On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
canon , which repaired every candidate for orders to give an account of his faith . Such aft account could not be obtained by art examination of proficiency alone ; therefore the bishop \ va ^ s authorized by this canon to examine in the Articles . The petition concluded by praying their
Lordships to address the Crown to enforce the Royal declaration . That Royal declaration he ( the Bishop of Peterborough ) had been endeavouring to support in the conduct which was the subject of complaint . If * therefore , they were to address the Crown , it should be , not in a prayer to enforce the Royal declaration , but in a recommendation to issue the
Royal mandate to prevent the Bishop of Peterborough from examining by question and answer . If such a mandate were issued , he should obey it ; but the previous question was , should the Crown be petitioned to suspend the laws of the
State ? He ( the Reverend Prelate ) now examined in obedience to , and in conformity with , these laws , and a law could not be abrogated by one branch of the legislature only . He used no authority to which he was not fairly entitled ; he was . not conscious of having abused any
of his rights , though , like other men , he was liable to errors * He had proved that the petition was founded on false alle ^ gations , and he called upon the House to pause before they acquiesced in an application supported on sophistry and fallacy . He left the matter entirely in
the hands of their Lordships ; he had no personal interest to serve ; he should suffer no personal loss by being debarred from a mode of examination of the propriety and utility of which an experience of five years had convinced him . ( Hear , hear . )
Lord Holland began by stating , that he disapproved of the language which tbe Right Reverend and Learned Prelate had employed in speaking of the petitioner : such language was harsh in itself , and not becoming the quarter whence it proceeded . With regard to
the defence of the Right Reverend Prelate to the charge of the petition , it was the most complete instance of ignorantia -eitnchi which he had ever heard . The question to be ultimately considered and decided Wad this *** -whether the Learned and Reverend Prelate was justified in
putting Ms questions . If he had that right , no man could doubt that he had also the r 4 giifc to choose his own mode of exat $ lnation ; but it was first necessary to determine whether the matter , sub-&jjtotobj object and principle of tlie cxamiii »^ tt jwere warranted by the law of the ian& ^ i&d by expediency and prudence .
Untitled Article
rje ( Lrord Holland ) would broadly asfcert , that it was ambiguous and doubtful , whether by law he had a right to do so ; and whether he did or did not , possess it , it had always been thought most im- > prudent and improper in the Right
Reverend Prelate to assert it . With regard to the canons , when he heard the Right Reverend Prelate speak of them in a tone of such authority , he ( Lord Holland ) could not help at least hinting a doubt whether those canons were , in truth , any part of the law of-the land , for they had never received the sanction of Parliament .
like the Liturgy , the Articles or the Homilies . The 48 th canon was the only one on which the claim now set , up could be rested : but even this ( and his Lordship read the words of it to illustrate his position ) was liable to two interpretations . It was not to be disputed that the petitioner had subscribed the
Thirtynine Articles , and that act hitherto had been considered a sufficient test . Looking at the history of these Thirty-nine Articles , he found that they had been put into their present shape at the commencement of the reign of Elizabeth > in the year 1562 ; and with reference to their doctrines , he must say , that from the period of the Reformation down to the time
of that good man Hooker , and even of that bad man Laud , the principles of Arminianism were unknown to the Church of England . Before he Sat down $ he would undertake to prove that owe of
the greatest ornaments of the Bishops * Bench had said that those Thirty-nine Articles contained opinions on which a clergyman of the Church of England ought not to be examined . Was the Right Reverend Prelate quite sure that such men as Parker and Sanderson could
have satisfactorily answered his ques ^ tions ? Was he quite sure , evet * that all of those by whom he was now surrounded , scrupulous and conscientious men , if they chose to embody their opinions , and reply to his eighty-seven questions , thereby giving some four thousand odd hundred answers , could do so without offending against some doctrinal point , which the Right Reverend Prelate held so
necessary ttr true religion and virtue ? Was he quite sure that not one of the four thousand answers would i > e such as ro have induced him , if any ^ member of the Bench of Bishops h £ ad been a candidate for holy orders in his diocese ; to have rejected his claim ? It was not to be
denied that the Thirty-nine Articles were drawn up by persons ' whose 'opiiiions tended more to Calviuism than to Arminiahism ; but , as Bishop Horstey had correctly said ; they were intended to admit
Untitled Article
662 Intelligence .--Parliamentary ^ Peief&WGugk Questhfi * :
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Oct. 2, 1822, page 652, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2517/page/68/
-