, they are ſure to uſe it to the prejudice of the reſt, and therefore it is the Intereſt of the reſt to oppoſe all their attempts to get it. The Conſequence of which is this, It were better the Power of Perſecution reſted where it is, then to come into hands that would uſe it more Rigorouſly. I ſay, All Arts and Rhetorical Declamations ſet aſide, This is the Center and Subſtance of all that's ſaid, by Any Body, againſt the Repeal of the Penal Laws, and more eſpecially the Teſts: And to this I would modeſtly offer what follows.

I can by no means imagin there ſhould be ſo [Page] much Danger where there is ſo little Truſt: indeed none: And where one does not Truſt one cannot be Deceived: Now there is no Truſt, where there is a Law that puts all Parties out of the Power of one another: For therefore is a Law deſired, that the hazard of Truſting may be out of Doors. And as this Law may be fram'd, I humbly conceive, it will not be impoſſible to ſecure every Party from the bigottry of the reſt, elſe, I muſt acknowledge, nothing will ſave us from the miſchief of Relapſes. And whatever may be ſaid againſt a Legal Security now, is as ſtrong and reaſonable againſt the hopes of any, whoever has the Chair: For Ambition, we ſee, is but too apt to creep into all Parties, and worldly Dominion has been an old and powerful Baite: If Law cannot ſecure us againſt it, we ſhall ever be to ſeek for the aſſurance we deſire in this World. It will yet be ſaid, That the beſt Law Men can make, is nothing without Execution, and That being in the Power of Thoſe whoſe Principles or Intereſts may lead them to Evade or Perver it, the Inſecurity is the ſame; yet with their leave that think ſo, it is one thing to diſpence with a Pe [...] Law againſt a thing, not evil in it ſelf, and [Page] another to violate a Law of common Right and Safety, which is evil in it ſelf; for this were both to Repeal and Make Laws without a Parliament, which the Judges of no Raign have ever attempted to deliver for Law.

If the Law propos'd, Repeal Penal Laws for Religion (and ſurely 'tis propos'd for that end) the Prince of himſelf cannot Enact a Penal Law to burt any body, whatever be his Religion, and we are ſo far ſafe from the Miſcheif of Perſecution, tho our ſecurity went no farther. But that we ſhould be leſs ſafe, becauſe the King, we ſo much Fear, is ready to Conſent to a GREAT CHARTER for Liberty of Conſcience, by which, it ſhall be Declared the RIGHT of Mankind to make a free and open choice and profeſſion of Faith and Worſhip towards GOD, and that any Conſtraint or Interruption upon that Freedom, is Impiety, and an Evil in it ſelf, and that Law, therefore Indiſpenfible, Is, I muſt confeſs, a Notion very Extraordinary. However, It is not hard to Execute a Law, when it is beſt Executed by doing nothing, for letting men alone compli [...] beſt with ſuch an One, and the Common Law ſecures [Page] them, as well as this, from thoſe that meddle with them.

I know it is further Objected, that tho this were done, it would not reſt here, A Parliament might quickly be Packt to over-throw this Eſtabliſhment, and then we ſhould be all ruin'd; for we ſhould not only have Laws of the ſevereſt Nature, but force to execute them. But as Grave as the Objection looks, permit me to ſay, there is more of Art then Truth or Force in it: For don't we ſee that Wagers are every where laying by the preſent Enemies of Liberty, That the King can't, even with the help of his Diſſenters, get a Parliament that will Repeal the Penal Laws and Teſts, and yet that they ſhould pretend to fear he may get One to Repeal Liberty of Conſcience, and Enact the Bloodieſt Laws in lieu of it (to which to be ſure the Diſſenters will never aſſiſt) is a contradiction, like that of Magnifying the Prerogative, and Rayling at the Declaration, Crying down Common Wealths Men, and Oppoſing the Monarchy conſtantly with their Arguments; Fighting againſt the diſtinction of the Natural and Political Capacity of the King, and making it every day to ſerve their own turn, [Page] and upon the worſt terms too, Perſecution, I mean. But waving the Humour, let us examine the Fear: In my opinion 'tis Groundleſs; for ſince their Maſter-piece, the Letter to a Diſſenter tells us, that there can be no danger of the Bet, where the Odds are ſo great as Two Hundred to One, we muſt conclude that Objection is of no weight againſt our Liberty: For Number being the Natural Power of a Kingdom, the Artificial (which is the Executive part of the Government) muſt needs move heavily and dangerouſly when it works againſt it.

But if a Law be no ſecurity, becauſe of the fear of a Packt Parliament, and Force to back it, what ſecurity, after all, can the Penal Statutes and Teſts be? are they any more then Law? If it be ſaid, they caution and awe the Roman Catholicks. I ſay the Uiolation of a Great Charter for Liberty of Conſcience will do it much more, becauſe the Penalty may be Greater, and better fixt and applyed. And ſince we only fear the Repeal of the One by a Packt Parliament, as well as the Other, the Authority which aboliſhes either, is equally Invalid, and therefore the Caution and Fear of Violating the one, muſt needs [Page] be as Great as of Overthrowing the other.

This would be leſs difficult to us to apprehend, If we made the equal Reflections that become our preſent Condition. We look on France till we frighten our ſelves from the beſt means of our worldly Happineſs, but will not look at home upon greater Cruelties, if we conſider Theirs were exerciſed againſt thoſe of another Religion, but Ours upon the People of our own; tho when we obſerve their Conduct elſewhere, it is eaſie to ſee, it muſt have ſomething very particular in it. But at the ſame time we will take no notice of the greateſt Tranquility in Germany and Switzerland under a compleat Liberty.

Is this any thing but the Fruit of Law, The Agreement of Princes and States, The Great Charter of thoſe Countries inviolably kept theſe forty years, The Thing his Majeſty, with ſo much Zeal and Goodneſs preſſes to eſtabliſh in his Dominions? Why then may not that be done here that has been ſo happily acted elſewhere? Are our Papiſts and Proteſtants worſe here then there? Or are our Differences greater? Or are our Numbers more dangerouſly unequal, [Page] that we dare not truſt a Law that others in our very Circumſtances are ſo happy under? They don't only endure one anothers Religion, but take their Turns the ſame Days in the ſame Churches or Places for Divine Worſhip; and will not the ſame Kingdom ſerve us? we muſt then have the worſt of Natures, or be the worſe for our Religion. And tho many good reaſons have been given, and may be elſewhere in evidence of this Notion, I will venture to offer a few at this time that never ſaw Light yet, that I know of, and which may happen to give ſome, to thoſe that labour under the disbelief of it.

I ſay then, a GREAT CHARTER for Liberty of Conſcience, to be made and kept, is not only the true Intereſt of the Roman Catholicks, but they think ſo, becauſe they muſt think ſo: For if the Deſtruction of Proteſtancy, by a way of Violence, had been their Project, as much as it is our Fear, they had but one way in the World to have brought it to paſs, and that was, to have made the utmoſt uſe of the Church of Englands Penal Laws, which they found ready to their Hands, for the Deſtruction of the Proteſtant [Page] Diſſenters, and to which ſhe could not refuſe her aſſiſtance, upon her principles of Obedience, if there were no Inclination left in her to that Fierce and Inhumane chaſe. By this, one Party of Proteſtants, had been eaſily made the Means of the others Extirpation, and how far Pleaſures, Honours, Offices and Fear would have gone to have made an entire Conqueſt, eaſie upon her, is not the hardeſt thing in the World to apprehend, when the Bodies of her Diſſenters had been thus cruelly diſſolved by her. And if this have any ſenſe in it, we muſt conclude, that delivering one Party of Proteſtants from the Rage and Power of the other, cannot be a way to bring in Popery. I own, it may affect the preſent Eccleſiaſtical Policy of the Church of England, but I never took that for Proteſtancy: On the contrary, it has evidently weaken'd the better part of the Proteſtant Intereſt in General, in theſe Kingdoms, ever ſince the Reformation. But beſides this, 'tis one thing to Conſtrain a Law from the Prince, and another to have it offer'd by the Prince: The one, to be ſure, he thinks againſt his Intereſt, and the other he takes to be as certainly for it. And if he thinks it is [Page] his Intereſt to preſerve ſuch a Law, we are ſure of our Safety by it. That which moves him to it, muſt oblige him to maintain it; and if he does not heartily intend to ſupport this Liberty, his giving it, muſt needs increaſe the Power and Intereſt he would ſuppreſs: An Error too groſs to be made with ſo much Preparation and Art. Nor is this all, in my opinion it is much more reaſonable to believe that a Law for Liberty of Conſcience ſhould preſerve us againſt the thing we apprehend ſo much, viz. Popery, becauſe 'tis eaſier to fall from one Extream to another, then from a Mean to an Extream: And 'tis certain, there are more Parties concern'd to ſupport ſuch a Law for Liberty, then to maintain thoſe of Severity; for the Church of England only appears to uphold theſe, but all Parties beſides agree to maintain That. And if it was the Intereſt of the Roman Catholicks to divide the Diſſenters from the Church of England, to be ſure they cannot think it ſafe to unite Them: They have divided Them by the Liberty, But any attempts to take it away will infallibly joyn them. And when I conſider how much more the Roman Catholicks will in all [Page] probability want Liberty in after Raigns, then the Diſſenters in this, I am alſo led to Conclude, that they are not ſo ſecure in the Repeal of the Penal Laws and Teſts themſelves, as in their own Moderation in the uſe of the Liberty that follows: For a Parliament in after Raigns may eaſily return them, and worſe, if that can be, and will certainly do it, if they uſe their preſent opportunity too Eagrely and Partially; but no Parliament will ever think ſo harſh a Conſtitution fit to be reviv'd, when the Moderation of the Gentlemen againſt whom it was made, hath prov'd it Uſeleſs, Unreaſonable and Unſafe. This conſideration is a reciprocal Caution to Us, not to refuſe them the Rights of Engliſh Men, and to Them, not to miſ-uſe them. And ſince hitherto we ſeem not ſo angry at the Liberty, as at the Manner of its being granted; if we are ſincere in this, we cannot refuſe the King in our own way, I mean, by Law. And in my Opinion, 'tis a point gain'd, not to have this eaſe Precarious from the Crown, as well as that it ſhews the Kings ſincerity beyond a doubt, that he is Solicitous to aſſure ſo great a Good to us in our own method.

[Page] Let it not then be thought a Crime, that he does ſo, or that he takes the next and plaineſt ways to diſcriminate Perſons for that end; for if the Conſequence of his Endeavours were to ruin others for a Party, it might be thought Packing indeed; but when it is to open Encloſures and Level Intereſts, and by Law, to ſecure Them from the Ambition of one another, it ſeems to me to be Unpacking for the Good of the Whole, that which hath been ſo long Packt for the ſole Good of a Party. And truly if we will yet ſcruple the Sincerity of the Prince, I know not an eaſier and better way to aſſure our ſelves, then by chuſing ſuch Perſons to ſerve in Parliament, whoſe Love and Sincerity for this Liberty we have the greateſt Confidence in; For as that will certainly help to facilitate the Work, ſo where two Parties ſeem to conſpire one end, nothing diſcovers the Inſincerity of one ſide, like the Truth and Integrity of the other in perſuing it. Let us not then diſlike Liberty in the Kings way, and refuſe it in our own, becauſe he would make it his; for that would juſtly queſtion our Truth and Charity, without which, our pretence of Religion or Safety is vain.

[Page] We have heard it ſaid, that the Perſecution of the laſt Raign came from the Papiſts, and therefore we cannot expect they ſhould be ſincere for Liberty in this; but if that were true, (tho it could not be the Roman Catholicks that forc'd the late King to cancel his Declaration for Liberty, or that couzn'd the Diſſenters of a Law for it) yet there is this uſe to be made of the Trick, that now the Roman Catholicks are for Liberty, the Church of England cannot, with any credit, be againſt it.

On the contrary, it ſhows, if they did Move thoſe Storms of Perſecution, it was to conſtrain the Diſſenters to joyn with them in the Repeal of the Laws that rais'd Them, that ſo they might be allow'd to ſhare in the Calm: People are moſt apt to ſee the Neceſſity and Benefit of Liberty by the want of it.

It is a Misfortune to be lamented, the Church of England ſhould always be againſt Liberty, when the Court is for it, becauſe the Court, in her opinion, is not Sincere; when at the ſame time, ſhe knows, it is at no time to be had without them: A way for poor Diſſenters, never to hope for ſuch a thing as Liberty of Conſcience at her hands: For without offering any Violence to [Page] the rules of Charity, ſhe ſeems to excuſe her unwillingneſs by their Inſincerity. But with her favour, They muſt be ſincere when their Intereſt will have them ſo. And tho it is Imagin'd the Diſſenter has no other bottom for his Confidence and Conjunction then the Roman Catholicks Faith and Truth, 'tis too mean an Inſinuation againſt his underſtanding, that I aſſure that Author is yet Good and Jealous enough, not to depend upon either the Councel of Trent, or the Thirty Nine Articles for his ſafety. By no means; thoſe Spiritual Mortgages, Folks give of their Souls, are too uncertain ſecurities about worldly Matters, unleſs Men had, at leaſt, a better Practice. Nothing, humanely ſpeaking, fixes any Man like his Intereſt; And tho this Agreement were only Hobſon's choice in Roman Catholick and Diſſenter, the ſecurity is not the leſs: For what-ever be the Morality of any Party, if I am ſure of them by the ſide of Intereſt and Neceſſity, I will never ſeek or value an Enſurance by Oaths and Teſts. Intereſt is the choice Men Naturally make, and Neceſſity compels Submiſſion from the unhappy Subjects of her Power.

And tho ſome do Inſinuate that better terms [Page] are to be hop'd from the Church of England hereafter, then now from the Roman Catholicks, I take leave to ſay, that it is an unwarrantable uſe of Providence, for them to neglect the preſent Certain Overtures (tho they were the effects of Neceſſity) out of hopes the Church of England will uſe them better, when ſhe has Power, not to do it, and not to care: when all Parties ſhow their abuſe of Power in their turns, 'tis reaſon enough to embrace the Benefit of Neceſſity from the firſt that offers: And nothing elſe, I fear, moves the Church of England to promiſe; And if ſo great a number may lie under ſuch a Neceſſity, a leſs number cannot but be under a greater, and that I take to be the Roman Catholicks Caſe, and our Aſſurance.

If the Church of England could ſecure the Diſſenters without that compliance ſhe fears, 'twere ſomething, if not, they are under an equal neceſſity to accept what the Roman Catholiks are under to offer: And for this reaſon, I cannot but think her joyning in the Liberty more reaſonable, then their refuſing it for her ſake. If ſhe affects an Union, why ſhould ſhe uphold the Means of Diviſion? Ought not the Diſſenters to [Page] ſuſpect her Integrity, in refuſing a good Underſtanding, in the very way that muſt ſave thoſe ſhe would gain? And ſince ſhe is ſure They won't turn Papiſts, how does ſhe loſe Them in that way, in which ſhe can only pretend to have Them, viz. as Proteſtants; for otherwiſe they will as little conform to her. And if the Price of her Good Will muſt be to uphold the Brand of her Conduct, and Means of their own Ruin, It is what they can never give, and ſhe in Conſcience and Wiſdom ſhould never ask.

And what ever is ſuggeſted, it is too unwarily thought of any, that the Diſſenters intend only their ſecurity againſt the Power of the Church of England, 'tis againſt the Spirit of Perſecution in all Churches, they muſt all ſeek to be ſafe; that, which ſo ever of them happens to have the Government, the Reſt may be ſecure under it; Elſe, 'tis but ſhutting one Door againſt an Evil, and opening another to let it in. If ſhe will pleaſe but to tell me what way ſhe can ſecure the Diſſenters againſt her own Ambition, when one of her Communion Aſcends the Throne, I will undertake to tell her, how ſhe and the Diſſenters may be ſafe [Page] from the Danger of Popery in the Raign of a King of that Religion. For the Spirit of Perſecution being the ſame every where, it muſt have the ſame Remedy. She can't think we ought to Truſt Her, That won't Truſt, and That makes Truſting Dangerous.

And what-ever the Gentlemen of her Communion are pleas'd to ſuggeſt of the preſent good underſtanding, between the Roman Catholicks and Diſſenters, to blow their Intereſt with the People, Men muſt be greatly Impos'd upon, to Imagine the preſent Affinity between them, can regard any thing but their common Safety; and common Danger makes that every where, reaſonable and neceſſary. If this were not the caſe, I ſhould hold my ſelf concern'd to act another Part in this affair; And if this be the caſe, it plainly anſwers all the Jealouſie and Objection of the Times: For 'tis as lawful for them to joyn in this as in any Society of Trade, and more requiſite. I ſay, It can be no juſt Reflection from the Church of England, when they muſt be ill read, that don't know, that ſhe is the Halfway Houſe between the two Diſſenters, and [Page] that the Proteſtant Diſſenter is a refine upon her, as ſhe is upon the Church of Rome. So that tho it be true that they joyn with the Papiſts, it is as true that it is not with Popery, but for Liberty, which the ſame Author tells us, is ſuch a contradiction to Infallibility, which is his dangerous Popery: Tho I muſt tell him, I think it a greater to Perſecute People upon a profeſſed fallible Principle. Let it ſatisfie that Gentleman and his Followers, whoſe main drift, is Rallying Diſſenters for relying on Romiſh Faith for ſecurity, that tho They joyn with Roman Catholicks to get Liberty, They will truſt them, and every body elſe, as little as they can to keep it, and leſs joyn with them to take it away. On the contrary, in caſe of ſuch attempts, 'tis reaſonable to believe they will ſooner unite with the Church of England to Preſerve, what they now ſo freely oppoſe Her to obtain. But it may be ſaid, It will then be too late, and therefore now too dangerous, to give that Intereſt, in the mean while, ſo much Play and Progreſs. This were an Hazard indeed, if the Roman Catholicks could do any thing then, that they cannot do now, or if the Diſſenters were to be leſs Numerous, leſs [Page] Senſible, or leſs Free and Able to reſent it. I cannot ſee how the Roman Catholicks can be in a better Cordition to Hurt us, if the Diſſenters are not in a worſe to Help us. Certainly their numbers muſt have the odds.

On the other hand, the Diſſenters, under Perſecution, can do nothing, and while the Liberty is Precarious they dare do nothing; ſo that the way to render them uſeful to oppoſe the Violence fear'd, is to make their Intereſt in the Liberty Legal, as well as that a Legal Freedom is the beſt way to prevent all violent attempts in the Roman Catholicks. For when the Law ſupports their Joynt Intereſt, that will naturally joyn and lead Them to maintain the Law that defends it. I ſhall be heartily ſorry if the Church of England cannot tell how to venture her ſelf with thoſe under Liberty, who have liv'd ſo well with her under her Perſecution: Tho, as I have ſaid before, there is no Truſt in the caſe, ſince, therefore, a Law is deſired, that we may not rely on ſo frail a Security: And where a Law puts all Parties upon one Bottom, I cannot help thinking all Parties are oblig'd in Example and Intereſt carefully to preſerve it. And if we would but reflect [Page] how much more Law in all Ages hath preſerv'd Mankind then Force, we would leſs argue the Inſecurity of Law; but 'tis utterly Inconſiſtant at a time, when we plead the Almightineſs of preſent Laws for our Safety.

In ſhort, If ſhe only ſeeks to be Safe, let her not refuſe the Security that Others are ready to take, and if ſhe deſires more, 'tis an unhappy Inſtance of her love to Dominion, and they can never be ſafe that Grant it. Let her not then be Fond but Wiſe; and remember, that the Security is not deſtroy'd, but Chang'd and Enlarg'd: For from a Single, it becomes more then a Double Bond, and They that reject ſuch a Security, cannot be thought ſincere in asking of any. But, be that as it will, If we can but once ſee A MAGNA CHARTA for Liberty of Conſcience, Eſtabliſh'd in theſe Kingdoms by the wiſdom of a Parliament, They will be very Hardy, indeed, who Dare, at any time, Attempt to Shake It, That has the Jealouſie, Union and Reſolution of ſo many Great, Serious and Wealthy Intereſts to ſupport It.

I will not ſay, what this Charter ſhall be, for it does not become me, nor is it yet time; but I [Page] dare ſay, that it may be, and in ſuch terms too, as all Parties ſhall find their Account: And unleſs that be the Reaſon why any will oppoſe it, It can neither miſs to be, nor to be kept; and if ſuch a Diſſenter be to be found to this common Good, his oppoſition makes him a Common Enemy. I ſay, nothing can oppoſe ſuch a Charter, but State Religion, and that which can Govern the reſt, will Hazard the reſt. A National Religion by Law, where it is not ſo by Number and Inclination, is a National Nuſance; for it will ever be matter of Strife. If ſhe ſeeks to be Safe, but not to Rule, that which preſerves the reſt, ſecures her; If more is expected, 'tis leſs reaſonable, in my opinion, for the Reſt to Sacrifice their Safety to her Authority, then only to ſubject her Rule to their Security.

FINIS.

§

[Page]

[Page]

THE Great and Popular OBJECTION Againſt the Repeal of the Penal Laws & Teſts BRIEFLY Stated and Conſider'd, AND WHICH May ſerve for Anſwer to ſeveral late PAMPHLETS upon that Subject.

By a Friend to Liberty for Liberties ſake

Licenſed February the 4th 1687.

LONDON, Printed, and Sold, by Andrew Sowle, at the Three-Keys, in Nags-Head-Court, in Grace-Church-Street, overagainſt the Conduit, 1688.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

The great and popular objection against the repeal of the penal laws & tests briefly stated and consider'd, and which may serve for answer to several late pamphlets upon that subject / by a friend to liberty for liberties sake.

Penn, William, 1644-1718.

Edition statement

1688

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A70777

ID [STC]

Wing P1298A

ID [STC]

ESTC R12742

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12254672

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12254672

ID [VID]

57321

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A70777)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 57321)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 364:6 or 1510:16)

Source

— The great and popular objection against the repeal of the penal laws & tests briefly stated and consider'd, and which may serve for answer to several late pamphlets upon that subject / by a friend to liberty for liberties sake., Penn, William, 1644-1718..

Extent

23 p.

Printed and sold by Andrew Sowle ...,. London :: 1688.. (Attributed to Penn. Cf. Wing; NUC pre-1956.) ("Licensed February the 4th 1687") (Reproduction of original in the Harvard University Library and University of Michigan Libraries.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.