Cassell's History of England, Vol. 5 (of 8): From the Peninsular War to the Death of Sir Robert PeelAnonymous
History
Cassell's History of England, Vol. 5 (of 8): From the Peninsular War to the Death of Sir Robert Peel
Anonymous
Great Britain -- History
The discussion of the question, though it was so summarily dismissed
as it regarded the Church, did not prevent a certain number of the
Dissenters from coming forward to endeavour to relieve themselves
of the yoke of these Articles. In the Toleration Act, passed after
the Revolution, it had been stated that this toleration was conceded
to those only who were willing to subscribe these Articles, with
the exception of the first clause of the 20th, which asserts that
the Church has power to decree rites and ceremonies, and to settle
controversies of faith; the 34th, which relates to the traditions of
the Church; the 35th, relating to the homilies; and the 36th, relating
to the consecration of bishops and ministers. With these exceptions,
the Articles had been little objected to by the Dissenters till the
Presbyterians of England had, for the most part, embraced Unitarianism.
It was chiefly from this class that the movement against these Articles
now took its rise; but not altogether, for the subscription to the
Articles included in the Toleration Act having for some time been
little insisted on, some Dissenters, who had not subscribed them, were
menaced with trouble on that account by officious clergymen. Amongst
these Dr. Doddridge was mentioned as one who had been so disturbed.
It was now thought fit to press the question on Parliament, and in
April, 1772, Sir Henry Houghton moved for leave to bring in a Bill
for that object, under the title of "A Bill for the further Relief of
Dissenters." Sir Roger Newdigate, destined for so many years to be the
champion of Church Toryism, led the way in opposition, as one of the
members of the University of Oxford; and he was supported by two or
three men of the same stamp. In this case, however, Burke voted for the
Bill as only reasonable, and it passed by a majority of seventy against
nine. But in the Lords, the Bishops came forward in full strength
against it, and Barrington, Bishop of Llandaff, pointed it out as a
Socinian movement, and quoted, with telling effect, some of the most
objectionable passages from the writings of Dr. Priestley. There were
cries of "Monstrous! Horrible! Shocking!" and, amongst the utterers of
these, the loudest was Lord Chatham. The Bishop of London said that, so
far from the Dissenters generally advocating this measure, he had been
waited on by some of their ministers to inform him that they regarded
it, not as a measure to relieve Dissenters from the Articles of the
Church, but certain persons from the obligations of Christianity. It
was thrown out by a hundred and two against twenty-nine.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account