what;a picture'of laws, of
establishments!
Edmund Burke
Were they then contented?
Two thousand (or some great number) of clergy resigned their livings in one day rather than read it: and truly, rather than raise that second idol, I should
have adhered to the Directory, as I now adhere to
the Common Prayer. Nor can you content other
men's conscience, real or pretended, by any concessions: follow your own; seek peace and ensue it. You have no symptoms of discontent in the people
to their Establishment. The churches are too small
for their congregations. The livings are too few for
their candidates. The spirit of religious controversy
has slackened by the nature of things: by act you
may revive it. I will not enter into the question,
how much truth is preferable to peace. Perhaps
truth may be far better. But as we have scarcely
ever the same certainty in the one that we have in
the other, I would, unless the truth were evident indeed, hold fast'to peace, which has in her company charity, the highest of the virtues.
This business appears in two points of view: 1st,
Whether it is a matter of grievance; 2nd, Whether
it. is within our province to redress it with propriety
and prudence. Whether it comes properly before us
on a petition upon matter of grievance I would not
inquire too curiously. I know, technically speaking,
that nothing: agreeable to law can be considered as a
grievance. But an over-attention to the rules of any
act does sometimes defeat the ends of it; and I think
it does so in this Parliamentary act, as much at least
as in any other. I know many gentlemen think that
the very essence of liberty consists in being governed according to law, as if grievances had nothing real and intrinsic; but I cannot be of that opinion.
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY. 15
Grievances may subsist by law. Nay, I do not know
whether any grievance can be considered as intolerable, until it is established and sanctified by law. If the Act of Toleration were not perfect, if there were
a complaint of it, I would gladly consent to amend
it. But when I heard a- complaint of a pressure on
religious liberty, to my astonishment I find that there
was no complaint whatsoever of the insufficiency of
the act of King William, nor any attempt to make it
more sufficient. . The matter, therefore, does not concern toleration, but establishment; and it is not the rights of. private conscience that are in question, but
the propriety of the terms which are proposed by law
as a title, to public emoluments: so that the complaint is not, that there is not toleration of diversity
in opinion, but that diversity in opinion is not rewarded by bishoprics, rectories, and collegiate stalls. When gentlemen complain of the subscription as
matter of grievance, the complaint arises from. confounding private judgment,' whose rights are anterior to law, and the qualifications which the law creates
for its own magistracies, whether civil or religious.
To take away from men their lives, their liberty, or
their property, those things for the protection of
which society was introduced, is great hardship and
intolerable tyranny; but to annex any condition you
please to benefits artificially created is the most just,
natural, and proper thing in the world. When e novo
you form an arbitrary benefit, an advantage, preeminence, or emolument, not by Nature, but institution, you order and modify it with all the power of a creator over his creature. Such benefits of institution
are royalty, nobility,:priesthood, all. of which you
may limit to birth: you might prescribe even shape
? ? ? ? 16 SPEECH ('ON; THE'ACTS:OF;: UNIFORMITY.
and stature. ,:' The Jewish priesthood was hereditary.
Founders' kinsmen have a preference in the election
of fellows: in many colleges of: our universities: the
qualifications. at All Souls are, that they -should:be
optima nati, bene,vestiti,:: medioariter; docti.
By contending for' liberty:in the candidate: for or*ders, you take,away the liberty; of the electors: which
is the peoplei that is,- the state. ; If they can choose,
they may' assign -a reason for their choice. ; if, they
can assign:a reasona they: may do it in writing, and
prescribe it: as:,. a condition;:;. they:-may transfer their
authority:'to their:rerepr taivesenaies and i enable. tlhem
to exercise~-the same:. ; In all-human institutions,,;a
great part, almost all regulationsiare made from the
mere necessity: of the Case, let -the theoretical merits
of the question be what they will. For nothing happened at -the Reformation,:but:what -:will -happen:in
all such revolutions. :- When tyranny is extreme, and
abuses' of government;:intolerable,:i men resort to the
rights -of Nature to shake:; it- off. When they have
done; so, the very- same- principle of. necessity of human-affairs' to -establish some other authority:,-:which shall preserve the'- order -of this -new institutionj, must
be obeyed, until -they grow intolerable;:and. you shall
not be suffered,, to plead:original' liberty -against such
an institution. ,, See-Holland, Switzerland. :. . .
If you will have:. religion:publicly:practised::and
publicly taught, you must have: a power, to: say what
that'religion:will be --which -you will protect:and encourage,- and:-to distinguish - it by -such:. marks- and characteristics as you in your wisdom. shall-. think fit.
As I said before, your'determination may be -unwise
in this- as in other matters:; but::-it, cannot; be unjust, hard, or oppressive, or contrary to the-liberty- of
? ? ? ? SP']ECH: ON:,TIE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY. 17
any. man, or in the least degree exceeding your -province. :It is, therefore, as a grievance, fairly none at all, --nothing but what is essential, not only to the
order, but to the liberty, of the whole community.
The petitioners are so sensible of. ,the force. of -these
arguments, that they doadmit of one subscription, --
that. is, to the Scripture. . I shall not consider how
forcibly this,argument militates with their whole
principle, against subscription as an: surpation on
the- rights of Providence. : I content myself with
submitting-,to the consideration: of the House, that,
if that. rule were once established, it must have:some
authority to enforce. the obedience; because, you well
know,. . a law. without:a sanction will be ridiculous.
Somebody must sit- in judgment on his conformity;
he must judge on the charge;. if he judges, he must
ordain. execution. . These things are necessary consequences one of the other; and then this judgment is. an equal and a superior violation of private judgment; the right of private judgment is violated in
a m. uch greater degree than it can be by any previous
subscription. . Youcome round again to subscription,
as the best and easiest, method; men must judge of
his doctrine, and judge definitively: so that either his
test. is nugatory, or men must first or last prescribe
his. public interpretation of it.
If the Church. be, as Mr. Locke defines it, a voluntary society, &c. , then it is essential to this voluntary society. to exclude from her voluntary. society any
member she thinks, fit, or to oppose the entrance of
any upon. such conditions as she thinks proper. , For,
otherwise, it would be a voluntary society acting contrary,to her, will, w hich is a contradiction in, terms. A4nd, this is Mr. iLocke's opinion,,the advocate for the
vOL. VII. 2
? ? ? ? 18 SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY.
largest scheme of ecclesiastical and civil toleration to
Protestants (for to Papists he allows no toleration at
all).
They dispute only the. extent- of the subscription;
they therefore tacitly admit the equity of the principle itself. Here they do not resort to the original
rights of Nature, because it is manifest that those
rights give as large a power of controverting every
part of Scripture, or even the authority of the whole,
as they do to the controverting any articles whatsoever. When a man requires you to sign an assent to
Scripture, he requires you to assent to a doctrine as
contrary to your natural understanding, and to your
rights of free inquiry, as those who require your conformity to any one article whatsoever.
The subscription to Scripture is the most astonishing idea I ever heard, and will amount to just nothing at all. Gentlemen so acute have not, that I have heard, ever thought of answering a plain, obvious
question: What is that Scripture to which they are
content to subscribe? They do not think that a book
becomes of divine authority because it is bound in
blue morocco, and is printed by John Baskett and his
assigns. The Bible' is a vast collection of different
treatises: a man who holds the divine authority of
one may consider the other as merely human. What
is his Canon? The Jewish? St. Jerome's? that of
the Thirty-Nine Articles? Luther's? There are some
who reject the Canticles; others, six of the Epistles;
the Apocalypse has been suspected even as heretical,
and was doubted of for many ages, and by many great
men. As these narrOw the Canon, others have enlarged it by admitting St. Barnabas's Epistles, the
Apostolic Constitutions, to say nothing of many oth
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY. 19
er Gospels. Therefore, to ascertain Scripture, you
must have one article more; and you must define
what that Scripture is which you mean to teach.
There are, I believe, very few who, when Scripture is
so ascertained, do not see the absolute necessity of
knowing what general doctrine a man draws from it,
before he is sent down authorized by the state to
teach it as pure doctrine, and receive a tenth of the
produce of our lands.
The Scripture is no one summary of doctrines regularly digested, in which a man could not mistake
his way. It is a most venerable, but most multifarious, collection of the records of the divine economy: a collection of an infinite variety, - of cosmogony, theology, history, prophecy, psalmody, morality, apologue, allegory, legislation, ethics, carried through
different books, by different authors, at different ages,
for different ends and purposes. It is necessary to
sort out what is intended for example, what only as
narrative,- what to be understood literally, what figuratively, - where one precept is to be controlled
and modified by another, --what is used directly,
and what only as an argument ad hominem, -- what is
temporary, and what of perpetual obligation, - what
appropriated to one state and to one set of men, and
what the general duty of all Christians. If we do not
get some security for this, we not only permit, but
we actually pay for, all the dangerous fanaticism
which can be produced to corrupt our people, and to
derange the public worship of the country. We owe
the best we can (not infallibility, but prudence) to the
subject, -first sound doctrine, then ability to use it.
? ? ? ? SP E E-CH
A BILL. FOR'"THE. RELIEF'OF' PROTESTANT DISSENTERS.
MARCH 1I7, 1773.
? ? ? ? NO T-E.
THIS speech is given partly from the manuscript papers of Mr.
Burke, and partly from a very imperfect short-hand note taken
at the time by a member of the House of Commons. The bill
under discussion was opposed by petitions from several congregations calling themselves " Protestant Dissenters," who appear to have been principally composed of the people who are generally
known under the denomination of " Methodists," and particularly
by a petition from a congregation of that description residing in
the town of Chatham.
? ? ? ? SPEECH.
ASSURE you, Sir, that the honorable gentleman
who spoke last but one need not be in the least
fear that I should make a war of particles upon his
opinion, whether the Church of England should,
would, or ought to be alarmed. I am very clear that
this House has no one reason in the world to think
she is alarmed by the bill brought before you. It is
something extraordinary that the only symptom of
alarm in the Church of England should appear in
the petition of some Dissenters, with whom, I believe;
very few in this House are yet acquainted, and of
whom you know no more than that you are assured
by the honorable gentleman that they are not Mahometans. Of the Church we know they are not, by the name that they assume. They are, then, Dissenters.
The first symptom of an alarm comes from some
Dissenters assembled round the lines of Chatham:
these lines become the security of the Church of
England! The honorable gentleman, in speaking of
the lines of Chatham, tells us that they serve not only
for the security of the wooden walls of England, but
for the defence of the Church of England. I suspect
the wooden walls of England secure the lines of Cliatham, rather than the lines of Chatham secure the wooden walls of England.
Sir, the Church of England, if only defended by
this miserable petition upon your table, must, I am
? ? ? ? 24 SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS.
afraid, upon the principles of true fortification, be
soon destroyed. But, fortunately, her walls, bulwarks, and bastions are constructed of other materials than of stubble and straw,- are built up with
the strong and stable matter of-the gospel of liberty,
and founded on a true, constitutional, legal establishment. But, Sir, she has other securities: she has'the security of her'own doctrines; she has the security' of the' piety, the' sanctity,: of her' own professors,, - their learning is a bulwark to defend her; she has
the security of the two universities, not shook in any
single battlemenit, in any single pinnacle. -
But the honorable gentleman has mentioned, indeed, principles which'astonish me'rather more! than
ever. The honorable gentleman'thinks that the Dissenters enjoy: a large share of liberty under a connivance, and he thinks th'at the establishing toleration
by law is an attack upon Christianity.
The first of these is a conotradictio:in terms. Liberty under a'connivance! 'Connivance is a relaxation
firom slavery, not a'definition of liberty. What is
connivance, but a state under which all' slaves'live?
IfI' was: to describe slavery, I would say, with those
who hate it,- it is livings under will, not' under law; if
as it is: stated by its advocates, I would say, that, like
earthquakes, like thunder, or'other wars the elements
make upon mankind, it happens rarely; it occasionally
comes now and- then upon people,: who, upon ordinary
occasions, enjoy the same legal government of liberty.
Take it under the description of those who would
soften those features, the state of slavery and connivance is the same thing. If the liberty; enjoyed be a
liberty/ not of toleration,; but of connivance, the oily
-qiestionl is', whether -'establishing such'by law is an
? ? ? ? SPEECi ON iELIEF Oi'PPROTESTANT DISS:ENTE9S. 25
attack'tpon-! Christianity. :;Toleration'an attack: upon
Christianity! - What,; then! :-are we come to this pass,
to suppose that nothiig. can support Christianity but
the principles of persecuti on? Is'that, then, the idea
of establishments? :: Is it, tthen, the idea of Christianity itself, that it; ought: to" have establishments, that it ought' to have laws againhst:Dissenters, but the breach
of which laws is to be connived at? What a picture
of toleration-!
what;a picture'of laws, of establishments! -. what a picture of religious: alid civil liberty!
I am' persuaded the honorable gentleman does not
see it in: this'light. But these very terms become
the strongest reasons for my support of tne bill: for I
am persuaded that toleration, so:far from being an
attack uponl Christianity, becomes the-best and surest
support that possibly can be given to:it. The Christian religion itself: arose without establishment, - it
arose:even -without toleration; and whilst its own
principles were hnot tolerated,' it- conquered all the
powers of darkness, it conqauered all theo powers of the
World. -. . The moment ~it began to' depart from these
principles, it converted the establishment into tyranny; it subverted -- its foutndationis from that very'hour.
Zealous as I- am for the principle of an establishment,
so just an'abhorrence do I -- conceive against whatever may shake it. ; I:knoWV nothing but' the supposed
necessity of persecution that can; make an establishment disgusting:. I would have toleration- a part of
establishment, as a principle favorable to Christianity,
and as a part; of Christiaity. '-4::';
All seem agreed'::that the law, as it stands, inflicting penalties iil all religious teachers;and on schoolmasters:who do: not signi the- Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, ought nlot to' be deecuted. ' We are all
? ? ? ? 26 SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS. agreed that the law is not good: for that, I presume,
is undoubtedly the idea of a law that ought not to be executed. The question, therefore, is, whether in a well-constituted commonwealth, which we desire ours to be thought, and I trust intend that it should be, whether in such a commonwealth it is wise to retain those laws which it is not proper to execute. A penal law not ordinarily put in execution seems to me to be a very absurd and a very dangerous thing. For if its principle be right, if the object of its prohibitions and penalties be a real evil, then you do in effect permit that very evil, which not only the reason of the thing, but your very law, declares ought not to be permitted; and thus it reflects exceedingly on the wisdom, and consequently derogates not a little from the authority, of a legislature who can at once forbid and suffer,
and in the same breath promulgate penalty and indemnity to the same persons and for the very same actions. But if the object of the law be no moral or
political evil, then you ought not to hold even a terror to those whom you ought certainly not to punish: for if it is not right to hurt, it is neither right nor
wise to menace. Such laws, therefore, as they must be defective either in justice or wisdom or both, so they cannot exist without a considerable degree of danger. Take them which way you will, they are pressed with ugly alternatives.
1st. All penal laws are either upon popular prosecution, or on the part of the crown. Now if they may be roused from their sleep, whenever a minister
thinks proper, as instruments of oppression, then they
put vast bodies of men into a state of slavery and
court dependence; since their liberty of conscience and their power of executing their functions depend
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS. 27 entirely on his will. I would have no man derive
his means of continuing any function, or his being restrained from it, but from the laws only: they should be his only superior and sovereign lords.
2nd. They put statesmen and magistrates into an
habit of playing fast and loose with the laws, straining or relaxing them as may best suit their political purposes, - and in that light tend to corrupt the executive power through all its offices.
3rd. If they are taken up on popular actions, their
operation' in that' light also is exceedingly' evil.
They become the instruments of'private malice,
-private avarice, and not' of p~ublic regulation; they
nourish the worst of men to the prejudice of the
best, punishing tender consciences, and rewarding
informers.
Shall we, as the honorable gentleman tells us we
may with perfect security, trust to the manners of
the age? I am well pleased with the general manners of the times; but the desultory execution of penal laws, the thing I condemn, does not depend on
the manners of the times. I would, however, have
the laws tuned in' unison with the manners. Very
dissonant are a gentle country and cruel laws; very
dissonant, that your reason is furious, but your passions moderate, and that you are always equitable except in your courts of justice.
I will beg leave to state -to the House one argument which has been much relied upon: that the Dissenters are not unanimous upon this business;
that many persons are alarmed; that it will create
a disunion among the Dissenters.
When ally Dissenters, or any body of people, come
here with a petition, it is not the number of people,
? ? ? ? 28 SPEEcI:E: ON. RELIE':E OP PROTESTANT DISSENTERSD but the' reasonableness of: the request, that. should
weigh with. the bHouse. -A body of: Dissenters come. to
this House, and: say,. " Tolerate us: we desire neither
the parochial advantage of tithes, nor dignities, nor
the stalls of your cathedrals:. . ;no! let the. venerable
orders- of- the hierarchy -exist with all; tlheir. advantages'? : And shall -I tell them, ". ' I reject your just
and reasonable i:petition, not because it shakes. the
Church, but because there iare::others, while you. lie
grovelling:. upon. the earth, that will kick and bite
you"? : Judge. -which- of these: descriptions. of -men
comes::with a fair. request:. . that: which. says,'" Sir,'I
desire. lZiberty. for my. own, because. I:trespass. onl no
man's: conscience,'? - or. the, other:-,which says, "'I
desire -that these. men:should not; be. . suffered to act
according to their consciences, though I am tolerated
to act according to mine. :-But I sign a body of Articles, which is my title to toleration. ; -I sign: no. more,
because more areagainst my conscience. -But I. desire
that you will not. tolerate~ these men, because they
will not:go. so far as. I, though I desire ito be: tolerated,
who will' not go: as far. as you. 'No, imprison them,
if they come within five, miles of. a corporate:town,
because -tlhey do not: believe what: I do in point. of
doctrines. ':. ' Shall- I not. say to. these: men,,Arrangez-vous, canaille Y? ou-:o,Y who. are not. the predominant power, will not give to others. the relaxation under which you:are yourself suffered' to live. I have as high an: opinion of. the doctrines of theChurch as
you. I receive them:. implicitly,. or- I;put my: own. explanation:. on. them, ortake::that which seems'. to
me to come best recommended by authority. . : There'are those of the Dissenters: who think, more rigidly of. the doctrine. of the. :Aticles relative to. Predestinationi
? ? ? ? -SPE. RC-H;:ON. ,' RELIEF OF:PROTESTANT: DISSENTERS 29 than: others do. . They sign. the Article, relative to
it ex, animo, and literally. Others: allow a latitude of construction. These two parties are in,the Church; as:well:as among -the Dissenters; yet in the Church
we live quietly under the same roof. I do not see
why, as long as Providence gives us no further light
into; this great mystery, we should not leave things
as the Divine Wisdom has left them. But suppose
all! these, things to me to be clear, (which Providence,
however, seems to have left obscure,), yet, whilst Dissenters claim a toleration in things which, seeming clear to me, are obscure to. them, without entering
into the merit of the, Articles, with what face cant
these men say, "Tolerate us, but do not:tolerate
them"? Toleration- is good for all, or it is good for
none.
The discussion this day is not -between establishment on one hand: and toleration on the other, but between those who, being tolerated themselves, refuse
toleration to others. That power should be puffed
up with pride, that authority should degenerate into
rigor, if not laudable,. is but too natural. But this
proceeding of theirs is much beyond the usual allowance to human weakness: it not only is shocking to our reason, but it provokes our. indignation. Quid
dominiffaczent, audent eum taliat fures:? It is not the
proud prelate thundering:in his. Commission Court,
but. a pack: of manumitted slaves, with the lash of the
beadle --flagrant on their backs, and their legs still
galled. with. their fetters, that would drive their
brethren:: into that prison-house from whehce. they
have just been, permitted to escape. If, instead of
puzzling, themselves in the depths of the Divine counsels, they would A turn to the mild. morality. . of the
? ? ? ? 30 SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS. Gospel, they would read their own condemnation: -- " O0 thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt because thou desiredst me: shouldest. not thou also have compassion on thy fellow-servant, even as I had pity on thee? "
In my opinion, Sir, a magistrate, whenever he goes
to put any restraint upon religious freedom, can only
do it upon this ground, - that the person dissenting
does not dissent from the scruples of ill-informed conscience, but from a party ground of dissension, in
order to raise a faction in the state. We give, with'regard to rites and ceremonies, an indulgence to tender consciences. But if dissent is at all punished in any country, if at all it can be punished upon any
pretence, it is upon a presumption, not that a man is
supposed to differ conscientiously from the establishment, but that he resists truth for the sake of faction,
-- that he abets diversity of opinions in religion to
distract the state, and to destroy the peace of his
country. This is the only plausible, -- for there is
no true ground of persecution. As the laws stand,
therefore, let us see how we have thought fit to
act.
If there is any one thing within the competency of
a magistrate with regard to religion, it is this: that
he has a right to direct the exterior ceremonies of
religion; that, whilst interior religion is within the
jurisdiction of God alone, the external part, bodily
action, is within the province of the chief governor.
Hooker, and all the great lights of the Church, have
constantly argued this to be a part within the province of the civil magistrate. But look at the Act of
Toleration of William and Mary: there you will see
the civil magistrate has not only dispensed with those
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS. 31
things which are more particularly within his province, with those things which faction might be supposed to take up for the sake of making visible and external divisions and raising a standard of revolt,
but has also from sound politic considerations relaxed
on those points which are confessedly without his
province.
The honorable gentleman, speaking of the heathens,_ certainly could not mean to recommend anything that is derived from that impure source. But he has praised the tolerating spirit of the heathens.
Well! but the honorable gentleman will recollect that
heathens, that polytheists, must permit a number of
divinities. It is the very essence of its constitution.
But was it ever heard that polytheism tolerated a dissent from a polytheistic establishment, - the belief
of one God only? Never! never! Sir, they constantly carried on persecution against that doctrine.
I will not give heathens the glory of a doctrine which
I consider the best part of Christianity. The honorable gentleman must recollect the Roman law, that
was clearly against the introduction of any foreign
rites in matters of religion. You have it at large in
Livy, how they persecuted in the first introduction
the rites of Bacchus; and even before Christ, to say
nothing of their subsequent persecutions, they persecuted the Druids and others. Heathenism, therefore,
as in other respects erroneous, was erroneous inl point
of persecution. I do not say every heathen who persecuted was therefore an impious man: I only say lie
was mistaken, as such a man is now. But, says the
honorable gentleman, they did not persecute Epicureans. No: the Epicureans had no quarrel with their
religious establishment, nor desired any religion for
? ? ? ? 32 SPEECH. ON RELIEE -OF PRO. TESTANT, DISSENTERS. themselves,. It. would have, been very extraordinary,
if irreligious heathens had desired either a religious establishment or toleration. , But, says the honorable gentleman, the Epicureans. entered, as,others, into the temples. They did so; they defied all subscription;
they defied all sorts of conformity; there was no subscription to which they were not ready to set their hands, no,ceremonies they refused to. practise; they
made it a principle of their irreligion outwardly to
conform to any religion. . These atheists eluded all
that you could do: so will: all freethinkers forever.
Then you suffer, or, the weakness of your law.
Two thousand (or some great number) of clergy resigned their livings in one day rather than read it: and truly, rather than raise that second idol, I should
have adhered to the Directory, as I now adhere to
the Common Prayer. Nor can you content other
men's conscience, real or pretended, by any concessions: follow your own; seek peace and ensue it. You have no symptoms of discontent in the people
to their Establishment. The churches are too small
for their congregations. The livings are too few for
their candidates. The spirit of religious controversy
has slackened by the nature of things: by act you
may revive it. I will not enter into the question,
how much truth is preferable to peace. Perhaps
truth may be far better. But as we have scarcely
ever the same certainty in the one that we have in
the other, I would, unless the truth were evident indeed, hold fast'to peace, which has in her company charity, the highest of the virtues.
This business appears in two points of view: 1st,
Whether it is a matter of grievance; 2nd, Whether
it. is within our province to redress it with propriety
and prudence. Whether it comes properly before us
on a petition upon matter of grievance I would not
inquire too curiously. I know, technically speaking,
that nothing: agreeable to law can be considered as a
grievance. But an over-attention to the rules of any
act does sometimes defeat the ends of it; and I think
it does so in this Parliamentary act, as much at least
as in any other. I know many gentlemen think that
the very essence of liberty consists in being governed according to law, as if grievances had nothing real and intrinsic; but I cannot be of that opinion.
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY. 15
Grievances may subsist by law. Nay, I do not know
whether any grievance can be considered as intolerable, until it is established and sanctified by law. If the Act of Toleration were not perfect, if there were
a complaint of it, I would gladly consent to amend
it. But when I heard a- complaint of a pressure on
religious liberty, to my astonishment I find that there
was no complaint whatsoever of the insufficiency of
the act of King William, nor any attempt to make it
more sufficient. . The matter, therefore, does not concern toleration, but establishment; and it is not the rights of. private conscience that are in question, but
the propriety of the terms which are proposed by law
as a title, to public emoluments: so that the complaint is not, that there is not toleration of diversity
in opinion, but that diversity in opinion is not rewarded by bishoprics, rectories, and collegiate stalls. When gentlemen complain of the subscription as
matter of grievance, the complaint arises from. confounding private judgment,' whose rights are anterior to law, and the qualifications which the law creates
for its own magistracies, whether civil or religious.
To take away from men their lives, their liberty, or
their property, those things for the protection of
which society was introduced, is great hardship and
intolerable tyranny; but to annex any condition you
please to benefits artificially created is the most just,
natural, and proper thing in the world. When e novo
you form an arbitrary benefit, an advantage, preeminence, or emolument, not by Nature, but institution, you order and modify it with all the power of a creator over his creature. Such benefits of institution
are royalty, nobility,:priesthood, all. of which you
may limit to birth: you might prescribe even shape
? ? ? ? 16 SPEECH ('ON; THE'ACTS:OF;: UNIFORMITY.
and stature. ,:' The Jewish priesthood was hereditary.
Founders' kinsmen have a preference in the election
of fellows: in many colleges of: our universities: the
qualifications. at All Souls are, that they -should:be
optima nati, bene,vestiti,:: medioariter; docti.
By contending for' liberty:in the candidate: for or*ders, you take,away the liberty; of the electors: which
is the peoplei that is,- the state. ; If they can choose,
they may' assign -a reason for their choice. ; if, they
can assign:a reasona they: may do it in writing, and
prescribe it: as:,. a condition;:;. they:-may transfer their
authority:'to their:rerepr taivesenaies and i enable. tlhem
to exercise~-the same:. ; In all-human institutions,,;a
great part, almost all regulationsiare made from the
mere necessity: of the Case, let -the theoretical merits
of the question be what they will. For nothing happened at -the Reformation,:but:what -:will -happen:in
all such revolutions. :- When tyranny is extreme, and
abuses' of government;:intolerable,:i men resort to the
rights -of Nature to shake:; it- off. When they have
done; so, the very- same- principle of. necessity of human-affairs' to -establish some other authority:,-:which shall preserve the'- order -of this -new institutionj, must
be obeyed, until -they grow intolerable;:and. you shall
not be suffered,, to plead:original' liberty -against such
an institution. ,, See-Holland, Switzerland. :. . .
If you will have:. religion:publicly:practised::and
publicly taught, you must have: a power, to: say what
that'religion:will be --which -you will protect:and encourage,- and:-to distinguish - it by -such:. marks- and characteristics as you in your wisdom. shall-. think fit.
As I said before, your'determination may be -unwise
in this- as in other matters:; but::-it, cannot; be unjust, hard, or oppressive, or contrary to the-liberty- of
? ? ? ? SP']ECH: ON:,TIE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY. 17
any. man, or in the least degree exceeding your -province. :It is, therefore, as a grievance, fairly none at all, --nothing but what is essential, not only to the
order, but to the liberty, of the whole community.
The petitioners are so sensible of. ,the force. of -these
arguments, that they doadmit of one subscription, --
that. is, to the Scripture. . I shall not consider how
forcibly this,argument militates with their whole
principle, against subscription as an: surpation on
the- rights of Providence. : I content myself with
submitting-,to the consideration: of the House, that,
if that. rule were once established, it must have:some
authority to enforce. the obedience; because, you well
know,. . a law. without:a sanction will be ridiculous.
Somebody must sit- in judgment on his conformity;
he must judge on the charge;. if he judges, he must
ordain. execution. . These things are necessary consequences one of the other; and then this judgment is. an equal and a superior violation of private judgment; the right of private judgment is violated in
a m. uch greater degree than it can be by any previous
subscription. . Youcome round again to subscription,
as the best and easiest, method; men must judge of
his doctrine, and judge definitively: so that either his
test. is nugatory, or men must first or last prescribe
his. public interpretation of it.
If the Church. be, as Mr. Locke defines it, a voluntary society, &c. , then it is essential to this voluntary society. to exclude from her voluntary. society any
member she thinks, fit, or to oppose the entrance of
any upon. such conditions as she thinks proper. , For,
otherwise, it would be a voluntary society acting contrary,to her, will, w hich is a contradiction in, terms. A4nd, this is Mr. iLocke's opinion,,the advocate for the
vOL. VII. 2
? ? ? ? 18 SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY.
largest scheme of ecclesiastical and civil toleration to
Protestants (for to Papists he allows no toleration at
all).
They dispute only the. extent- of the subscription;
they therefore tacitly admit the equity of the principle itself. Here they do not resort to the original
rights of Nature, because it is manifest that those
rights give as large a power of controverting every
part of Scripture, or even the authority of the whole,
as they do to the controverting any articles whatsoever. When a man requires you to sign an assent to
Scripture, he requires you to assent to a doctrine as
contrary to your natural understanding, and to your
rights of free inquiry, as those who require your conformity to any one article whatsoever.
The subscription to Scripture is the most astonishing idea I ever heard, and will amount to just nothing at all. Gentlemen so acute have not, that I have heard, ever thought of answering a plain, obvious
question: What is that Scripture to which they are
content to subscribe? They do not think that a book
becomes of divine authority because it is bound in
blue morocco, and is printed by John Baskett and his
assigns. The Bible' is a vast collection of different
treatises: a man who holds the divine authority of
one may consider the other as merely human. What
is his Canon? The Jewish? St. Jerome's? that of
the Thirty-Nine Articles? Luther's? There are some
who reject the Canticles; others, six of the Epistles;
the Apocalypse has been suspected even as heretical,
and was doubted of for many ages, and by many great
men. As these narrOw the Canon, others have enlarged it by admitting St. Barnabas's Epistles, the
Apostolic Constitutions, to say nothing of many oth
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY. 19
er Gospels. Therefore, to ascertain Scripture, you
must have one article more; and you must define
what that Scripture is which you mean to teach.
There are, I believe, very few who, when Scripture is
so ascertained, do not see the absolute necessity of
knowing what general doctrine a man draws from it,
before he is sent down authorized by the state to
teach it as pure doctrine, and receive a tenth of the
produce of our lands.
The Scripture is no one summary of doctrines regularly digested, in which a man could not mistake
his way. It is a most venerable, but most multifarious, collection of the records of the divine economy: a collection of an infinite variety, - of cosmogony, theology, history, prophecy, psalmody, morality, apologue, allegory, legislation, ethics, carried through
different books, by different authors, at different ages,
for different ends and purposes. It is necessary to
sort out what is intended for example, what only as
narrative,- what to be understood literally, what figuratively, - where one precept is to be controlled
and modified by another, --what is used directly,
and what only as an argument ad hominem, -- what is
temporary, and what of perpetual obligation, - what
appropriated to one state and to one set of men, and
what the general duty of all Christians. If we do not
get some security for this, we not only permit, but
we actually pay for, all the dangerous fanaticism
which can be produced to corrupt our people, and to
derange the public worship of the country. We owe
the best we can (not infallibility, but prudence) to the
subject, -first sound doctrine, then ability to use it.
? ? ? ? SP E E-CH
A BILL. FOR'"THE. RELIEF'OF' PROTESTANT DISSENTERS.
MARCH 1I7, 1773.
? ? ? ? NO T-E.
THIS speech is given partly from the manuscript papers of Mr.
Burke, and partly from a very imperfect short-hand note taken
at the time by a member of the House of Commons. The bill
under discussion was opposed by petitions from several congregations calling themselves " Protestant Dissenters," who appear to have been principally composed of the people who are generally
known under the denomination of " Methodists," and particularly
by a petition from a congregation of that description residing in
the town of Chatham.
? ? ? ? SPEECH.
ASSURE you, Sir, that the honorable gentleman
who spoke last but one need not be in the least
fear that I should make a war of particles upon his
opinion, whether the Church of England should,
would, or ought to be alarmed. I am very clear that
this House has no one reason in the world to think
she is alarmed by the bill brought before you. It is
something extraordinary that the only symptom of
alarm in the Church of England should appear in
the petition of some Dissenters, with whom, I believe;
very few in this House are yet acquainted, and of
whom you know no more than that you are assured
by the honorable gentleman that they are not Mahometans. Of the Church we know they are not, by the name that they assume. They are, then, Dissenters.
The first symptom of an alarm comes from some
Dissenters assembled round the lines of Chatham:
these lines become the security of the Church of
England! The honorable gentleman, in speaking of
the lines of Chatham, tells us that they serve not only
for the security of the wooden walls of England, but
for the defence of the Church of England. I suspect
the wooden walls of England secure the lines of Cliatham, rather than the lines of Chatham secure the wooden walls of England.
Sir, the Church of England, if only defended by
this miserable petition upon your table, must, I am
? ? ? ? 24 SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS.
afraid, upon the principles of true fortification, be
soon destroyed. But, fortunately, her walls, bulwarks, and bastions are constructed of other materials than of stubble and straw,- are built up with
the strong and stable matter of-the gospel of liberty,
and founded on a true, constitutional, legal establishment. But, Sir, she has other securities: she has'the security of her'own doctrines; she has the security' of the' piety, the' sanctity,: of her' own professors,, - their learning is a bulwark to defend her; she has
the security of the two universities, not shook in any
single battlemenit, in any single pinnacle. -
But the honorable gentleman has mentioned, indeed, principles which'astonish me'rather more! than
ever. The honorable gentleman'thinks that the Dissenters enjoy: a large share of liberty under a connivance, and he thinks th'at the establishing toleration
by law is an attack upon Christianity.
The first of these is a conotradictio:in terms. Liberty under a'connivance! 'Connivance is a relaxation
firom slavery, not a'definition of liberty. What is
connivance, but a state under which all' slaves'live?
IfI' was: to describe slavery, I would say, with those
who hate it,- it is livings under will, not' under law; if
as it is: stated by its advocates, I would say, that, like
earthquakes, like thunder, or'other wars the elements
make upon mankind, it happens rarely; it occasionally
comes now and- then upon people,: who, upon ordinary
occasions, enjoy the same legal government of liberty.
Take it under the description of those who would
soften those features, the state of slavery and connivance is the same thing. If the liberty; enjoyed be a
liberty/ not of toleration,; but of connivance, the oily
-qiestionl is', whether -'establishing such'by law is an
? ? ? ? SPEECi ON iELIEF Oi'PPROTESTANT DISS:ENTE9S. 25
attack'tpon-! Christianity. :;Toleration'an attack: upon
Christianity! - What,; then! :-are we come to this pass,
to suppose that nothiig. can support Christianity but
the principles of persecuti on? Is'that, then, the idea
of establishments? :: Is it, tthen, the idea of Christianity itself, that it; ought: to" have establishments, that it ought' to have laws againhst:Dissenters, but the breach
of which laws is to be connived at? What a picture
of toleration-!
what;a picture'of laws, of establishments! -. what a picture of religious: alid civil liberty!
I am' persuaded the honorable gentleman does not
see it in: this'light. But these very terms become
the strongest reasons for my support of tne bill: for I
am persuaded that toleration, so:far from being an
attack uponl Christianity, becomes the-best and surest
support that possibly can be given to:it. The Christian religion itself: arose without establishment, - it
arose:even -without toleration; and whilst its own
principles were hnot tolerated,' it- conquered all the
powers of darkness, it conqauered all theo powers of the
World. -. . The moment ~it began to' depart from these
principles, it converted the establishment into tyranny; it subverted -- its foutndationis from that very'hour.
Zealous as I- am for the principle of an establishment,
so just an'abhorrence do I -- conceive against whatever may shake it. ; I:knoWV nothing but' the supposed
necessity of persecution that can; make an establishment disgusting:. I would have toleration- a part of
establishment, as a principle favorable to Christianity,
and as a part; of Christiaity. '-4::';
All seem agreed'::that the law, as it stands, inflicting penalties iil all religious teachers;and on schoolmasters:who do: not signi the- Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, ought nlot to' be deecuted. ' We are all
? ? ? ? 26 SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS. agreed that the law is not good: for that, I presume,
is undoubtedly the idea of a law that ought not to be executed. The question, therefore, is, whether in a well-constituted commonwealth, which we desire ours to be thought, and I trust intend that it should be, whether in such a commonwealth it is wise to retain those laws which it is not proper to execute. A penal law not ordinarily put in execution seems to me to be a very absurd and a very dangerous thing. For if its principle be right, if the object of its prohibitions and penalties be a real evil, then you do in effect permit that very evil, which not only the reason of the thing, but your very law, declares ought not to be permitted; and thus it reflects exceedingly on the wisdom, and consequently derogates not a little from the authority, of a legislature who can at once forbid and suffer,
and in the same breath promulgate penalty and indemnity to the same persons and for the very same actions. But if the object of the law be no moral or
political evil, then you ought not to hold even a terror to those whom you ought certainly not to punish: for if it is not right to hurt, it is neither right nor
wise to menace. Such laws, therefore, as they must be defective either in justice or wisdom or both, so they cannot exist without a considerable degree of danger. Take them which way you will, they are pressed with ugly alternatives.
1st. All penal laws are either upon popular prosecution, or on the part of the crown. Now if they may be roused from their sleep, whenever a minister
thinks proper, as instruments of oppression, then they
put vast bodies of men into a state of slavery and
court dependence; since their liberty of conscience and their power of executing their functions depend
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS. 27 entirely on his will. I would have no man derive
his means of continuing any function, or his being restrained from it, but from the laws only: they should be his only superior and sovereign lords.
2nd. They put statesmen and magistrates into an
habit of playing fast and loose with the laws, straining or relaxing them as may best suit their political purposes, - and in that light tend to corrupt the executive power through all its offices.
3rd. If they are taken up on popular actions, their
operation' in that' light also is exceedingly' evil.
They become the instruments of'private malice,
-private avarice, and not' of p~ublic regulation; they
nourish the worst of men to the prejudice of the
best, punishing tender consciences, and rewarding
informers.
Shall we, as the honorable gentleman tells us we
may with perfect security, trust to the manners of
the age? I am well pleased with the general manners of the times; but the desultory execution of penal laws, the thing I condemn, does not depend on
the manners of the times. I would, however, have
the laws tuned in' unison with the manners. Very
dissonant are a gentle country and cruel laws; very
dissonant, that your reason is furious, but your passions moderate, and that you are always equitable except in your courts of justice.
I will beg leave to state -to the House one argument which has been much relied upon: that the Dissenters are not unanimous upon this business;
that many persons are alarmed; that it will create
a disunion among the Dissenters.
When ally Dissenters, or any body of people, come
here with a petition, it is not the number of people,
? ? ? ? 28 SPEEcI:E: ON. RELIE':E OP PROTESTANT DISSENTERSD but the' reasonableness of: the request, that. should
weigh with. the bHouse. -A body of: Dissenters come. to
this House, and: say,. " Tolerate us: we desire neither
the parochial advantage of tithes, nor dignities, nor
the stalls of your cathedrals:. . ;no! let the. venerable
orders- of- the hierarchy -exist with all; tlheir. advantages'? : And shall -I tell them, ". ' I reject your just
and reasonable i:petition, not because it shakes. the
Church, but because there iare::others, while you. lie
grovelling:. upon. the earth, that will kick and bite
you"? : Judge. -which- of these: descriptions. of -men
comes::with a fair. request:. . that: which. says,'" Sir,'I
desire. lZiberty. for my. own, because. I:trespass. onl no
man's: conscience,'? - or. the, other:-,which says, "'I
desire -that these. men:should not; be. . suffered to act
according to their consciences, though I am tolerated
to act according to mine. :-But I sign a body of Articles, which is my title to toleration. ; -I sign: no. more,
because more areagainst my conscience. -But I. desire
that you will not. tolerate~ these men, because they
will not:go. so far as. I, though I desire ito be: tolerated,
who will' not go: as far. as you. 'No, imprison them,
if they come within five, miles of. a corporate:town,
because -tlhey do not: believe what: I do in point. of
doctrines. ':. ' Shall- I not. say to. these: men,,Arrangez-vous, canaille Y? ou-:o,Y who. are not. the predominant power, will not give to others. the relaxation under which you:are yourself suffered' to live. I have as high an: opinion of. the doctrines of theChurch as
you. I receive them:. implicitly,. or- I;put my: own. explanation:. on. them, ortake::that which seems'. to
me to come best recommended by authority. . : There'are those of the Dissenters: who think, more rigidly of. the doctrine. of the. :Aticles relative to. Predestinationi
? ? ? ? -SPE. RC-H;:ON. ,' RELIEF OF:PROTESTANT: DISSENTERS 29 than: others do. . They sign. the Article, relative to
it ex, animo, and literally. Others: allow a latitude of construction. These two parties are in,the Church; as:well:as among -the Dissenters; yet in the Church
we live quietly under the same roof. I do not see
why, as long as Providence gives us no further light
into; this great mystery, we should not leave things
as the Divine Wisdom has left them. But suppose
all! these, things to me to be clear, (which Providence,
however, seems to have left obscure,), yet, whilst Dissenters claim a toleration in things which, seeming clear to me, are obscure to. them, without entering
into the merit of the, Articles, with what face cant
these men say, "Tolerate us, but do not:tolerate
them"? Toleration- is good for all, or it is good for
none.
The discussion this day is not -between establishment on one hand: and toleration on the other, but between those who, being tolerated themselves, refuse
toleration to others. That power should be puffed
up with pride, that authority should degenerate into
rigor, if not laudable,. is but too natural. But this
proceeding of theirs is much beyond the usual allowance to human weakness: it not only is shocking to our reason, but it provokes our. indignation. Quid
dominiffaczent, audent eum taliat fures:? It is not the
proud prelate thundering:in his. Commission Court,
but. a pack: of manumitted slaves, with the lash of the
beadle --flagrant on their backs, and their legs still
galled. with. their fetters, that would drive their
brethren:: into that prison-house from whehce. they
have just been, permitted to escape. If, instead of
puzzling, themselves in the depths of the Divine counsels, they would A turn to the mild. morality. . of the
? ? ? ? 30 SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS. Gospel, they would read their own condemnation: -- " O0 thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt because thou desiredst me: shouldest. not thou also have compassion on thy fellow-servant, even as I had pity on thee? "
In my opinion, Sir, a magistrate, whenever he goes
to put any restraint upon religious freedom, can only
do it upon this ground, - that the person dissenting
does not dissent from the scruples of ill-informed conscience, but from a party ground of dissension, in
order to raise a faction in the state. We give, with'regard to rites and ceremonies, an indulgence to tender consciences. But if dissent is at all punished in any country, if at all it can be punished upon any
pretence, it is upon a presumption, not that a man is
supposed to differ conscientiously from the establishment, but that he resists truth for the sake of faction,
-- that he abets diversity of opinions in religion to
distract the state, and to destroy the peace of his
country. This is the only plausible, -- for there is
no true ground of persecution. As the laws stand,
therefore, let us see how we have thought fit to
act.
If there is any one thing within the competency of
a magistrate with regard to religion, it is this: that
he has a right to direct the exterior ceremonies of
religion; that, whilst interior religion is within the
jurisdiction of God alone, the external part, bodily
action, is within the province of the chief governor.
Hooker, and all the great lights of the Church, have
constantly argued this to be a part within the province of the civil magistrate. But look at the Act of
Toleration of William and Mary: there you will see
the civil magistrate has not only dispensed with those
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON RELIEF OF PROTESTANT DISSENTERS. 31
things which are more particularly within his province, with those things which faction might be supposed to take up for the sake of making visible and external divisions and raising a standard of revolt,
but has also from sound politic considerations relaxed
on those points which are confessedly without his
province.
The honorable gentleman, speaking of the heathens,_ certainly could not mean to recommend anything that is derived from that impure source. But he has praised the tolerating spirit of the heathens.
Well! but the honorable gentleman will recollect that
heathens, that polytheists, must permit a number of
divinities. It is the very essence of its constitution.
But was it ever heard that polytheism tolerated a dissent from a polytheistic establishment, - the belief
of one God only? Never! never! Sir, they constantly carried on persecution against that doctrine.
I will not give heathens the glory of a doctrine which
I consider the best part of Christianity. The honorable gentleman must recollect the Roman law, that
was clearly against the introduction of any foreign
rites in matters of religion. You have it at large in
Livy, how they persecuted in the first introduction
the rites of Bacchus; and even before Christ, to say
nothing of their subsequent persecutions, they persecuted the Druids and others. Heathenism, therefore,
as in other respects erroneous, was erroneous inl point
of persecution. I do not say every heathen who persecuted was therefore an impious man: I only say lie
was mistaken, as such a man is now. But, says the
honorable gentleman, they did not persecute Epicureans. No: the Epicureans had no quarrel with their
religious establishment, nor desired any religion for
? ? ? ? 32 SPEECH. ON RELIEE -OF PRO. TESTANT, DISSENTERS. themselves,. It. would have, been very extraordinary,
if irreligious heathens had desired either a religious establishment or toleration. , But, says the honorable gentleman, the Epicureans. entered, as,others, into the temples. They did so; they defied all subscription;
they defied all sorts of conformity; there was no subscription to which they were not ready to set their hands, no,ceremonies they refused to. practise; they
made it a principle of their irreligion outwardly to
conform to any religion. . These atheists eluded all
that you could do: so will: all freethinkers forever.
Then you suffer, or, the weakness of your law.
