As the law now ftands, it is acknowledged on all hands, that these thirty-nine Articles cannot be set aside but by the Legiflature. Some people indeed, have been wild enough to hold, (upon the authority however of a famous Lawyer) that even the Legislature can make no alteration in our Ecclefiaf tical Constitution, without infringing the Act of Union; a doctrine too abfurd even for the Author of the Book of Alliance to digeft.

To petition or appeal to the Legiflature, then, is to petition or appeal to the King in his Parliament, the only method in which the Petitioners could expect relief from his Majefty in the prefent cafe, nor indeed do they seem to have been unmindful of his Majefty's peculiar province in an application of this nature; for though they begin with fupplicating the Commons, there is, in the prayer of their Petition, an appeal to his Majesty's PIETY, with full as much dutiful respect, I apprehend, as they would have shewn, in appealing to the Royal Supremacy, without noticing the Parliament.

But to leave this tender point, as Godolphin calls it*, (a point which ought to be full as tender to a Bishop as a Petitioner) and to confider the objection to an immediate application to the House of Commons, on the fubject of this Petition, taken from the fuppofed Impropriety of it.

ap

This Impropriety, it feems, was alledged to confist, in plying for relief to a Body of Men, who were not fuppofed to be competent judges of a grievance, the nature of which could not be thoroughly understood, without an accurate knowledge in the deepest points of theology.

How the Honourable Commons come by their learning, I prefume not to know. But this I can fafely affirm as a

+ Godolphin. u. s. p. 11.

K 2

matter

matter of fact, that if there was any want of knowledge in the debate on the 6th of February, it was not among the Advocates of the Petition. Those worthy perfons could not have understood the question better, had they studied the controverfy for twice seven years The question indeed was a very plain one, viz. Whether the fame men who folemnly engage on their entrance into the Ministry, to teach the people from the pure word of God only, could, on the very fame occafion, be reasonably required to teach the fame people according to a fyftem which is not the pure word of God only? For, be it remarked, with all due deference to the influential conductor of the antipetitioning cause, he himself declined the task of adjusting the Articles to a confonancy with the scriptures; in which he fhewed the good

* Perhaps this may not eafily be credited by thofe who have feen no more of the Debate than appeared in the News-papers, in which great caution was used to give no more of the fpeeches in favour of the Petition, than was just necessary to illuftrate the laboured Anfwers of its opponents, most of which were inferted at full length. This was, no doubt, contrived on the charitable confideration, that the eyes of the people who had fo long fat in darkness, fhould not be too fuddenly incommoded with the full glare of light, which might have broke in upon them by an impartial exhibition of the Replies to thofe Anfwers. To the fame fort of prudential, benevolent, and perhaps paftoral management, we may afcribe the pains that have been taken to bring forward every thing which might fet the Petitioners in an invidious light, and to keep back every thing which tended to qualify thefe impreffions by more equitable reprefentations. Thefe little arts, however, feem now to be lofing their influence, and confequently, their use. The people are becoming more and more inquifitive into the merits of the cause. They begin to perceive that they themselves have an important interest in the event, as well as the clergy. The ferious part of them fee it is no matter of indifference, that their teachers fhould be free from every engagement, which may throw an imputation, or even the remoteft fufpicion upon their fincerity. And as this knowledge gradually gains ground, we may hope the tricks and fophiftrics that have been inftrumental in fuppreffing it, will now be detected, and the authors of them held in no higher eftimation than fuch practices intitle them to.

fenfe

fense of a skilful Divine, as well as the circumfpection of a prudent Statesman.

Where the ingenious Gentlemen on the other fide learned their language, might perhaps be an amufing inquiry. We have observed already, that all of them did not strictly adhere to the fentiments of my Lords the Bishops, either in their premiffes, or in the inferences they grounded upon them. And they who appeared to stick more to their Brief, acquitted themselves with fo little candour towards the Petitioners, that thefe fupplicants could hardly feel any remorfe for not applying to the Bishops in the first inftance. For furely the contempt and abufe thrown upon the Petitioners, could hardly be justified by barely afferting, that no alteration is neceffary; in fupport of which aphorifm, the dispensers of it seemed to be left by their clients to find reafons as they could.

I give this only as a conjectural account, why the Peti-tioners did not follow the advice fo often given them in News-papers and Pamphlets to commit their cause to the Bishops. They might have others to which I am a ftranger. But even bystanders could fee and remark, from the profound filence of their Lordships during fo many months as elapfed from the first meeting at the Feathers Tavern, to the day of hearing in February, that the Petitioners had lit tle or nothing to expect from that quarter; and even byftanders came to know, that in that interval, fome individuals had applied to their refpective Diocefans for their fentiments on the fubject, without the least fatisfaction or effect.

These things being confidered and laid together, it will clearly appear to the intelligent reader, that as the Petitioners were perfectly right in making their first applica

tion

tion to the House of Commons, fo they would have been perfectly wrong and inconfiftent with their own pretenfions, had they raised, or joined in any oppofition to the Bill for limiting the claims of the clergy, either in their civil or ecclefiaftical capacity.

In the other objection to Mr. Seymour's limiting Bill, the Petitioners are very little, if at all concerned; certainly no farther, than they may wish our gracious Sovereign may reign undisturbed by any misunderstanding with any class of his people.

66

The objection was, that "the Bill propofed, had a tendency to embroil the Crown with the Church.”

As I was not prefent at this debate, I take this particular from common report, which adds, that this probable effect of the law in question, was suggested by one of those who affect to distinguish themfelves from fome others of his Majesty's equally loving fubjects, by the title of Friends to the Crown.

I should have thought, that a real friend to the Crown would have been cautious how he dropped an apprehenfion of that fort in the company where it was faid to be delivered. Where there is a Legislature to interpose between the Crown and any Body of men who are difpofed to quarrel with it, the Crown fhould have little to fear from the difcontents of the Church, unless there fhould be fome fecret article in the Alliance between the Crown and the Church, to which the people and their representatives in parliament are no parties. If the Crown and the Church have their uses for each other, diftinct from the interefts and welfare of the public, and out of the cognifance of its conftitutional Guardians, it may be a point of prerogative wisdom to avoid a breach with the church. And does not this objection to the limiting Bill seem to imply a connection of that nature?

And

And would it not intimate to the audience, that the lefs oftenfible Articles of the Alliance might be inimical to the rights and liberties of a free people?

The Patrons of the limiting Bill, it is poffible, might perceive fomething in the visible effects of fuch Alliance, detrimental to the community at large, and not very honourable to the Crown. Commendams, Difpenfations, Pluralities, `to which the Crown either directly or minifterially gives its fanction, have been known to scandalize fome honest men, who think they ought to be edified by the moderation of pious Bishops, and the fimplicity of confcientious Presbyters, not to mention the murmurs of those who are obliged, through these indulgences, to pay for entertainment they never tafte. The Patrons of this Bill could not be ignorant, of what nineteen in twenty of their constituents are well aware, that is to fay, of an immenfe increase of Property daily accruing to the Church, which is likely enough, without a timely interpofition of the legislature, to render the church paramount to every other Society in the Kingdom, and even to the Crown itself. All the world knows by this time, that the Church is Mistress of an accumulating fund, which, in a course of years (perhaps not much longer than that which has run out fince Harry the Eighth's refumptions) will, upon a fair and moderate calculation, enable her to purchase an estate more than equivalent to that, which was, at that period, alienated from her; and all this by the Bounty of the Crown.

Surely it behoves, that the Church fhould do the Crown fome very effential fervice in return for thefe generous Benefactions. Our Monarchs have been, in most periods, wary enough not to difpenfe their favours, particularly of the pecuniary kind, without fome valuable confiderations.

But