Viewing page 50 of 285

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

88*] ANNUAL REGISTER

[[2 Columns]]

bosom of the established church; that instead of weakening it, this would be a means of giving it such a firmness of strength as nothing could shake; and that the church of England could never be in any danger, while the hierarchy and bishops existed.
 The great majority that rejected this petition, founded their opposition upon different grounds and principles. The high church gentlemen, considered it as little less than blasphemy, to propose and innovation in the xxxix articles. They said it would give a mortal wound to the church of England; that the church and state were so intimately united, that one could not perish without the other; that this petition was levelled directly against christianity, and that the next would be for annulling the liturgy. they called to mind the destruction of church and state in the last century, which they charged upon the sectaries; represented the conduct and views of the petitioners as avaricious and hypocritical; and inferred from the licentiousness of some writings which had appeared on that side of the question, that they denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of our Saviour. They said that parliament could not grant any relief to those who had already subscribed, as they had no power to vacate oaths; and that for those who were not yet beneficed, and who wanted to seize on the emoluments of the church, without believing in her tenets, or complying with her laws, they were not at all to be listened to, as from every principle of reason and justice they should be excluded from her for ever. They further contended, that it was not in the King's power to comply with their petition, as he was bound by oath to preserve the established church; and that a compliance with it, would be a breach of the articles of union, as it was engaged by them, that the church governments both of England and Scotland, should for ever continue as they then were. 
 Many other gentlemen, who were more moderate in their temper or principles, though totally averse to a compliance with the terms of the petition, or to the reviving of polemical disputes, by even making its controversial points a subject of discussion, were notwithstanding inclined to treat it with lenity and respect; and some were disposed to its being brought up to the table, and let to lie over till the end of the session; while others were for applying to the King, that he might appoint a committee of the clergy to consider it. Upon the same principle, they vindicated the petitioners from the heavy imputations that had been laid upon them, and shewed several of them to be men of the most irreproachable characters. They also set those right who had been of opinion, that the legislature had no superintending controul over the articles of the union; they not only shewed, that a supreme controuling power was inherent in every legislature; but pointed out two particular instances in which it had been exerted since the Union, and which affected both the English and Scotch churches; the first of these was the act against occasional conformity, and the latter, that which destroyed elective patronages.
 But though some of these gentlemen, declared themselves friends to toleration and to religious liberty, in

For the YEAR 1772.   [*89

[[2 Columns]]

in the most liberal and extensive sense, that could be compatible with the public tranquility, and the good of the community, they notwithstanding objected to the principles of the petition. They insisted, that all governments had a right to constitute the several orders of their subjects as they pleased; that the priesthood, in this instance, stood in the same predicament with the others; that it was necessary that those who were appointed to be the public teachers and instructors of the people, should be bound by some certain principles from which they were not to deviate; that to prevent the disorder and confusion incident to so great a number, it was also necessary, that some public symbol should be established, to which they should all assent, as a mark of their conformity and union; that a simple assent to the scriptures, would in this case be of no signification, as every day's experience shewed, that no two would agree in their general construction of them, and that it was too well known, that the greatest absurdities, and even blasphemies, had at different times been attempted, to have been supported or defended upon their authority. It was also said, that so far as subscription related to the clergy, who were those principally concerned, it could not be considered that they suffered any injustice, as they were under no necessity of accepting benefices contrary to their conscience, and if their scruples arose afterwards, they had it always in their power to quite them; and that every man now, according to the prayer of the petition, was at liberty to interpret the scriptures for his own private use; but that his being authorized to do so for others, contrary to their inclination, was a matter of a very different nature.
 Many gentlemen, who did not think the difference of opinion with respect to the articles, a matter simply in itself of any great consequence, opposed the motion, merely, because they would not give any opportunity of increasing our civil dissentions, by lighting up the more dangerous flames of religious controversy. The house in general seemed to be of opinion, that the professors of law and physic being bound in matter of subscription, was a matter of little concern to the public, and it seemed to be wished that the universities would grant them relief in that respect, as well as to the young students at the time of matriculation. The gentlemen in opposition were divided upon this question; many of them supported it, and others were now seen, upon the same side with administration, and with a great majority; two situations which were not often presented. The numbers were upon the division, 71 for, and 217 against the motion.
 A motion was soon after made for leave to bring in a bill, to quiet the possessions of the subject against dormant claims of the church. [["Feb. 17th." wrapped within the text]] Many arguments were brought upon this occasion, to shew that a limitation of this nature was as necessary with respect to the church, as it had been in regard to the crown; and that there was no more reason why the people should be disturbed in their possessions under the plea of immemorial time of the one, than under the Nullum Tempus power of the other. That the church now stood single, acting against the lay subjects