Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

quoted, is an impudent misrepresentation. Mr. Miall does not hold that government is to extend its care to the furtherance of true religion; is to concern itself about the spiritual welfare of its subjects, about the salvation of their souls. He holds the opposite of this. His tract was written to establish the opposite. It bears this intention upon every part of it. The sentence about what is 'religiously offensive, displeasing to our Lord and Master, and subversive of Christian purity, peace or power,' is expressly directed against a state extending its care to the furtherance of true religion.' The thing particularly mentioned as religiously offensive,' is an established church.' slightest doubt could not have been entertained as to Mr. Miall's real meaning, for he had taken the pains, in connexion with the paragraph copied by the reviewer, to protect his language from the abuse which is here committed with regard to it.

[ocr errors]

The

'Let us guard ourselves,' says he, against misrepresentation. The boundaries of citizenship in every country are marked out by human wisdom or by human folly: and all that we would be understood as affirming is, that the boundaries having been prescribed and settled, in any given case, each one who is placed within those boundaries, is placed there by providential dispensation.'- Religious Establishments incom. patible with the Rights of Citizenship,' p. 9.

Here, then, is an instance of the most shameless perversion. It is a desperate cause that requires a resort to such desperate means, and it will be seen, as we proceed with our extract, that the palpable fiction we have exposed, is the only ground on which the subsequent argument in favour of political injustice is built. Take that fiction away, and the whole superstructure falls. The argument is as mendacious in its premises, as it is tyrannical in its conclusion. It is thus stated:

'The point to which we would request the attention of Mr. Miall, and of those who share his opinions, is the bearing of his arguments upon the hypothesis, after all not a very preposterous one, that there is such a thing as a kingly power, of divine institution. Let it be supposed, that by the powers that be,' we are to understand, not the sovereign people, of whose divine authority we are not aware that mention is made anywhere in Holy Writ-we will thank Mr. Miall to set us right if we are wrong, but those whom Holy Scripture points out by name: 'kings, and all that are in authority;' let it be supposed, moreover, that these kings,' ordained of God,' being diligent in reading their Bibles, have found therein certain passages in which false teachers are spoken of with reprobation, as those whose word eateth as doth a canker,' in which those who separate themselves' are denounced as sensual, having not the Spirit;' in which it is declared, that the mouths of unruly and vain talkers, and deceivers, must be stopped;' in which, among the evils that shall befall the church in the last days,' is mentioned the fact, that

[ocr errors]

'they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts, shall heap to themselves teachers having itching ears, and shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables,'-the fable of 'Voluntaryism,' Anglicé Willinghood,' as one of the Tracts for the Million has it, for example:-suppose the 'kings,' who, holding their office from God,' are trustees of political sovereignty,' feel it their duty to put a stop to the babbling of these self-constituted teachers, who tickle the itching ears of fickle hearers or take advantage of the ignorance of the multitude, for bringing a mass of 'railing accusation,' such as the tracts of the British Anti-State- Church Association contain in rich abundance, against the church divinely ordained by Christ and his apostles, and established in the land for the instruction and guidance of the people; suppose they are sensible of the full weight of responsibility which rests upon them, if they suffer anything religiously offensive, displeasing to our Lord and Master, subversive of Christian purity, peace, or power,' to continue in the land,-what, in that supposition, would become of Mr. Miall, the executive committee, the council, the conference, together with all the delegates and members of the British Anti-State-Church Association ?' Would they not be proclaimed an offence and a nuisance, and forcibly put down, on the principle, that, unless this were done, the whole amount of power surrendered by the trustee of political sovereignty would be thrown into the Anti-StateChurch treasury of unrighteousness? With what face, upon his own showing, could Mr. Miall stand up, and complain of persecution? Upon what ground could he find fault with the state support of the church, seeing that he himself declares it to be a cause of present rebuke and future judgment, for those whom God has made rulers,' to 'leave the people to perish through their indifference.' We want no more strin

gent argument in support of a state church, a state church rigorously opposed to dissent and nonconformity of every kind—than the principles laid down by Mr. Miall himself, on behalf of the Anti-State-Church scheme, backed up by the usurpation of the democracy over the powers that be,' 'kings,' and others that are in authority.' Mr. Miall's principles would warrant the suppression of dissent and nonconformity,which the church does not call for :-the exclusion of separatists from offices of trust and power would be a matter of course, being, in truth, a means of self-defence, which a state, directed by wise counsels, would never neglect or relinquish, under a mistaken idea of the nature of toleration, and in forgetfulness of the bounds by which toleration is separated from admission to power.'- English Review,' No. xix.

p. 138.

This foolish parallel is just as if a pickpocket should say to an honest tradesman, you and I are both engaged in getting money. The point of comparison would lie in that case between a similarity of pursuits, as it lies in this between a similarity of religious professions; and the point of difference in the two cases is exactly the same, viz., a total opposition as to the moral principles, in consistency with which the conduct is shaped.

It is quite true, that kings, as well as subjects, are placed under religious responsibilities with regard to the exercise of the political power entrusted to them. The responsibilities of the one party may, therefore, be fitly illustrated by those of the other. But who, in his senses, would think of comparing them together, without first ascertaining the purposes and means with which political power ought to concern itself? Those purposes and means prescribe the limits within which the responsibility of both kings and subjects should be confined; and to take no notice of such limits, is to make anything or nothing of the subject, as fancy or passion may dictate. It is here said, for instance, that the parallel relied upon would warrant the suppression of dissent and nonconformity, which the church does not call for;' and we may add, that there is no extent of abomination which it would not warrant. It would, as it is conducted, warrant the hanging or burning of every dissenter in the land. It is perfectly worthless for any purpose of argument, inasmuch as it proves a great deal too much. It is confessed to prove a great deal more than its author thinks to be right, and it really embraces modes of procedure which he would not dare to hint at.

A very obvious limit to the religious responsibility with which the administration of civil government has to do, is, that it should preserve a perfect equality of treatment between the different religious parties in a state. The state is constituted for the equal benefit of all its subjects; and, as another man's religion stands in the same relation to him as ours does to us, the interest of every one in connexion with this subject should be regarded, as identified with the opinions which he himself holds. In dealing with our own religious interests we have to follow the personal convictions of our own conscience in the matter; but in dealing with the religious interests of others, we have to respect their conscientious convictions, just as we desire ours to be respected. This is surely right and Christian. We can quote for it the universal command- All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.' We can confirm our particular application of this command by the apostolic rule of judgment— Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other; for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?' Need we say with what an unconsciousness of Christian duty on the subject, this plain principle of justice is violated in the paragraph of the review on which we are now remarking. The church, divinely ordained by Christ and his apostles, and established in the land for the instruction and guidance of the people,' is, according to that paragraph, the sole religious interest with

[ocr errors]

which the government should concern itself; and it describes the exclusion of separatists from offices of trust and power,' as a means of self-defence, which a state, directed by wise counsels, would never neglect or relinquish, under a mistaken idea of the nature of toleration, and in forgetfulness of the bounds. by which toleration is separated from admission to power.' This is, verily and indeed, to trust in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these.'

There is another limit to the religious responsibility belonging to the conductors of civil government, which we cannot but notice as applicable to the extract before us. That responsibility should be fulfilled, not only in consistency with the equal religious rights possessed by all the subjects of the realm, but also in consistency with the particular class of duties which the nature of government prescribes. That which it may be the duty of a man to perform in one relation of life, may cease to be his duty in a different relation; and it is very easy to find in the Bible, warnings and reprobations which, as to the manner of their execution, do not come within the range of human duty at all. The duty of a state is confined to the promotion, by the outward force of law, of those secular interests with reference to which alone a state is constituted. Now, it would appear, that no definition of the duty of the civil power has dawned upon the mind of this reviewer. He has brought forward a number of scraps of passages of scripture, some of which have only to do with the Divine government, while others relate to departments of human conduct quite separate from that which is appropriate to the civil magistrate. These he has strung together, without the slightest reference to the principles of obligation with which they are, or are not, connected in their original use. Some of these fragments, for example, are taken out of the Epistle of Jude. What has the Epistle of Jude to do with trustees of political sovereignty?' Nothing at all. And the same may be said of every other portion of this patchwork. It is altogether destitute of any real bearing upon the question in hand. Any degree of absurdity, or wickedness, may be supported by the scriptures, if it be allowable to employ them after this fashion; and the man who does so employ them, quoting their sacred words in false senses and applications, just to suit the intentions of his sectarian bigotry, as though the word of God were a mere collection of slang given to him, that by its means he might add point and force to the expressions of an impotent malice, dishonours and wrongs the cause of revelation as much as he sins against the claims of humanity. We should have thought, it might have occurred

[blocks in formation]

to the mind of any one who arrogated to a church, or a state, the power of taking vengeance upon the ungodly, whom the spirit of prophecy declares shall appear in the last days,' that the same spirit describes, as one of the characteristics of those days, that in them the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.'

These then are the political principles which it is thought necessary to array in defence of the position occupied by the Church of England-that the government has a right to exclude from offices of trust and power all separatists from the one form of religion which it chooses to patronize; and that its authority in this direction, may be stretched to an assumption of the supreme dominion in religious matters which the Bible attributes to the almighty Ruler himself. There could not be a stronger testimony to the truth of the principles advocated by the British Anti-State-Church Association, than is afforded by the fact that they are obliged to be met by such rabid insolence of assertion as we are thus presented with. Lest our readers should think we have spoken too severely on this part of our subject, we will lay before them a gem of a sentence which the reviewer has, with special commendation, transferred to his pages from those of Mr. Robert Montgomery :

'If the state really desires to do her duty towards God and Christ, towards the nation, nay, towards the dissenters themselves, she must no longer assume a wavering position, halt, hesitate, tamper with conscience, trifle with principle, and crawl for ever in the venality and vileness of a pitiful expediency, but at once stand forth in the high majesty and holy rectitude of a Christian constitution, and say to sectarianism, 'We tolerate your existence as a necessary evil and social nuisance not to be avoided; but an external, positive, and divine organization like the national church in this country, is that religious communion which reason, revelation, conscience, and common honesty, demand, we should sustain and encourage.'-Ib. p. 166.

We commend to the author of this sentence the following confession of the original Parolles :

Who knows himself a braggart,

Let him fear this; for it will come to pass

That every braggart shall be found an ass.'

The large space we have occupied obliges us to touch very briefly upon the remainder of the paper we are examining. This, however, we do not regret, for what yet lies before us is of far inferior importance to that over which we have passed. It mainly relates to two points-the means employed, and the results accomplished by the Anti-State-Church Association.

« НазадПродовжити »