Page images
PDF
EPUB

tion of such an oath (that is, the inconsiderate oath) shall be the feeding of ten poor men, &c.-This is the expiation of your oaths when ye swear inadvertently: therefore keep your oaths." May not the benevolence of some good Mussulmans incline them to the occasional substitution of the inadvertent oath for the deliberate one? May it not occur to them, and especially when some great interest of their own is concerned, that if, on the one hand, they should extend the expiation by feeding twenty poor men instead of ten, they may also enlarge the boundaries of their privilege of swearing?

Our author, however, does not spare the catholics. The catholic" believes," says he, " that the priest, or at most the pope, is amply qualified to absolve him from all his sins; and hence, if he can escape punishment from the laws of his country, he may practise iniquity in its grossest forms; his conscience may be cleans ed from guilt by an act of absolution, and his soul be delivered from perdition by a small gratuity to the holy father." He refers for proof of this to the absolution given by the priest after confession," which, he says (see note 9), runs in this manner:-" Our Lord Christ, who has left power in his church to absolve all sinners, who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences; and by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." The words which we have marked with Italics (which are not so marked in the note) may not unfairly be construed as extending themselves over the whole sentence, and therefore qualifying the absolution itself: so that our author's allegation is by no means established. Nevertheless, we fear that the sentiment charged is but too common among the papists, and finds countenance in many documents of their church.

have given of the doctrines of the catholicks be correct, it must be manifest, that, from the laxity of these doctrines, and the unaltered spirit of their professors, we have no security that will bind the great bulk of the catholicks. On the other hand, present concessions may be suggested, by the anxiety of their leaders, to carry a favourite project, with the concealed design to revoke all their concessions, whenever the balance of power may preponderate on their side.

"Were the catholicks even willing to make much greater concessions than they have hitherto made, these concessions could not be received by a protestant state, as valid, unless sanctioned hy an authority as high, in the estimation of Romanists, as that which first established the principles against which we except. These principles were and as the present political state of Europe originally established by general councils;

does not allow the convention of such a council, to reconsider or to correct the articles of their faith, catholicks should be content to wait a more favourable opportunity. For, if the decisions of former councils be not superseded or rescinded, and the catho licks absolved from their obedience by as high an authority as that which established these articles of faitht, they might, at any suitable period, recur to the old trick of the

Dominium altum.

"Upon the whole, then, if tranquillity were restored to Europe, there would remain two, and only two means for effecting the complete emancipation of the English and Irish catholicks. First, by convening ageneral council of the highest authorities of their universal church, to cancel those decrees of former councils, which are found to

be inimical to the peace and prosperity of protestant communities: or, secondly, if the convention of such an assembly be found impracticable, or if the object for which it should be convened cannot be effected, it then remains for the catholicks of this kingdom to separate themselves altogether from the spiritual dominion of the foreign autho rities of their church, and, by one general

act of secession, to absolve themselves from

all obligation to those obnoxious doctrines, which, as long as they are professed, ought to exclude every catholick from the full enjoyment of the privileges of British subjects.” pp. 84-87.

He adds, "If the existence of popish chapels be permitted, and priests be allowed to officiate, it should be, by the licence of the civil magistrate, under a covenant, that none of these exceptionable doctrines should “If,” says this writer, "the statement I be taught; or, if the doctrine of absolution

[blocks in formation]

in the face of the bench of bishops, that "the preservation of the morality of the state, and the peace of the individual, are points perfectly distinct from forms of worship, and systems of religion." A few temporal and latitudinarian peers give an encouraging cheer as he delivers this oracular expression, but the whole of the lords spiritual stand aghast at the mischievous and portentous doctrine which has escaped from his lips. His Grace of Canterbury replies; and how vehement is the tone with which he throws back on the arch-heretic the words with which he had insulted the bench! "The morality of the state, distinct from forms of worship and systems of religion!" He calls the whole house to shew their

upon

The third essay is on "Eligibility to Offices of Public Trust;" and the great object of it is to recommend a repeal of the corporation and test laws, so far as they respect protestant dissenters. Our author labours first, and chiefly, to shew that they entertain "no principle hostile to society, no aversion to the British constitution, or to the house of Brunswick." He afterwards toaches on what we conceive to be the main objection to their admissibility to office, namely, their presumed hostility, not to the civil, but to the ecclesiastical part of the British constitution. We must here remind him, that he has himself contributed to maintain the general jea lousy of dissenters, as to this essential point, by the theory introduced into the opening of the present work. Let us suppose our author to division? Who can be conbe admitted into office, and invested with one of the highest dignities unfident that the oratory of a whole cabinet of dissenting servants der the crown: doubtless he would, of the crown might not in time

indignation at such atheism as this. The house divides; and if places and ribbons, if pensions and sinecures, and further elevation in the peerage; if commands in the army and navy, and the whole patronage of the country, were at the disposal of this heretic, and of other men of the same class, who can say that the numbers on the ministerial side might not be considerable in the

in that case, exert the influence derived from his station, to prevent this general subject, and that the "the civil magistrate from exercis- cry of "the church is in danger" ing" what he calls" any controul of might not resound through the land conscience." He would, perhaps, with some sort of reason; the bring in a bill, forbidding the exerneral wishes of the country itself

grow wonderfully persuasive on

ge

cise of the "right to investigate re- being overborne in the conflict?

We have cast our observations into this shape, in order to mark to our anonymous prime-minister what is

as well as putference" (which means also, as we fing an end to all " judicial interpresome, all executive & legislative the precise nerve in the body politic interference) "to suppress one mode which would begin to vibrate, if men of religion, and establish another."

Let us realize the scene in ques- the seals of office. A fear prevails in tion. Let us suppose him to argue this country (we are not now exafor such a bill in the House of Lords, mining with what degree of reason), having with him all the weight that if dissenters should obtain a of ministerial authority, on the place on which to fix their foot, ground stated in his book. Let us they might, under certain favourable imagine

like him were freely allowed to take

plishing the wish which a few of them express, and more of them perhaps entertain, of overthrowing that church, which once before was overturned by men supposed to be of their order. The state itself (say many politicians to whom the mere religion of the church is no very serious consideration) might at length be involved in the destruction. We would therefore advise the dissenters to moderate their hostility to our ecclesiastical establishment, if they would hope to effect any relaxation of the laws tending to exclude them from office: we verily believe that the malus animus of the body towards the church is much less than it used to be, and is also less than is conceived by many of our churchmen. But our author thinks that he has a complete answer to this argument, derived from the hostility of dissenters to the Establishment. "It will have no force," he says, "when estimated by a principle which every Englishman considers one of the peculiar glories of the constitution: the existence of any measure can be justified only so long as it meets with the concurrence of the majority in the nation. It is only on this principle, that the episcopalian can call his the national church."-We beg leave to protest against the principle, that the existence of every measure prescribed by the statute book is only to be justified so long as it continues to meet with the concurrence of the majority of the nation. According to this general doctrine, our legislators are bound to act, not on their own judgment, but on the opinion of the majority of the people. Now the excellency of our

constitution consists in the representative system;--a system which implies that certain persons of superior endowments are appointed, for the purpose of examining and deliberating upon the points submitted to them, and of deciding according to their own conscientious judgment on every case; they being responsible to their constituents only at the end of a specific period,

at which time the whole of their conduct is to be contemplated together; and the renewal of the trust is to depend on the general view which is taken of the course of their parliamentary conduct. Our author's doctrine is not that of the representative system: it is not that of our so happily mixed and balanced constitution: it has in it the very essence of democracy; and if fully acted upon, it would infuse into our laws all the ignorance, the prejudice, the fickleness, and the violence which belong to the lower classes of mankind. It is undoubtedly true, that few if any measures of great and transcendent consequence can long be maintained in this country, without a certain measure of countenance on the part of the people. We here mean, however, by the people, the more intelligent classes of them; we mean those in particular, in whom is vested the right of voting. It is to this modification of the po pular opinion; it is to this partial independence of the representatives, and to the still greater independence of the House of Lords, that we owe no small portion of the wisdom and justice, and of the moderation and forbearance, of our statute book; and it is to the same cause that we owe, in part, the steady maintenance of our mild ecclesiastical establishment-an establishment so congenial to the whole of our political constitution.

We have, in a former part of this review, remarked on the duty of every legislator to support only that religion, by legislative acts, which he himself deems to be true; and we expressed our hope that we had the uniform opinion of our author himself in favour of this sentiment. Mean indeed, in our judgment, must be the character of that man, who, being himself enlightened with both political and religious knowledge, and having a clear judgment of what he deems to be conducive to the spiritual and temporal good of his fellow-creatures, should consent to legislate for the multitude, merely

according to their own taste; and, to apply certain unguarded words of oor author to this point, should vote for establishing the religion of Mahomet, of Moloch, or of Christ, as he should judge most agreeable to !the majority.

We cannot conclude our observations on this essay without admitting that much objection appears to us to lie against the nature of that test, which the law has selected. The profanation of the Lord's Supper, on the occasion of accepting office, is, as we trust, not so frequent as our author imagines. Still, however, it is a serious and awful thing to tempt men of light or worldly characters, to turn, merely to a temporal use, this sacred ordinance. When the subject of the catholic claims was under the consideration of Mr. Pitt, the general repeal of the test and corporation acts necessarily came also into his contemplation, and we understood that some substitute for those laws was to have been suppli, ed by him. What that substitute was to be, has never been explained, but we have been repeatedly assured, by the reverend Bishop with whom he principally consulted, that the new test would provide no less effectually than the old, for the security of the church. It would be no small satisfaction to learn what was the specific guard to which that distinguished statesman intended to re

sort.

The fourth essay, which is the last on which we shall dwell (the other taraing upon a less religious subject), is "on licensing Persons and Places for the Performance of Divine Worship;" and it acquires importance from the notice given during the last session by Lord Sidmouth, of a motion intended to be made in the present session upon that subject. The claim of the dissenting minister, not only to toleration, but also to protection by the state, is well put in the following manner by our author. "He is, professionally, the patron of morality, its advocate to the world, an ensample ofits nature to the

church, and consequently the enemy of every sin; therefore, if morality be a public benefit, as the Gospel tends to promote good morals in society, he who is professedly set for the defence of the Gospel must be an eminently useful servant to the public." From hence, and from other circumstances, he takes occasion to observe, that licences should be freely granted. The following observations, on the necessity of some degree of lay preaching, on the part of persons intended to be dissenting ministers, are well wor thy of notice. "Most dissenting ministers have in early life been engaged in secular concerns; and as they do not expect the miraculous interposition of Providence, either to call or to qualify them for the work of the ministry, they conceive that those talents which are well adapted for the sacred office must be matured by an application to appropriate study, and by a gradually increasing degree of exercise in prayer and preaching." It is said to be often necessary occasionally to exercise these gifts in public, for one, two, or three years; and the impropriety of refusing licences to persons of this class, and indeed to any persons, on the ground of their not being ordained, and of their being itinerants, is strongly urged. speaking generally of persons of this description, our author says, that, from the most impartial estimate of those who have come under his observation, they appear to him to be men of unimpeachable moral habits, of friendly dispositions in social life, obedient as subjects, rather above the level of mediocrity in intellect, their hearts imbued with a spirit of universal philanthropy; a portion of that time which their neighbours devote to news and politics being appropriated by them to the important task of preparing to instruct, in a plain, perspicuous way, the lower classes of society. We trust that in this description our author is not far from the truth: but he certainly proceeds a step too far, when he

In

asks, whether any thing, but the most disinterested love for the souls of men, would induce itinerant preachers to persevere in this course (as he calls it) of self-denial. Surely there is much vanity within us, which may be suspected of having a share in erecting us into preachers. This writer tells us very plainly, that a law refusing licences to preach, in this country, would not be likely to be obeyed. "Woe," says he, "to that man, whose cowardice in religion seals his lips in silence, when the civil ruler commands him to desist from preaching!"

"Here," he says again, "a question may arise: What line of conduct conscientious ministers ought to pursue, if laws were to be enacted, forbidding either all dissenting ministers to preach, or only lay preachers; or, for bidding to preach in an unlicensed place; and, at the same time, refusing to license persons and places, except under such security as the property of the parties would not meet, or under limitations to which their consciences could not accede. What has been advanced ought to outweigh every consideration of temporal interest; and, if the evil genius of persecution were to appear again, I pray God that we might all be faithful to Him, who hath called us to preach the Gospel. Under such circumstances, let us continue to preach; if fined, let us pay the penalty, and persevere in preaching: and, when unable to pay the fine, or deeming it impolitic so to do, let us submit to go quietly to prison, but with the resolution still to preach upon the first opportunity, and, if possible, to collect a church, even within the precincts of the gaol. He, who, by these zealous exertions, becomes the honoured instrument of converting one sinner unto God, will find that single seal to his ministerial labours an ample compensation for all his sufferings." pp. 239-241.

Our author at the same time very candidly admits, that the exemptions now granted under the toleration act to dissenting ministers, ought not to be applicable to preachers who transact secular business.

"The public does not attach any peculiar sanctity to their character; and, consequent ly, were they to be seen fulfilling some disagreeable duty connected with a parochial office, they would not experience a diminution of any part of that respect, which their friends or neighbours commonly express.

They have not, in general, standing engagements; and though, sometimes, a circum stance might occur, to prevent their fulfilling an engagement to preach, perhaps those circumstances would occur scarcely more frequently than sudden indisposition, and particularly as evil-disposed persons could not concert such hindrances; because an itinerant preacher's engagements are neither regular nor local. His ability, also, to provide substitutes, is equal to that of his neighbours: he depends upon his secular calling, to provide means of support for himself and family: and, to the same source he should look tor provision against those taxes which the law impuses, whether they require personal duty, or pecuniary contributions." pp.249,250.

We trust that the fears entertained of some invasion of the present religious privileges of dissenting ministers are groundless. We are, for our own part, friendly to a very liberal interpretation of our laws on the subject of toleration, and are extremely jealous of every new interference of the legislature on religious subjects.

Freedom of discus

sion, as our author well observes in his concluding essays, is one of the best remedies for error, whether political or religious; and if, on the one band, modern Methodism has its extravagancies and absurdities, let it be remembered that these are not unlikely to be kept in some check by the variety of popular and periodical publications which now so peculiarly abound.

Our chief object, however, in the present paper, has been that of placing on a just foundation the ge neral theory, if such it may be called, of an enlightened religious toleration. The state has a right, as we affirm, to concern itself with the religious opinions of the people; for these opinions are intimately connected with the interests of morality, and morality is the very bulwark of the state. At the same time we are most ready to allow the necessity of much caution, and even forbearance, in carrying this general theory into practice. The state also has a right to provide the means of religi ous instruction: in doing which they who legislate are bound to

« PreviousContinue »