| OCR Text |
Show ( are general, afifeé‘ting every member of the liament to alter the (flood/lied religion has been community equally and alike. Religion is of but correfpondent to its right; and therefore, a_/piritzml nature: it is a negative duty, and not a poflfz'rve right: it is not general, but varies according to men's confciences : it is the fub- whilf'r it is no proof of the fupremacy of Par- ject of toleration, for no laws can have power over men's minds. What Aft of Parliament can make me believe that t/oree is one, or one is three, if I do not chufe to believe it? Or that liament, Ifhould not be ferry to fee a little more alteration of it. Ithink it may {till be amended, without offence to the people, or injury to the conflitution; nay even with fads- faé'tion to fome of the clergy themfelves. The my falvation in the next world is to be obtained fecond precedent is that of the High Commiffion Court, and the Star Chamber; which is by the belief of 39 articles in this? The dia- in direct proof of my argument: for they, Hzfled religion, therefore, is no more than that being ufurpations of power, and abufes of the dreflr which the State toy/or: have provided for rig/91‘ of Parliament, have been diflblved; and therefore I agree with Mr. Burke that it would Religion to go to court in 3 and the fame toy/or: that made this drefi, can aller it, as we have teen, and as the fathion of the times changes. be madnefs to revive them, and for the reafon he gives too, to wit, "the incompetence of " Parliament 1" though if the power of Parlia- But if this was not the cafe with the eftablithed religion, how, in the next place, does ment be unlimited, is not the incompetent)! of Parliament a pofition fomewhat paradoxical? its alteration flew the right of Parliament to The third precedent is, " the King's negative omnipotency P What eifeé'c has it had on the " to Bills, which is wifely forborne." eonfiitution? Are we [e s free now, either in Church or State, than we were before the Re- the forbearance of a bzown rig/3t to a power formation ? I {hould imagine that we are more not the exercife of a power un/enown to the conftitution. As it therefore fhews, that, even free in both, and if f0, freedom being the firit principle of the conflitution, the power of Par- but as I am now out of his clutches, {o 1' hope I am out of his book ,, s too , . at leafl t'uchV as are akin to his V ldC Archbifliop of York's Sermon, p. 10. oliti cal fermons. P I liament This is veiled by the confiitution in the Crown, and where there is a manifef't power, that power is limited; f0 it proves, of courfe, that where there is no manifei'c power, there can be no right to unlimited power. The 139: precedent IS |
