The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-06-15 00:00:00

DIOCESE OF PETERBOROUGH.

Lord KING said he had to present a Petition, on
which he considered it his duty to make some ob-
sesvations ; it was a case of great importance as
it concerned the Established Church. and also as
it concerned the commussitiy. at large. It was the
Petition of the Rev. Henry Neville, who was
Rector of the parishes of Lothersirick and Scots-
more, in the diocese of Peterborough, complain-
ing against the conduct of the Right Reverend
Prelate of the dioceses. The Petitioner found it
necessary to appoint a curate to perform the duty
in one of the parishes, and he appointed the Rev.
Julio Greene, who had the certificate of the Bishop
of York that he had sulosciibed to the 39 Articles.
Fie applied to the Bishop of Peterborough for a
license, the diocesan put 87 questions and answers
to him to subscribe to, which, on hi. refusing, the
license was not granted. The Petitioner sips
reeled to the Archbishop of Canterbury ; thu
answer was delayed for a length of time, and when
it came it was laconic, and stated that the exami-
nation of a Curate for license was vested in the
Bishop of the Diocese. He (Lord King) thought
this was not a sufficient answer for • Judge, as he
ought to have stated his reasons tbr his judgment.
He did not understand the Canon Law, but he
thought a Clergyman 'subscribing to the 39 Arti-
cles was all that was required of him. If the Bishop
refused to admit is Clergymsa to a benefice, the
claimant would have his remedy at common law ;
but that remedy was not open to the claimant for a
cure; the only appeal he had was to the Archbishop
of Canterbury, whose duty it was to act as a Judge,
bound by rules, as all Judges iu Westminster

Hall were, and if they erred in judgment.there was
•-• remedy by writ of error. He considered the
eight of examination was properly given to the
'Bishops for candidates to be admitted as clergymen
of the chinch, but he would pitt it to their Lord-
ships, whether the 87 printed questions could be
for the purpose of useerisining the ability of dip
daimauta ? They certainly 'hewed the opinionof
, 'the Right Rev. Prelate, but could tint draw out
'any thing from the person they ware pot to, at the
gnawers were also printed ; besides, from their le.id7
:18g nature, it was impossible. If they were in-
tended as a test. the law had provided a better
we—the 39 Articlee. Calling on a Curate to sub-
imribe to the 87 questions, put him in a must
awkward situation, as they do not agree with the
'99 Articles; then, if the Curate does not subscribe'
alp tlwat, he is'refused his license; if, the 39 Articles
lyre were 1,20 a proirositions—in the 87 quevtior.el
*sere were 12,000. When the questiosus were vent tral
the Curate, lie said he would consider them ; the
Right Rev. Prelate answered, that he must • e-
Iliately subscribe to them as his patrons siproverl of
'them, and if he did not he would nut have Iris
license, and might seek what remedy he pleased.
He had heard that this doctrine of the Right Rev.
Prelate amongst ecclesiastics was jocularly called
cobwebs to catch Calvinists. His great objection
to the eighty-seven questions was, that they tended
to produce a schism in the church. If it was law-
ful for one Prelate to pet such questions, it would
be equally lawful for another Prelate to put dif-
ferent questions. In his opinion there was nothing
that would go more to disturb the peace of the
church. He always understood the tenets of the
church were to produce peace and quietness, it was
so from all the authorities he had read on the
subject, anti from the same authorities lie found
that the greatest ornaments of die church had not
risen to the greatest dignities. The Thirty-nine
Articles were considered articles of pence, at the
same time they were not those of conscience, but
the less that was said about them the better. It
was, however, hlrd on the part of a Prelate to
throw difficulty iii the way of those that adhered to
them. lie thought the Right Rev. Prelate might
he satisfied with the Articles of the Church of
Englund as they had been drawn up by the Re-
harmers of the Church. He considered that the
eighty-wren questions not only went to aggrieve
the clergy of the Right Rev. Prelate's diocese. but
to disturb the general community. The Right
Rev. Prelate said his eighty-seven questions was for
the purpose of causing uniformity in the church,
but he (Lord King) contended that uniformity could
not he obtained without peace in the church, which
could not be obtained by forcing new tenets on the
clergy. He would move that the Petition should
be read, and afterwards wove, that it should be laid
on the table.

The Bishop or PETERBOROUGII rose and said,
as the Petition had been printed sud distributed
in the shape of a pamphlet for two mouths, be
supposed every Noble Lord was in.possession of its
contents. The Rector of Lotherwick had ap-
pointed a Curate, whose license was refused on
account of his refusing to be examined according
to the rules of the diocese. The Rector appealed
to the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and on receiv-
ing his answer, he did in September present an-
other person to the cure. who submitted to be ex-
amined, and was licensed, and ...sat present in pos.
session of the cure. If the Rector had received an
injury from the diocesan, he had his appeal to the
Archbishop of Canterbury ; he had taken that
course, and on getting an answer lie acted according
to it. The Petitioner, therefore. had nothing to
complain of; but lie did not wish to cover him-
self wider that. The examination which he had
proposed was in the usual way, that of question
and answer, to see whether the persons claiming
were of the religious opinions that ought to entitle
them to ordination or license. The inquiry into
religious doctrines was not the province of either
House of Parliament. The 48th cotton required
the examination or a Curate to entitle hiou to a
license; it gave tio form of examination, but left it
to the discretion of the Bishop, and wisely so, be-
cause the Bishop knew what wits wanted in his
diocese. He put his questions to the claimants,
to discover whether they were possessed of the
new doctrines that were going about. He
denied that his questions were wrong, but he con-
tended if they were, Parliatnerit could not in-
terfere, for the Canons were law to the Bishops.
The subscription required to the answers to the
questions was only to skew that they were the an-
swers of the persons subscribing. He contended
his questions were according to the original standard,
for lie knew no other, because they were upheld by
' Holy Scripture. He did not require the answers to
be subscribed in his presence. lie sent them to he
dune at the person's leisure, and sometimes when the
answers were not satisfactory, he remonstrated, and
often brought them back to the proper standsrtl. If
subscription to the 39 Articles was all that was titers-
sary. they would soon have the same thing !tappet,
in Cols country as did in Switzerland. His que•-
tioas were not intended as a test of ability, but as a
test of doctrine. The number of persons refused
ordination on account of not answering the ques-
tions, was one ; those refused license for cures for
not answering, one ; and those refused license for
not answering at all, two, one of whom was Mr.
Greene, the Curate in question, and this was the
mighty evil the House of Lords was called ou for
their interference. The questions were approved
of by the great body of the clergy. as they went to
expose fanaticism. He thought it his duty to say
thus much, and he left the Petition with their
Lordships to deal with it as they might think proper.
Loid KING replied, and observed, that nut one
of the other Right Rev. Prelates had attempted to
assert that they had put similar questions to the
clergy of their dioceses. The Noble Lord then
moved that the Petition should be laid on the table.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said he rose
merely to set their Lordships right as to the appeal
which. it was said had been made to bins, and the

-s-~ ~-