times
reformed
before.
Edmund Burke
Speaker, besides these prejudices
and animosities, which I would have wholly removed
from the debate, things more regularly and argumentatively urged against the petition, which, however, do not at all appear-to me conclusive.
First, two honorable gentlemen, one near me, the
other, I think, on the other side of the House, assert,
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY. 7
that, if you alter her symbols, you destroy the being
of the Church of England. This, for the sake of the
liberty of that Church, I must absolutely deny. The
Church, like every body corporate, may alter her
laws without changing her identity. As an independent church, professing fallibility, she has claimed
a right of acting without the consent of any other;
as a church, she claims, and has always exercised, a
right of reforming whatever appeared amiss in her
doctrine, her discipline, or her rites. She did so,
when she shook off the Papal supremacy in the reign
of Henry the Eighth, which was an act of the body
of the English Church, as well as of the State (I
don't inquire how obtained). She did so, when she
twice changed the Liturgy in the reign of King Edward, when she then established Articles, which were
themselves a variation from former professions. She
did so, when she cut off three articles from her original forty-two, and reduced them to the present thirtynine; and she certainly would not lose her corporate identity, nor subvert her fundamental principles, though she were to leave ten of the thirty-nine which
remain out of any future confession of her faith. She
would limit her corporate powers, on the contrary,
and she would oppose her fundamental principles, if
she were to deny herself ihe prudential exercise of
such capacity of reformation. This, therefore, can be
no objection to your receiving the petition.
In the next place, Sir, I am clear, that the Act of
Union, reciting and ratifying one Scotch and one English act of Parliament, has not rendered any change
whatsoever in our Church impossible, but by a dissolution of the union between the two kingdoms.
The honorable gentleman who has last touched
? ? ? ? 8 SPEECH ON- THE ACTS;. OF" UNIFORMITY.
upon that point has- not gone quite so far as the gentlemen who first insisted upon: it. . ;: However, as none
of:them wholly abandon. that post, it will not be safe
toleave it behind. me unattacked. ,I believe no one
will wish their interpretation of that act to be considered: as: authentic. W. . ,,hat shall we think of the
wisdom (to say nothing of the. . competence) of that
legislature which. should ordain to itself such a fundamental law,. at its outset, as to disable itself from executing its. own functions,:- which should prevent it from making any further. laws, however wanted, and
that, too, on the most interesting:subject that belongs
to human society, and where she most frequently
wants its. interposition, - which should fix those fundamental laws that are. forever. to. prevent it from.
adapting itself. to its opinions, however clear, or to
its, own necessities, however urgent? Such. an act,
Mr. Speaker, would forever:put the Church out of its
own power;. it certainly would put it far above the.
State, and erect it into that species of: independency
which it has. been. the great principle of our policy to
prevent.
The act never meant, I am sure,'any such unnatural restraint on the joint. legislature it was then forming. . . History shows us what it meant, and all that it could. mean with any degree of common sense.
In. the. reign of Charles the First. a violent and illconsidered. attempt was made unjustly. to establish
the platform of the government and the rites. of the
Church of England in Scotland, contrary to the. genius and desires of far the majority of that nation.
This u. surpation excited a most mutinous spirit in
that country. It produced that shocking fanatical
Covenant. (I. mean the Covenant: of'36) -forlforcing
? ? ? ? SPEECH. ON THE. ACTS OFG UNIFORMITY. 9
their ideas of religion: on England,- and indeed on all
mankind. ' This. became the occasion, at length, of
other-icovenants, and of a Scotch army marching into
England to:. fulfil them; and the! Parliament of. England (for its: own purposes) adopted their scheme,
took their last covenant, and destroyed the Church of
England. . The Parliament, inl their ordinance of 1643,
expressly assign their desire of conforming to the
Churchl: of Scotland. as a. motive for their alteration. . ITo prevent such violent enterprises on the oine side
or oil the other, since each Church was going to be disarmed of a legislature wholly and peculiarly affected.
to it, and lest this new uniformity in the State shouldl
be urged as- a reason and ground of- ecclesiastical uniformity, the Act of Union provided that:presbyteryshould continue the Scotch,-as episcopacy the English establishment, and that this separate and. mutually'-independent Church-government was to be considered as a part of the Union, without a putting the regulation within each Church out of its
own power, without putting both Churches out of the
power. of the State. , It could -not mean. to forbid us
to set anything ecclesiastical in order, but at the expense! of tearing up: all: foundations, and forfeiting the
inestimable benefits (for inestimable they are) which
we derive from the happy union of the two kingdoms.
To suppose otherwise is to suppose that the act intended we could not meddle at all with the Church,
but we must as a preliminary destroy the State.
Well, then, Sir, this is, I hope, satisfactory. The
Act of Union does not stand in our way. But, Sir,
gentlemen think we are not competent to the reformation desired, chiefly from our want of theological
learning. : If we were the legal: assembly. . .
? ? ? ? 10 SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY. . If ever there was anything to which, from reason, nature, habit, and principle, I am totally averse, it is
persecution for conscientious difference in opinion.
If these gentlemen complained justly of any compulsion upon them on that article, I would hardly wait for their petitions; as soon as I knew the evil, I
would haste to the cure; I would even run before
their complaints.
I will not enter into the abstract merits of our Articles and Liturgy. Perhaps there are some things
in them which one would wish had not been there.
They are Vot without the marks and characters of
human frailty.
But it is not human frailty and imperfection, and
even a considerable degree bf them, that becomes a
ground for your alteration; for by no alteration will
you get rid of those errors, however you may delight
yourselves in varying to infinity the fashion of them.
But the ground for a legislative alteration of a legal
establishment is this, and this only, -- that you find
the inclinations of the majority of the people, concurring with your own sense of the intolerable nature of the abuse, are in favor of a change.
If this be the case in the present instance, certainly
you ought to make the alteration that is proposed, to
satisfy your own consciences, and to give content to
your people. But if you have no evidence of this
nature, it ill becomes your gravity, on the petition
of a few gentlemen, to listen to anything that tends
to shake one of the capital pillars of the state, and
alarm the body of your people upon that one ground,
in which every hope and fear, every interest, passion,
prejudice, everything which can affect the human
breast, are all involved together. If you make this
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY. 11
a season for religious alterations, depend upon it, you
will soon find it a season of religious tumults and religious wars.
These gentlemen complain of hardship. No considerable number shows discontent; but, in order to
give ~satisfaction to any number of respectable men,
who come in so decent and constitutional a mode before us, let us. examine a,little what that hardship is.
They want to be preferred clergymen in the Church
of England as by law established; but their consciences will not suffer them to conform to the doctrines and practices of that Church: that is, they want to be teachers in a church to which they do not
belong; and it is an odd sort of hardship. They want
to receive the emoluments appropriated for teaching
one set of doctrines, whilst they are teaching another.
A church, in any legal sense, is only a certain system
of religious doctrines and practices fixed and ascertained by some law,- by the difference of which laws
different churches (as different commonwealths) are
made in various parts of the world; and the establishment is a tax laid by the same sovereign authority for
payment of those who so teach and so practise:. for
no legislature was ever so absurd as to tax its people
to support men for teaching and acting as they please,
but by some prescribed rule.
The hardship amounts to this, - that the people of
lfgland are not taxed two shillings in the pound to
pay them for teaching, as divine truths, their own particular fancies. For the state has so taxed the people; and by way of relieving these gentlemen, it would be a cruel hardship on the people to be compelled to pay, from the sweat of their brow, the most
heavy of all taxes to men, to condemn as heretical
? ? ? ? 12 SPEECH ON THE - ACTS OF' iUNIFORMITY.
the doctrines which they l repute -to. be orthodox, and
to reprobate as superstitious the practices which they
use as pious and holy. If a man leaves by will an
establishment for preaching, such. as Boyle's Lectures,
or for charity sermons, or funeral sermons, shall any
one complain: of an hardship, because he has an excellent sermon- upon matrimony, or on the martyrdoin of. King Charles,, or on:the Restoration, which I,
the;trustee of the- establishment, will not pay him
for preaching? - S. Jenyns, Origin of Evil. - Such is
the hardship which they complain of under the present Church establishment, that they have not the power of taxing the people of England for the mainteiiance of their private. opinions.
The laws of toleration provide for every real grievance that these gentlemen can rationally complain of.
Are they: hindered from professing their belief of what
they think to be truth'? If they do not like the
Establishment,:there are an hundred different, modes
of Dissent in -which, they may teach. But even if
they are so unfortunately circumstanced that of all
that varietynlone will please them, they have free
liberty to assemble:a. congregation of their own; and
if any persons think their fancies (they may be brilliant imaginations) worth paying for, they are at liberty to maintain'them as their clergy: nothing hinders it. - But if they cannot get an hundred people together who will pay for their reading a liturgy after
their form, with what face can they insist upon the
nation's conforming-to their ideas, for no other visibl,e purpose than the enabling them to receive with a
good conscience the tenth part of the produce of your
lands? :Therefore, beforehand) the' Constitution has thought'
? ? ? ? SPEECH. ON. . THE'ACTS OF -UNIFORMITY: 13
proper to take:a security that' the, tax- raised- on;the
people shall be, applied only, to': those who profess such
doctrines and follow such:a mode of worship as:the
legislature, representing the: people, has thought: most
agreeable to their general sense, - binding, as usual,
the minority,, not to: as assent to the doctrines, but to
a payment. of the tax,.
But how do -you ease and relieve? How do:you
know, that, in -making -a:newdoor-into the Church
for these gentlemen, you. do not'drive ten times their
number out of it? . :Supposing the contents and; notcontents'strictly. equal in:. numbers and,consequence, the possession, to avoid disturbance, ought, to carry it.
You displease all:the, clergy. of England now actually
in office, for the chance:of obliging a score or two, perhaps, of gentlemen, who are; or want to be, beneficed clergymen: and do-you. oblige? -Alter your Liturgy,
- will it please all even of those who wish an alteration? . will they agree,:in- what:` ought to be altered?
And after it is altered to the, mind:of. every one, you
are no further' advanced? than if you had not takeh a
single step;;-because- a -large:body of men willthen
say' you ought to have- no liturgy at all: and then
these I men; who now complai-n:- so,:bitterly: that they
are shut out,'will -,themselves:bar the do. or. against
thousands-: of -. others. ; Dissent, not. satisfied. ,with tol
eration,: is. not conscienceo but ambition,:. .
You alteredi the Liturgy. for the Directory. This
was. :settled: by a set of. most- learned:divines and
learned,laymenr:, Selden: sat:. amongst them. :. Did
this please:? :. It was'considered upon:both- sides as
a-most: unlclristia-n; imposition;'~WeIl. ,:at, tlre Resto7
ration-they:rejected;:the Directory,. and reformed the
Common Prayer,-w-h. ie hiCby thaeway: hd been three
? ? ? ? 14 SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF. UNIFORMITY.
times reformed before. 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-!
and animosities, which I would have wholly removed
from the debate, things more regularly and argumentatively urged against the petition, which, however, do not at all appear-to me conclusive.
First, two honorable gentlemen, one near me, the
other, I think, on the other side of the House, assert,
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY. 7
that, if you alter her symbols, you destroy the being
of the Church of England. This, for the sake of the
liberty of that Church, I must absolutely deny. The
Church, like every body corporate, may alter her
laws without changing her identity. As an independent church, professing fallibility, she has claimed
a right of acting without the consent of any other;
as a church, she claims, and has always exercised, a
right of reforming whatever appeared amiss in her
doctrine, her discipline, or her rites. She did so,
when she shook off the Papal supremacy in the reign
of Henry the Eighth, which was an act of the body
of the English Church, as well as of the State (I
don't inquire how obtained). She did so, when she
twice changed the Liturgy in the reign of King Edward, when she then established Articles, which were
themselves a variation from former professions. She
did so, when she cut off three articles from her original forty-two, and reduced them to the present thirtynine; and she certainly would not lose her corporate identity, nor subvert her fundamental principles, though she were to leave ten of the thirty-nine which
remain out of any future confession of her faith. She
would limit her corporate powers, on the contrary,
and she would oppose her fundamental principles, if
she were to deny herself ihe prudential exercise of
such capacity of reformation. This, therefore, can be
no objection to your receiving the petition.
In the next place, Sir, I am clear, that the Act of
Union, reciting and ratifying one Scotch and one English act of Parliament, has not rendered any change
whatsoever in our Church impossible, but by a dissolution of the union between the two kingdoms.
The honorable gentleman who has last touched
? ? ? ? 8 SPEECH ON- THE ACTS;. OF" UNIFORMITY.
upon that point has- not gone quite so far as the gentlemen who first insisted upon: it. . ;: However, as none
of:them wholly abandon. that post, it will not be safe
toleave it behind. me unattacked. ,I believe no one
will wish their interpretation of that act to be considered: as: authentic. W. . ,,hat shall we think of the
wisdom (to say nothing of the. . competence) of that
legislature which. should ordain to itself such a fundamental law,. at its outset, as to disable itself from executing its. own functions,:- which should prevent it from making any further. laws, however wanted, and
that, too, on the most interesting:subject that belongs
to human society, and where she most frequently
wants its. interposition, - which should fix those fundamental laws that are. forever. to. prevent it from.
adapting itself. to its opinions, however clear, or to
its, own necessities, however urgent? Such. an act,
Mr. Speaker, would forever:put the Church out of its
own power;. it certainly would put it far above the.
State, and erect it into that species of: independency
which it has. been. the great principle of our policy to
prevent.
The act never meant, I am sure,'any such unnatural restraint on the joint. legislature it was then forming. . . History shows us what it meant, and all that it could. mean with any degree of common sense.
In. the. reign of Charles the First. a violent and illconsidered. attempt was made unjustly. to establish
the platform of the government and the rites. of the
Church of England in Scotland, contrary to the. genius and desires of far the majority of that nation.
This u. surpation excited a most mutinous spirit in
that country. It produced that shocking fanatical
Covenant. (I. mean the Covenant: of'36) -forlforcing
? ? ? ? SPEECH. ON THE. ACTS OFG UNIFORMITY. 9
their ideas of religion: on England,- and indeed on all
mankind. ' This. became the occasion, at length, of
other-icovenants, and of a Scotch army marching into
England to:. fulfil them; and the! Parliament of. England (for its: own purposes) adopted their scheme,
took their last covenant, and destroyed the Church of
England. . The Parliament, inl their ordinance of 1643,
expressly assign their desire of conforming to the
Churchl: of Scotland. as a. motive for their alteration. . ITo prevent such violent enterprises on the oine side
or oil the other, since each Church was going to be disarmed of a legislature wholly and peculiarly affected.
to it, and lest this new uniformity in the State shouldl
be urged as- a reason and ground of- ecclesiastical uniformity, the Act of Union provided that:presbyteryshould continue the Scotch,-as episcopacy the English establishment, and that this separate and. mutually'-independent Church-government was to be considered as a part of the Union, without a putting the regulation within each Church out of its
own power, without putting both Churches out of the
power. of the State. , It could -not mean. to forbid us
to set anything ecclesiastical in order, but at the expense! of tearing up: all: foundations, and forfeiting the
inestimable benefits (for inestimable they are) which
we derive from the happy union of the two kingdoms.
To suppose otherwise is to suppose that the act intended we could not meddle at all with the Church,
but we must as a preliminary destroy the State.
Well, then, Sir, this is, I hope, satisfactory. The
Act of Union does not stand in our way. But, Sir,
gentlemen think we are not competent to the reformation desired, chiefly from our want of theological
learning. : If we were the legal: assembly. . .
? ? ? ? 10 SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY. . If ever there was anything to which, from reason, nature, habit, and principle, I am totally averse, it is
persecution for conscientious difference in opinion.
If these gentlemen complained justly of any compulsion upon them on that article, I would hardly wait for their petitions; as soon as I knew the evil, I
would haste to the cure; I would even run before
their complaints.
I will not enter into the abstract merits of our Articles and Liturgy. Perhaps there are some things
in them which one would wish had not been there.
They are Vot without the marks and characters of
human frailty.
But it is not human frailty and imperfection, and
even a considerable degree bf them, that becomes a
ground for your alteration; for by no alteration will
you get rid of those errors, however you may delight
yourselves in varying to infinity the fashion of them.
But the ground for a legislative alteration of a legal
establishment is this, and this only, -- that you find
the inclinations of the majority of the people, concurring with your own sense of the intolerable nature of the abuse, are in favor of a change.
If this be the case in the present instance, certainly
you ought to make the alteration that is proposed, to
satisfy your own consciences, and to give content to
your people. But if you have no evidence of this
nature, it ill becomes your gravity, on the petition
of a few gentlemen, to listen to anything that tends
to shake one of the capital pillars of the state, and
alarm the body of your people upon that one ground,
in which every hope and fear, every interest, passion,
prejudice, everything which can affect the human
breast, are all involved together. If you make this
? ? ? ? SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY. 11
a season for religious alterations, depend upon it, you
will soon find it a season of religious tumults and religious wars.
These gentlemen complain of hardship. No considerable number shows discontent; but, in order to
give ~satisfaction to any number of respectable men,
who come in so decent and constitutional a mode before us, let us. examine a,little what that hardship is.
They want to be preferred clergymen in the Church
of England as by law established; but their consciences will not suffer them to conform to the doctrines and practices of that Church: that is, they want to be teachers in a church to which they do not
belong; and it is an odd sort of hardship. They want
to receive the emoluments appropriated for teaching
one set of doctrines, whilst they are teaching another.
A church, in any legal sense, is only a certain system
of religious doctrines and practices fixed and ascertained by some law,- by the difference of which laws
different churches (as different commonwealths) are
made in various parts of the world; and the establishment is a tax laid by the same sovereign authority for
payment of those who so teach and so practise:. for
no legislature was ever so absurd as to tax its people
to support men for teaching and acting as they please,
but by some prescribed rule.
The hardship amounts to this, - that the people of
lfgland are not taxed two shillings in the pound to
pay them for teaching, as divine truths, their own particular fancies. For the state has so taxed the people; and by way of relieving these gentlemen, it would be a cruel hardship on the people to be compelled to pay, from the sweat of their brow, the most
heavy of all taxes to men, to condemn as heretical
? ? ? ? 12 SPEECH ON THE - ACTS OF' iUNIFORMITY.
the doctrines which they l repute -to. be orthodox, and
to reprobate as superstitious the practices which they
use as pious and holy. If a man leaves by will an
establishment for preaching, such. as Boyle's Lectures,
or for charity sermons, or funeral sermons, shall any
one complain: of an hardship, because he has an excellent sermon- upon matrimony, or on the martyrdoin of. King Charles,, or on:the Restoration, which I,
the;trustee of the- establishment, will not pay him
for preaching? - S. Jenyns, Origin of Evil. - Such is
the hardship which they complain of under the present Church establishment, that they have not the power of taxing the people of England for the mainteiiance of their private. opinions.
The laws of toleration provide for every real grievance that these gentlemen can rationally complain of.
Are they: hindered from professing their belief of what
they think to be truth'? If they do not like the
Establishment,:there are an hundred different, modes
of Dissent in -which, they may teach. But even if
they are so unfortunately circumstanced that of all
that varietynlone will please them, they have free
liberty to assemble:a. congregation of their own; and
if any persons think their fancies (they may be brilliant imaginations) worth paying for, they are at liberty to maintain'them as their clergy: nothing hinders it. - But if they cannot get an hundred people together who will pay for their reading a liturgy after
their form, with what face can they insist upon the
nation's conforming-to their ideas, for no other visibl,e purpose than the enabling them to receive with a
good conscience the tenth part of the produce of your
lands? :Therefore, beforehand) the' Constitution has thought'
? ? ? ? SPEECH. ON. . THE'ACTS OF -UNIFORMITY: 13
proper to take:a security that' the, tax- raised- on;the
people shall be, applied only, to': those who profess such
doctrines and follow such:a mode of worship as:the
legislature, representing the: people, has thought: most
agreeable to their general sense, - binding, as usual,
the minority,, not to: as assent to the doctrines, but to
a payment. of the tax,.
But how do -you ease and relieve? How do:you
know, that, in -making -a:newdoor-into the Church
for these gentlemen, you. do not'drive ten times their
number out of it? . :Supposing the contents and; notcontents'strictly. equal in:. numbers and,consequence, the possession, to avoid disturbance, ought, to carry it.
You displease all:the, clergy. of England now actually
in office, for the chance:of obliging a score or two, perhaps, of gentlemen, who are; or want to be, beneficed clergymen: and do-you. oblige? -Alter your Liturgy,
- will it please all even of those who wish an alteration? . will they agree,:in- what:` ought to be altered?
And after it is altered to the, mind:of. every one, you
are no further' advanced? than if you had not takeh a
single step;;-because- a -large:body of men willthen
say' you ought to have- no liturgy at all: and then
these I men; who now complai-n:- so,:bitterly: that they
are shut out,'will -,themselves:bar the do. or. against
thousands-: of -. others. ; Dissent, not. satisfied. ,with tol
eration,: is. not conscienceo but ambition,:. .
You alteredi the Liturgy. for the Directory. This
was. :settled: by a set of. most- learned:divines and
learned,laymenr:, Selden: sat:. amongst them. :. Did
this please:? :. It was'considered upon:both- sides as
a-most: unlclristia-n; imposition;'~WeIl. ,:at, tlre Resto7
ration-they:rejected;:the Directory,. and reformed the
Common Prayer,-w-h. ie hiCby thaeway: hd been three
? ? ? ? 14 SPEECH ON THE ACTS OF. UNIFORMITY.
times reformed before. 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-!
