dently contrary to the unbiassed sentiments of the BOOK

house, at length passed by a majority of 50 voices.

XV.

1772. Petition of

In the course of the session a petition was presented to the house of commons, of an in- the clergy teresting nature, and, from the singular impor- of comtance of its object, demanding peculiar attention. This was a petition signed by some hundreds of the established church, humbly praying to be relieved from the obligation of subscribing the thirty-nine articles of faith as imposed by law. "Your petitioners," say they, "apprehend themselves to have certain rights and privileges which they hold of God aloneof this kind is the exercise of their own reason and judgment. They conceive they are also warranted, by those original principles of reformation from popery on which the church of England is constituted, to judge, in searching the scriptures, each man for himself, what may or may not be proved thereby. They find themselves, however, in a great measure precluded the enjoyment of this invaluable privilege, by the laws relative to subscription, whereby your petitioners are required to acknowledge certain articles and confessions of faith and doctrine, drawn up by fallible men, to be all and every one of them agreeable to the said scriptures. Your petitioners therefore pray that they may be relieved from such an impo

~~

Book sition upon their judgment, and be restored to their undoubted right, as protestants, of inter1772. preting scripture for themselves, without being bound by any human explanations thereofholy scripture alone being acknowledged certain and sufficient for salvation." And they elsewhere style the imposition of subscription "an encroachment on their rights, both as men and members of a protestant establishment."

By this mode of stating their complaint, a great advantage in argument was unadvisedly given to the numerous and powerful adversaries of this petition, the most able and intelligent of whom urged, with irresistible force, that all governments had a right to form such general plan or system of ecclesiastical polity, or national instruction, as should approve itself most conducive to the general good; that it was necessary that those who were appointed to be the instructors of the people should be bound by some certain principles, from which, so long as they acted in that capacity, they were not at liberty to deviate; that some public symbol must be therefore established, as the standard of their conformity and union. Of toleration in its greatest and most liberal extent, these objectors declared themselves the firm friends and advocates; but they said, "that the petitioners suffered no injustice, as they were under no necessity

XV.

1772.

of accepting benefices contrary to their conscience; воок and if scruples arose afterwards, they had it al-☑ ways in their power to relinquish their preferments; that in fact every man was now, conformably to the prayer of the petition, at liberty to interpret the scriptures for his own private use, but that his being authorized to do so for others, was a matter of a very different nature. The state had doubtless a right to judge of the qualifications of those who were invested by the governing power of the community with the character, and who received the emoluments annexed to the office, of public teachers of religion. It was also suggested, that this was a matter of deep and dangerous import; and that, as civil dissensions had lately run high, it would be most impolitic to inflame still farther the public mind, by agitating at this crisis any topic of theological disputation."

Another and very different class of opponents of the old tory and high-church stamp, who, conceiving the CHURCH to be in DANGER from this attack, "trembled for the ARK of God," seemed to represent it as little less than blasphemy to propose any innovation respecting the thirty-nine articles. They said, "that a compliance with this petition would give a mortal wound to the church of England; that the church and state were so intimately united, that

XV.

BOOK one could not perish without the other; that this petition was levelled against the articles of 1772. the church, and that the next would be for annulling the liturgy. They called to the recollection of the house the destruction of church and state in the last century, which they charged upon the sectaries, and insinuated that the petitioners were very similar to them in sentiment and complexion; they averred, that there was strong ground to suspect, from the licentiousness of some recent publications, that several amongst them denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of our Saviour. They affirmed, that the parliament could not grant relief to the petitioners, for it had no power to vacate oaths; that the king could not give his assent to this petition, being himself bound by oath to preserve the established church; and that a compliance with it would be a breach of the treaty of union, which enacted, 'that the church governments both of England and Scotland should for ever continue as they then were.'"

The petition itself was supported with great ability by sir William Meredith, who presented it; and by various other members of the highest merit, talents, and reputation. These gentlemen maintained, "that to grant the relief so licited by the petitioners, far from being detrimental or dangerous to the church, would

XV.

redound equally to its honor and its safety: that BOOK the articles of the church were well known to have been compiled at a period when the nation 1772. had scarcely emerged from the chaos of popery; that they were dark, scholastic, unintelligible, and in many parts contradictory; that the doctrines contained in them had been long ago discarded from the creed of all rational christians, and it was undeniable that very few of the clergy could subscribe them, without such salvos as would scarcely be deemed admissible in any other case. From this habit of religious prevarication the worst consequences might reasonably be expected, and had in fact arisen. Nothing indeed could be more contrary to the end of a religious establishment, than thus to tempt those from the path of moral rectitude who are appointed to teach morality to others: that such an imposition upon conscience was productive of great licentiousness in the church, and, from its tendency to lessen or entirely to destroy christian integrity, had the worst effects upon its members * : that the common pretext for the

* Lord chancellor King, in conversation with the celebrated professor Whiston, justified the signing of articles not believed, for preferment, saying, "We must not lose our usefulness for scruples." Mr. Whiston expressed his suprize and regret at this, and asked his lordship, "whether the