1
results found in
5551 ms
Page 1
of 1
I Dissenters
1. The inclination on the part of the […?] to destroy the Church, without the ability would afford no reason for putting them under any monumental /disagreeable/ restraint.
2. Coercive or attractive methods employed to produce conformity are either mischievous or useless.
3. Useless as to all those who would have conformed without them.
4. Mischievous as being productive of immorality, i:e. of falsehoods as to all those who would not have confirmed without them to 17
5. The text compel them to come in whatever be the interpretation put upon it, if it were to be understood to authorize persecution to induce men to become Churchmen could not to induce men to take a part in the controversive[?] among Christians.
6. Catholics no probability of their […?] – it would be for the world be for the world to go back upon in knowledge – enough conveniences by […?] not to be accounted as any thing
7. Persecution, if you can justify one degree, so you may every other
8. Such is the meanness of antipathy particularly religious antipathy, sooner than omit any chance of gaining its ends, it will put on the mask of cowardice.
9. All references to history is the story of the wolf & the lamb
10. Church to be defend – meaning the ecclesiastical as well as every other property of Churchmen
11. Every other apprehension of distinction of the church is a diffidence of, a rebelling against the general will.
12. It can not {but} be done but by a majority – Then you think the majority will be against you?
But if the majority are against you you are in the wrong. Fallible as it is, there is no other palpable […?] of truth […?] this
13. Those who say this will let it Atheists &c are certainly no friends to Atheists any more than to dissenters: they mean to stigmatize the one by the alliance and the other by the comparison
14. But by this supposition they pay Atheists the highest compliment, and give one of the strongest arguments that can be given for the innocence or rather mischievousness of Atheism – Atheists have then more conscience than believers.
15. There is a something which restrains men from being guilty of falsehood for worldly /gain/ advantage or to avoid suffering, even under /with/ the impossibility of detection even where detection is impossible.
16. Churchmen afraid of the destruction of the Church by the Dissenters must respect that the force of truth is against them – For what but the force of truth can prevail against the force /attraction/ of so /such/ many dignities and /a body of wealth/ {honour?}. Bishopricks so many bribes for keeping people to the Church
17. For 4 To maintain that […?] &c have any effect is to acknowledge the insincerity of those who take them.
18. There is no protection whatever you can not get people to subscribe to, {by} if you pay them for it, and punish them for not doing it.
19. What you want to come in for your share of the loaves and fishes? The complaint of the monopo[…?]t against the fur trader – of the rich shop-keeper against the poor hawker.
20. American a proof that dissenters are not intolerant now – This move is point than them history.
21. Catholics had a plea for persecution which Protestants have not.
22. …to punish men for continuing of the religion of their Fathers
23. Churchmen to inveigh against innovation! They who owe their existence to innovation
24. Finds for the propagation of the Gospel moderate. I wish they were more ample. Funds for the propagation of falsehood immense – 14,000 a year from Durham 10,000 from Canterbury, 6,000 from York,2,000 as an average for the other Bishopricks.
25. The real and true Members of the Church of England, are they, and the only, who would be so, were there nothing to be got by it.
26. Bolingbroke, to his other preferences, added that of &c. proscribing gainsayers to a system he did not believe
27. To exact oaths of Papists, saying Papists do not hold themselves bound by oaths, is to say I insist upon making use of this method because I am sure it can not answer its purpose.
Pu[…?] May 12. 1769
Philanthropos – ‘Is it not an article of faith in the Church of Provin…. Are men who hold such Doctrine . . . calculated to become good members of society in a Protestant country unless restrained by statutes containing some degree or an . . . . &c
Whatsoever would be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
I beg pardon of the Church &c I have never been able to hate those who differed from me: if I must hate it should rather be those who thinking with me with regard to those speculative points would be for employing the fruits of hatred to force others to think with me &c
In common cases a majority are bound /themselves/ by the Laws[?] they make – instance[…?], penal Laws &c
But in these laws are […?] acts of hostility of the majority against the minority, in which the rights of the one are sacrificed to the passions of the other.
Intolerant laws all turn upon confounding the truth of a proposition with the obligation to believe it.
It is universally believed that the garment of J. C. &c. […?] scorn. Suppose that by a collation of text or discovery of new ms any one should succeed in proving to deconstruction[?] that there was a scorn, would that {…?} impose on me an obligation to believe it
The only standard of importance used fundamentally is influence on moral conduct. […?] this and every thing is abundant to ones […?]ness & c[…?]
Of what importance can a truth be, how ever sublime from which nothing follows?
The constitution of the Godhead is with respect to us […?] and ignorant mortals of no {more} importance than the […?] or […?] of our luxurious […?].
Is it men with the max God as with the false ones of the heathens of different passions implied different […?], and by pleasing one a man had to fear the displeasing of {the} another then indeed it would be of importance.
As it is, it is of none: but what is of importance is that a person pronouncing one set of words should be led to conceive that a person using another set of words on that occasion
{indeed him}
[…?] the wrath of all those persons and that to such a degree as to be doomed by their […?] […?] to eternal misery.
The […?]ness the notion that every innovation is to wish the ruin of the Church is a consciousness /imputes a sort of/ of acknowledgement that it will not bear examination – In every department of government of government it would be concluded at once a proof of guilt
Pamphlets
Rights of the Protestant Dissenters to a compleat toleration affected 1789
Priestly: letter […?] P[…?]st 1786 or -7.
Brothers […?] of the Catholics.
Query of him whether the Papers are paid for insertions
Title
Thoughts on the claims of DIessenters
Two races – then of cost, & […?] . . . & Otions
It is the property of tyranny to provoke rebellion, and perhaps to justify it.
Similar Items
-
Title: [BR9 DISSENT 1 Comm. 90.]Description: BR9 DISSENT 1 Comm. 90. One of the most redoubtable arguments in a paper circulated among the members of the House of Lords against the Bill for the Relief of the Dissenters, [v. Publ. Ads. for Saturday [23 o 2] of May 1772 is that it would be contrary to several Acts of Parliament. It is then applied indeed however only to the matter of expediency, & not of right: tho' in either is it's force the same Luckily Cicero has treated of this conceit, as the Author of the Commentaries observes, with the contempt it merits deserves: And Cicero was an eloquent Orator, a Roman, & lived 1800 years ago.— Those arguments which will weigh with those with whom no others will. A4 DISSENTERS - Penal Laws Who are these men, that to take they should take upon them to impose this stigma & this thraldom on men loyal as themselves, peaceable as themselves, and (to descend ascend from these merits negative qualities which a state expects from it's members as matters of obligation, to those positive ones which it honours in them as matters of praise) learned as themselves, in every respect their equals, except (that in which may pardon their inferiority) in not being titled as themselves?
-
Title: [1818 Dec. 30 Parl. Reform Bill]Description: 1818 Dec. 30 Parl. Reform Bill Dialogue Excluded II. Peers III. Churchmen 5 5 Anti-Reformist. Well but, Lord /Peer/: I will not give you any trouble about the King, /the Grand Signor[?]/ the Emperors of China […?] Austria or Russia, the Emperor of Japan, civil or ecclesiastical, the Grand Signor[?], the Pope, or an English or Irish Bishop. But a Peer – what say you to a Peer Reformist. He may sit for one and unwelcome[?], if a set of Electors can be found to choose him. Be assured, by any virtually-universal suffrage men, voting secretly and therefore freely not so much as one would ever be chosen, who to the full conviction /assurance of the majority was not a friend to their cause. And then to repeat a former observation, in that House if there were fifty Peers all of them sworn enemies to that cause, what mischief could they do with twelve times the number of commoners to prevent it? Anti-Reformist. And a Clergyman? Reformist. He is an Office-holder: call him Rector Vicar or Curate what you please. For unless he be a Curate at least he can not be a Clergyman. This indeed by existing law which may be abrogated at any time. But at any rate if not occupied in saving souls in one way, he is in another: and that is quite employment enough for any man’s time. Anti-Reformist. But a Clergyman of a Non-Established Church? Reformist. He is, to this purpose at least, no Clergyman at all. Be his situation in that way what it may he will not be recognised as being in it. If a man although a Member of Parliament chooses to save souls, how can you hinder him? And why not occupy himself in saving souls, or in doing what you can never hinder him from doing – help destroying them at a gaming-table?
-
Title: [19 Sep. 1809 Parl y Reform]Description: 19 Sep. 1809 Parl y Reform B. I. Necessity Ch.18. Mischief of Idol-worship Ch. Elog § King worship 10 17 10 But the non[?] existence of Ravaillons[?] is a[?] proof of the guiltiness of the Catholics of their being the […?] their forefathers Inserendumae? It is good – was the observation made on a memorable occasion – it is good that one man die for the people, and, howsoever /how/ erroneous soever the truth of the maxim will hardly be disputed /contested/, at least by those to whom the punishment of /for the purpose of punishment/ death is regarded as an eligible and advantageous mode It is good that one man die What then Sir are you in your sense? What does all this lead to? the Ravaillons[?], the Jaques Clements – are these the same you are arming? one[?] against your Sovereign? Not I indeed – if armed by any body, of which no one could ever so much as pretend to see any the slightest symptom, it is not by me. But away with all such no less extravagant than horror striking /inspiring/ thoughts. Who is there to whom, a hundred times in life it has not happened to wish for events (for wishes /desires/ are not at command as acts are) to wish for events which he would rather see his right hand struck off or his tongue cut out than contribute in any the remotest manner /move one inch/ to the accomplishment of? But the Ravaillons[?] the Jaques Clements, they exist only in history. Among the Catholics of Ireland, had there been but a single one in existence, this state of things would have brought him forth, and to a man to whom the end of life were the beginning of eternal felicity, nothing would have been more easy, nothing more secure. No Ravaillons have there been in Ireland or been about to be. But if this be so true shall it not be remembered to their advantage?
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1