Viewing page 55 of 285
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
98*] ANNUAL REGISTER [[2 Columns]] they would undoubtedly taken the alarm upon this occasion, and, as a superior body, claim a prior regard from the legislature. That this bill, instead of being entitled An Act for relief, &c. should have borne its true name, and should have been entitled, An Act for the encouragement of Presbyterianism, and for weakening and destroying the church of England; that thus it became dangerous to the state in a double degree; by reviving animosities, which were almost worn out, between the body of the people and the Dissenters, and by the establishment of a republican religion, which had been at all times the sworn foe to monarchy. It was said besides, that the penal laws were only held in terrorem, and were rarely enforced; and that this lenity in the executive powers made the proposed regulations totally unnecessary; why then is an application of this nature made, and people's thoughts directed to matters that were buried in oblivion, when there is no grievance existing on which to found a complaint? They admit themselves, that very few of them have subscribed to the articles, yet they live in all ease and security: it is well known, that, moderate as they are, very few of them comply with the other terms of the act of toleration, or will give themselves the trouble of attending the quarter-sessions, to take the oaths, and make the declaration against Popery; why then, in this time of general relaxation of the laws, and of undisturbed possession to every man in his opinions, let them be what they may, why, in the ease and wantonness of their hearts, do they interrupt this harmony that was growing up between the Church and the Dissenters? why not rest contended in the general connivance, without troubling the Legislature to justify their neglects and omissions, and to authorize their breach of one law by the passing of another? they first break the law, and then, not content with impunity, must have a dispensation for so doing. It was said, that the Dissenters had complained of no grievance, nor brought no petition; that they were going to redress grievances, of whose existence they had no proof; that they had no proof; that they had not, as they ought, excepted against any particular articles; that it was not intended by government, in the act of toleration, to grant relief to all dissenters, or to all unbelievers, without exception; but that it was intended for the benefit of those only who agreed with the Church in 35 articles and a half, which contained the essentials of her faith; and that those who now apply for relief do not at all come within the denomination of Dissenters, as the term was then understood; but are a new body of men, holding principles totally different, and who are not known to the law. Some gentlemen on that side were disposed to grant them relief, by a mitigation of some of the penalties, or by repealing one or two of the statutes that bore the heaviest upon them; while others seemed of opinion, that the house should not at all engage in religious disquisitions. It was said on the other side, that, after having experienced the happy benefits of toleration for more than fourscore years, it was little to be expected in this enlightened For the YEAR 1772. [*99 [[2 Columns]] lightened age, that any plea for its utility would now become necessary. That as to the mischiefs represented from the preaching of enthusiasts or infidels, the free toleration both in Scotland and Ireland, where no fabrications are required, and none of those consequences ensue, are living evidences to the contrary; that no subscriptions can keep vicious men or infidels out of an church, and that, as they are not restrained by any principles, they will naturally go where the greatest emoluments are to be gained; it is to them a matter of indifference how many articles are made, they will sign them all; and such restraints can only operate upon those who feel themselves sensibly bound by principles. That there are laws sufficiently severe in being to curb and punish all open attacks upon the great fundamentals of Christianity, whether from the pulpit or elsewhere; that the declaration proposed in the bill, and the testimonial to qualify a preacher, will prevent the intrusion of improper persons into that function; that even this restraint has not operated for these forty or fifty years past upon the Dissenters, during which time they have not entered into any subscription, and yet none of those consequences so fatal to religion and morality, and which have been so frightfully described, have in any degree appeared; and that the Quakers, who subscribe to no articles, are as inoffensive a people, and have fewer singularities, than they had in the days of persecution. That with respect to the charge made upon the present Dissenters, of their having deviated in some matters from the religious opinions of their ancestors, it is probably well founded; and if the enquiry could be accurately made, it would perhaps appear, that the charge would equally lie against every order and community of mankind, among whom civilization and learning have taken place: opinions are at all times fluctuating things, and the variations are more or less in particular periods; but they will in general be found to increase upon speculative subjects, in proportion to the learning of the times, and the leisure which the people have to bestow upon them. Another charge of a harsher nature is made upon them, of their holding principles subversive of Christianity: if this charge be restricted to some particular individuals, it may hold as well against them, as against any other body of equal number; but, if it be general, it is cruel and unjust; the names of many gentlemen of the dissenting clergy, who never subscribed to articles, will long be remembered with veneration by Christians of all denominations, for their able defence of Christianity against its most dangerous assailants; among many other names, that might be mentioned with equal authority, are a Lardner, or a Leland, to be suspected of irreligion or deism? yet the overthrower of Bolingbroke, and the exposer and detector of his dangerous fallacies, would, if he had lived in England, have been liable to fine and imprisonment, for explaining that gospel to his congregation which he had so ably defended against its enemies. That the charge against the Dissenters, of being natural enemies [["[*F 2]" listed at the bottom of the second column]]
