Page images
PDF
EPUB

with jealousy by the government. Now the distinction attempted in this place, as well indeed as in others, is a distinction merely of degrees. Some doctrines are capable of perversion, though on the whole sound. Some are very liable to it; in other words, the abuse of them may be expected to be, on the whole, nearly as frequent as the use. Others, again, are so liable to be abused, that the probable abuse is clearly greater than the use. Others are almost always abused: good may arise even in this last case; but the good is occasional and incidental; evil is the general and natural result; it is not, however, the necessary result. Few, indeed, are the cases to which our author's words can be applied in strictness of speech; namely, that the evil consequence is "the legitimate and necessary result." No tenets ever are gravely preached or taught, none are in danger of being preached or taught, of which the evil tendency is so great as this; and therefore the admission practically speaking, amounts to nothing, if the words are to be taken in their literal sense. Doubtless he must mean, that the tendency of a doctrine ought to awaken jealousy, in proportion as it is calculated to promote evil; not that any broad line of complete separation can be drawn on such a subject. But if this be his meaning, the principle of his first chapter is invaded. Then, that indefeasible sort of right which all men have to what he calls a full toleration of their religious sentiments is denied. Then, a general right so far to investigate religious opinions as to judge upon the general subject must be conceded. Then, a complete scale of degrees is introduced; the degrees of encouragement or discouragement which the state should bestow, the length to which it should proceed with its preventive or remedial measures, being proportioned to the good or evil both in the general religion and the particular doctrines which are taught. The right at least of the legislature so to apportion the thing

is admitted. We grant at the same time that the practicability or expediency of proceeding to effect such apportionment is still a subject for the careful consideration of the state.

In short, we trust that we have said enough to shew that the broad foundation which our author had been at so much pains to establish, is undermined by himself; that this builder in proceeding with his erection, has contrived to demolish his own corner-s'one; and that it will be necessary for him to begin again on a new model, if he would produce a superstructure that is to stand.

We shall now proceed to state more particularly the ground on which, as we conceive, the general question may be fairly placed; and in doing this we shall combine, in some degree, the history of our laws, with the theoretic principles to which they ought to be conformed.

Religion, as we have already said, is by no means unconnected with the interests of the state; it is indeed, as this worthy author himself says, the very bond of society. The wisest legislators have been the most impressed with this general truth; and even those imperfect and most exceptionable forms of religion which some of them have combined with the system of their politics, have been associated with it for the sake of the beneficial effect in this world, which was clearly seen to result. Shall, then, the Christian religion be considered as of little consequence to the temporal wellbeing of man? Godliness, saith the Apostle, hath the promise of the life which now is as well as of that which is to come. Christianity tends in a thousand ways to promote temporal and public prosperity. We will venture to say, that it effects more than all the laws in favour of liberty and property, and more than all the orators who panegyrize those laws, can accomplish. It, on the one hand. prevents servile acquiescence in the measures of government, by the conscientious uprightness which it inspires; while, on the other, it pro

motes a spirit of obedience to lawful rulers, by the patience and humility which it inculcates. It produces a respect for oaths, and thus secures an honest testimony in courts of justice. By generally restraining the disposition to crimes, it dimi nishes in an inconceivable degree the necessity both of enacting penal laws, and of executing those which are enacted; and every way fits man for liberty. It produces confidence between man and man; it allays the spirit of discord; it thus cements the power of the state, and fortifies it against the aggression of foreign enemies. It represses luxury, enJarges the compassion of the higher orders for the sufferings of their inferiors, and causes the opulent to tax themselves, even without the intervention of law, for the benefit of the necessitous around them. It teaches the poor to be contented with their slender pittance, by pointing out to them a treasure in heaven. It raises the general estimate of the dignity of human beings, by representing even the lowest of mankind as endued with an immortal soul, and capable of eternal happiness. It thus excites a respect for every child of Adam, which is of admirable use in discountenancing the murderous work of war, as well as individual cruelty and oppression. Again Religion forbids drunkenness, restrains licentiousness, curbs all the envious and angry passions, diffuses peace and love, and gives a smiling face to society. Need we add, that it distinctly reminds governors that they are themselves responsible to God; and warns the people that they must be subject to the higher powers, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake? Can it then be admitted for a moment, that this religion, and it is of the Gospel alone that we now speak, is independent of morality, or that the morality which it so specially inculcates, has no bearing on the interests of the state? Other religions are very far from equalling it this respect. Let it never be sup

posed that heathen rites stand on one footing with Christian sacraments; or that the bloody Moloch and the merciful Jesus are one.

Christianity itself, however, is subject to corruption. It has been corrupted by the Papists, in whose hands it lost more than half its virtue. It is corrupted by the Socinian, though after another manner. It is also corrupted by the Antinomian. It is continually corrupted and deprived of its healing efficacy, in proportion as its professors recede in any way from the truth.

Το promote, then, this blessed religion, in its strength and purity, is an object well worthy of the state, We allow that a difficulty occurs: men are not agreed what are the doctrines the most conducive to this end: each has his own favourite dogmas; and the imposition of these may not accomplish the effects just ascribed by us to the true Gospel of Christ. Christ. This objection, however, is common to all the best-intentioned schemes of man. We mistake in our political, as well as our religious opinions, and are in danger of establishing constitutions, both of the state and of the church, which are erroneous or defective. The liabi lity of man to miss his aim, is no decisive argument against acting either in the one case or in the other.

miscon

But it may be said, that politi cians are more liable to ceive the doctrines of religion than the maxims of constitutional policy. The difference, we answer, is only in degree, and there ought only, therefore to be a certain degree of difference in their conduct in the two cases. Let men be specially cautious how far they go in legis lating on religion. Let our legislators remember, that their education, their knowledge, their rank in life, their lettered wisdom, their numberless endowments, do not qualify them to judge of what is sound in religion, or even of all that is pure in morals, with the same superiority over vulgar men with which

!

they can discriminate on questions of ordinary legislation. Let them moreover bear in mind, that the consciences of the people must not be forced; that religious truth itself must not be promoted by violence; that the good which is to be done is to be achieved in the spirit of the Gospel itself.

They who assume that the state ought not to meddle in religious matters, seem to us to expect a practical conduct in legislators, which is utterly inconsistent with the character of man, and with the whole course of human conduct. We can easily believe, that, in a philosophical and sceptical age, men may view, with a cold indifference the several sects of religion, and deal out an exactly equal measure between them; or that circumstances of various kinds may lead to a somewhat similar result. The strength of religicus sects may happen to be so exactly balanced, that even the most zealous leaders may be willing to compromise the matter by mutual forbearance from all kind of legislation on the subject. In general, however, men will be disposed to legislate on the points on which they are zealous; and this is the general explanation of the history of legislation of this sort. The Roman emperors, who preceded Constantine, were generally adverse to Christianity in theirown minds, and they consequently employed their legislative and executive authority against it. Constantine was for a time sceptical, and during this period of his life he gave equal countenance to Christianity and Heathenism, acCounting either religion better than mone, and ignorantly fancying that there might be equal truth in both. Ata more advanced age, he professed himself a Christian; and, whatever might be the deficiencies of his own character, he doubtless perceived, as the learned Mosheim has observed, the great advantages which general belief of Christianity would bring to the state. His zeal ipcreasing, he directed (says MoCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 109.

sheim) his authority, his influence, and his munificence, to the promotion of those religious opinions which he preferred. In this manner did the first establishment of Christianity take rise. It commenced after the manner in which we may imagine any dissenting interest at the present time to acquire some little permanency of support. A rich and zealous Methodist or Dissenter contributes, we will suppose, first to the building of a chapel and to the annual support of some favourite preacher or preachers; and he finally transfers, or bequeaths, a little land, or a durable annuity, to his institution. Suppose him to annex only an acre of ground, or a minister's dwelling-house to a chapel; is not he also a Constantine? And can you repress this exercise of religious zeal among individuals ? But it will perhaps be said, that an emperor or king, being the creature of the state, has not the same privilege in this respect as every opulent tradesman. Will it, however, also be affirmed, that the representatives of the people, in their legislative capacity, urged to this very measure by the concordant voice of their constituents, are without any right to act; that they cannot give expression and effect to the general will, by providing a regular, approved, and most beneficial establishment, to the true and acknowledged Gospel of Jesus Christ, because there is a certain secret contract, or quasi contract, to be presumed in every political society, by some supposed clause of which all religious matters are taken out of the province of legislation?-Yet this is the assumption of the writer now before us.

The question of religion may also be connected with the politics of the country. The two things have, in the course of our own history, been often so interwoven, that it has been impossible to legislate for the one, without touching the other. Civil liberty has gone hand in hand with protestantism; and arbitrary power with popery. The test and corpo¬

F

[blocks in formation]

There is a further consideration, which we would submit to this theoretic writer, and others of his class. When popery was overthrown, many of the revenues which had supported it were applied to the maintenance of the reformed church of England, and the patronage of that church has become variously distributed. Supposing, then, our ecclesiastical establishment to cease, what is to become of the funds now applicable to its support? Are tithes no longer to be paid? Are all church lands to be seized, and all testamentary endowments to be diverted from the purposes intended by the testators? The non-payment of tithes would be a boon bestowed on land-owners alone, and on these in a very unequal manner. If testamentary endowments, as well ancient as modern, are to be turned to the secular purposes of the state, surely every legacy left to the support of dissenting chapels, and to dissenting ministers, as such, ought to share the same fate. In short, the religious question mixes itself in this respect also with the civil; and dangers as well as difficulties arise, of no ordinary magnitude. We only wish to glance at them as we pass, and to remark how little they probably have been contemplated by

our theorists.

It may possibly be said, that, in case the church should be abolished, the interests of religion would be sufficiently secured, inasmuch as a supply of religious instruction will not fail to be afforded, in proportion to the demand for it, in the same manner as the supply of other things; and that the only duty of the legis lature is, in this as in other cases, to take care that the market be open, and all monopoly precluded. We deny the justice of this proposition. There are some branches even of our trade, on which a bounty is given; and we much fear that religion is one of those articles, of the value of which the people en

tertain so inadequate an idea, that a bounty upon it is expedient. The bounty, however, is given, in the present instance, through the application chiefly of funds paid from time immemorial; of funds which it would, in many instances, be robbery to turn to another purpose. A bill was lately brought into parliament, and passed the lower house, by which it was proposed to give a premium on education, that is to say, to tax parishes for the support of schools; and we never heard that the dissenters complained of the general principle of the measure. It assumed that a supply of education ought to be afforded, which should exceed the natural demand for it; for education, like religion, is commonly undervalued, and especially by those who themselves possess little share of it. Let us then understand the church establishment to be, what it is, an institution serving to extend, far beyond the natural demand, the supply of religious instruction, by the means of funds not now easily convertible to other purposes;-an institution of great antiquity, which has passed through many shapes, but at the Reformation was moulded into a form adapted to practical and moderu use; an institution claiming to be of apostolic origin, and unquestionably inculcating on its followers, as this author will confess, apostolic truth;-an institution aiming to provide, not. by partial, uncertain, and desultory efforts, but by the comprehensiveness and uniformity of its plan, for the salvation of souls in every parish of the kingdom, as well as for the interests of morality. If an establishment like this should manifestly fail of its object, and should also long continue to be useless, or worse than useless, then let sentence be passed upon it; but let it not be condemned to destruction by a preliminary and sweeping sentence in a theoretic book, without reference either to its virtues or its faults. Let it not be discarded for the sin of merely being an establish

ment. Possibly if it derived its revenue from the state, and did nothing for it, this author would not have troubled himself to lay down the theory which condemns it.The income of church ministers might have been allowed to be peaceably enjoyed, on the ground of long prescription, like many other incomes with which no duty is connected. Let it not then be condemned for the religious service which is annexed to it, for the piety which it inculcates, for the instruction which it circulates; let it not be stoned for its good works.

We have thus explained, at some length, our own general views on this important topic, and we have now fulfilled the principal part of our task. In much of what our author says towards the conclusion of his first essay, we cordially concur. We agree with him, that every man is responsible to God, and not to the magistrate, for the articles of his belief; that rulers ought not to annex "penalties" to the rejection of their views of the manner in which Scripture ought to be interpreted; and that they, we will not say, with him," who enjoin conformity to the English episcopal church," for conformity is not now enjoined; but, who, either by law or otherwise, promote or encourage it, "are responsible to God for the nature and consequences of the creed" which they countenance. We are glad to take occasion from this part of the work of our author, to reprobate that doctrine of some of our modern statesmen; a doctrine, how ever, which he seems (we hope only seems) to favour in another place, that a legislator is simply to consider the will of the majority, in deter mining what religion he will contribute to establish. He is bound to see to it, that it is true religion, and not some mere imposture, that he is endeavouring to sustain or to promote.

We have, in some degree, anticipated the remarks of our author, in his second essay," on the specific

"were

Limitations to the Extent of an enlightened religious Toleration."His exceptions relate, 1st, to the principles which sanction the prac tice of vice; 2d, to those which tend to excite resistance against government; 3d, to those which sap the basis of the social compact. Speaking of fifth-monarchy men, under the second head, he says, sentiments of this description to be promulgated in the present day, it would be wise in the legislature to imprison those who taught them; or to take sufficient securities for their desisting from the practice. In this case, it would be impolitic to await the consequences of tolerating such enthusiasts, and to punish only for the breach of the peace, for such sentiments inevitably tend," &c, We generally agree with him in such observations as these, but we hold to our doctrine of degrees, and esteem the true theory to be that of measuring out the degree of penalty-of discouragement-ofencouragement--of positive aid-and of complete support, in proportion as the religious principles are inischie vous or otherwise; but we would qualify this theory by adding, that we ought to take great care, for the reasons already given, not either to "investigate "or legislate too much.

Our author is very handsome towards the Mohammedan. “ I would receive," says he," his evidence, either in a civil or criminal case; because, if he swear by the Koran, his oath will be sacred, and his testimony that of inviolable truth." We, also, would receive his evidence, though merely on the principle of " valeat quantum." We should incline to give much less weight to it than to that of a Roman catholic. The proof of the sufficiency of the Mohammedan's testimony, is deduced from a passage in the Koran, quoted in note 10; but it is not very satisfactory to us:"God (says the Koran) will not punish you for an inconsiderate word in your oaths, but he will punish you for what ye solemnly swear with deliberation and the expia

« PreviousContinue »