"Protestantism of the English Church," very indefinite, because the term
PROTESTANT, which you apply, is too general for the conclusions which
one of your accurate understanding would wish to draw from it; and
because a great deal of argument will depend on the use that is made
of that term. It is NOT a fundamental part of the settlement at
the Revolution, that the state should be protestant without ANY
QUALIFICATION OF THE TERM. With a qualification it is unquestionably
true; not in all its latitude. With the qualification, it was true
before the Revolution. Our predecessors in legislation were not so
irrational (not to say impious) as to form an operose ecclesiastical
establishment, and even to render the state itself in some degree
subservient to it, when their religion (if such it might be called) was
nothing but a mere NEGATION of some other--without any positive idea
either of doctrine, discipline, worship, or morals, in the scheme which
they professed themselves, and which they imposed upon others, even
under penalties and incapacities.--No! no! This never could have
been done even by reasonable atheists. They who think religion of no
importance to the state, have abandoned it to the conscience or caprice
of the individual; they make no provision for it whatsoever, but
leave every club to make, or not, a voluntary contribution towards its
support, according to their fancies. This would be consistent. The other
always appeared to me to be a monster of contradiction and absurdity.
It was for that reason that, some years ago, I strenuously opposed the
clergy who petitioned, to the number of about three hundred, to be freed
from the subscription to the thirty-nine articles, without proposing to
substitute any other in their place. There never has been a religion of
the state (the few years of the Parliament only excepted), but that
of THE ESPISCOPAL CHURCH OF ENGLAND; the Episcopal Church of England,
before the Reformation, connected with the see of Rome, since then,
disconnected and protesting against some of her doctrines, and against
the whole of her authority, as binding in our national church: nor did
the fundamental laws of this kingdom (in Ireland it has been the
same) ever know, at any period, any other church AS AN OBJECT OF
ESTABLISHMENT; or in that light, any other protestant religion. Nay, our
protestant TOLERATION itself at the Revolution, and until within a
few years, required a signature of thirty-six, and a part of the
thirty-seventh, out of the thirty-nine articles. So little idea had they
at the Revolution of ESTABLISHING Protestantism indefinitely, that
they did not indefinitely TOLERATE it under that name. I do not mean
to praise that strictness, where nothing more than merely religious
toleration is concerned. Toleration, being a part of moral and political
prudence, ought to be tender and large. A tolerant government ought not
to be too scrupulous in its investigations; but may bear without blame,
not only very ill-grounded doctrines, but even many things that are
positively vices, where they are adulta et praevalida. The good of the
commonwealth is the rule which rides over the rest; and to this every
other must completely submit.