« PreviousContinue »
design was: in a word, whether it can have been any other, than the design of causing a multitude of acts to be generally regarded as acts of the Society in question, whereas in truth they were not: and in particular the acts here held up to reprobation, under the name of exclusionary acts, and under the notion of their being repugnant to morality and to the religion of Jesus.
§ IX. Authors, acting and consenting, of the com
bined systems of exclusion and imposition.
Of that system of ill-will towards men, by which the benefits of religious and moral instruction have been withholden from so many, and by which that security which depends upon the religion and morality of all, has been denied to all, -we have seen the authors-active authors and connivers together: viz. those in whom, under the name of members of the General Committee, is vested the sole right of conducting the affairs of the self-styled National Society: Archbishops and Bishops, 26; nominees of the said Archbishops and Bishops, 26 others. Of that system of misrepresentation and imposition, by which the main actors in that antichristian and anti-social system have endeavoured to hide themselves in the crowd of passive connivers, and by that means to become screened from that pre-eminent share in reproach, which is so justly due,--the existence has also been proved, and the contrivance developed and brought to light.
These main actors then, who are they? –This is what remains to be shewn in the present Section.
- These main actors, who are they ? —Answer 1. In the first place, constantly and regularly, the President of the self-styled National Society, Dr. Manners Sutton, Archbishop of Canterbury, and under him the so often mentioned and no otherwise denominable, T. T. Walmsley, Sec. In the next place, occasionally,—and though probably with not less than equal zeal, yet not with equal assiduity-equal assiduity on the part of any other agent not being deemed necessary,-Dr. William Howley, Lord Bishop of London :-self-constituted Prostrator-General—as there will be such frequent occasion to shew and to remember-Prostrator. General of understandings and wills. (See below, p. 88, &c.)
I. First in order, though neither first in dignity nor equally constant in operation, let us behold his Lordship of London. By this transposition, we shall from the first be rendered the better acquainted, not only with the zeal by which these combined systems have been produced, but with the nature and extent of the designs to the accomplishment of which they have been and are directed.
On all these accounts, what seems matter of indispensable necessity is that in this place the reader should be presented with a specimen of the graphic art,-in which, by a sort of spiritual imitation of one of the temporal curiosities of Bullock's Museum, two portraits-viz. that of the late Bishop and that of the present-himself being the limner are so conjoined, that by a slight shifting of position, either the one or the other may be contemplated : both of them being not only enclosed in the same frame, but, like two colours of a changeable silk, both occupying one and the same portion of space. After the examination of this double portrait-and let it be with that attention to which it presents so irresistible a claim-it will rest with the sincere reader, to form his judgment on several points, the importance of which will scarcely be dubious in his eyes :-for example,
1. Whether it be the fault of either of these Lords of London, any more than of the Bishop of St. David's, if either London or Country still continue to be infested, with any persons who, in opi. nion (1)* or in practice,(2) by heresy (3) or by schism (4), are separated from the Established Church :
2. Whether, in this view of the matter, all such persons are not men of “ guilt:"(6)—
* Of this and the ensuing figures of reference, the use is—to guide the eye the more promptly to the passage in the ensuing original, from whence the words here quoted have respectively been extracted.—To some readers it may perhaps be found more convenient to peruse the original in the first instance.
3. Whether any such guilt ought to be " palliated :"(7)— 4. Whether any
« desire of conciliation,” by which such palliation may be suggested, is not in their view, a“ vain desire:"(8)—
5. Whether, according to the principles of the two Prelates, for the purpose of clearing the country from such guilt,(6) the growth of every “ opinion” (1) or “ practice,(2) which even by remote
consequence might unsettle the faith of the in
experienced, or introduce confusion and dis“ order into the Church, (9) ought not to be “ checked :"(10) –
6. Whether, for this purpose it has not been the desire, design, and endeavour, of these two Right Reverend persons to “ replace ecclesiasticul discipline
upon its ancient footing :” (11)
7. Whether that ancient footing be not to be found in the principle and practice of Archbishop Laud, and his predecessors in the days of Elizabeth, or, in respect of every thing but bodily torture, in the practice of the Spanish Inquisition :
8. Whether among the purposes, for which, in this same Charge, it is declared that the aforesaid
discipline" ought to be, -and which, if the necessary power is to be had, of course will be,-employed, be not the “ recovering the rights of the
9. Whether, among these rights, which, having once been possessed and exercised, have since been lost, and now remain to be thus “ recovered," be not the right of governing, without the concurrence of Parliament all persons in all ecclesiastical matters : that is, in all matters to which it shall be the pleasure of the persons so in power to give that name: that same right being the right formerly possessed and exercised, under the name of Heads of the Church, (successors thereby in England to the Popes,) by Henry the Eighth and his worthy daughters and successors, Mary and Elizabeth ; amongst other branches of that same right, that of burning heretics, as exercised by the aforesaid Henry, Mary, and their successor James :
10. Whether it be not the declared opinion of both these Lords of London, that, in the prosecution of such designs, the “discretion of the ruling “ power,” ought not to be “ fettered:"(13).-11. Whether, by the present Lord, this policy be not pronounced a “ wise policy ;”(14)—and such a policy that, in the “ pursuance” of it, “ resolution" ought to be “ inflexible,” (15) and not to be “ dis“ couraged by resistance :” (16)—
11. Whether, by the present Lord Bishop's own avowal, it be not in the character of an instrument to be successively employed in the prosecution of these designs, that by both their Lordships, under the name of “ the National System of Educa
tion,” (17) the system, (including the exclusionary system, as above,) pursued by the Society selfstyled the National Society, has been supported :