« НазадПродовжити »
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 wicked. ness, 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 VOL. XXIV,
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 siu 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 governmeut 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 organizatioa 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.
for the meast part comme described
It is quite unnecessary that we should set up any defence for the means which the Association has employed. They will for the most part commend themselves to the good sense of mankind, even as they are described by their enemies. We do not pledge ourselves to the perfect taste of every statement and expression contained in the Anti-State-Church publications ; but we submit; that—to rouse dissenters to political action against the ecclesiastical establishments of the country—to insist largely upon the desecrating influence of state support, as manifested in the character and administration of the Church of England—and to inform the public mind by cheap tracts, and popular lectures—are most legitimate methods of conducting the moral warfare in which the promoters of this movement are engaged. It is easy to sneer at these things. It is easier still to assume a pious indignation at their success. Charges of vulgarity may be apparently supported, by reference to those ludicrous images which the anomalous position of a secularized Christianity cannot fail to call up in the minds of those who see it as it really is. But contempt, and passion, and affected gentility, will not in this instance lessen the merit of the cause against which they are directed. It is a cause too strong in its justice to be shaken by such small shot. There is, moreover, a manifest want of keeping in the tenderness with regard to the use of hard words affected by a person, one of whose most familiar weapons is the accusation of blasphemy,' and who sums up the operations of his opponents as 'four years speaking, canting, railing, and lying.'
In this part of the review we meet with a very notable instance of the insincerity we have had such frequent occasion to point out. An extract is given from a tract on · The Duties of Sunday School Teachers in relation to State Churches,' to the effect that they should teach dissent dogmatically, or on their own word. We do not altogether approve of the sentiments contained in that extract, though we think it quite unfair to present it, as is here done, alone, when it is immediately fol. lowed by a corrective paragraph, with the heading, 'You must teach dissent logically, or by reasoning, Passing this by, however, the extract quoted is censured in these words :
*]f Mephistopheles himself had been consulted as to the best way of undermining the church, he could scarcely have given better advice than this, to take advantage of the unsuspecting confidence of the young and uninformed, and to instill into their minds the acetum of dissenting truth,' in reliance on the moral axiom, that this being once effectually accomplished, •Quodcunque infundis, acescit.' '- English Review,' No. xix. p. 143.
Now it is satisfactory to know, that instead of Mephistopheles having been consulted, this advice in spite of his 'swellings and his turkey-cockings,' may be traced to the veritable Pistol with whom we are now endeavouring to deal. Thus speaks the English Review' itself.
It is assumed as the Anglican rule, that protestants of the church of England should and do begin with inquiry. Artfully put as this is, young men may thoughtlessly presume it to be true ; but could the author of this book have failed to know, that protestants of the church of England begin with faith, as much as Roman catholics; that they are taught this implicit faith in childhood; that it is the first lesson conveyed to them; that the Anglican church gives her entire doctrinal teaching as so many positive facts, not as problematical possibilities? • English Review,' No, xix. p. 57.
The 'Quodcunque infundis, acescit,' ought not in this instance, surely, to have been disjoined from the SINCERUM est nisi ras.'
In estimating the results accomplished by the Anti-StateChurch Association, a singular parade of statistical calculations is exhibited. A business-like air is thus given to statements which are in themselves perfectly deceptive. We can assure our readers, for example, that the account contained in this * Review of the number of members really belonging to the Association, and the amount of money expended in its interest, is altogether incorrect. Various elements bearing upon both these points are left out of the calculation. We happen to be writing this part of our article in a town where a large and wellorganised body exists, which is actually working in the closest co-operation with the Anti-State-Church Association, but whose numbers and the amount of whose funds do not appear in any of the reports the Association has published. This and similar circumstances were not, perhaps, within the knowledge of the writer in the ‘English Review ;' but enough must have been known to him to produce the conviction in his mind, that the inferences he has pretended to draw from the facts open to his investigation, are fallacious. We are not anxious, however, to set this portion of the case in its true form, for we attach but little importance to it. In our opinion, the Association has not received from the dissenting public that degree of active support to which, in consistency with the principles of dissent, it is entitled; but it is gradually extending its influence among all classes of dissenters, and gives continually increasing promise of attaining to the station it ought to occupy. The progress it is making, is, with us, a matter of unfeigned rejoicing. The appearance of this notice in the English Review,' is one of the signs of that progress. The author of the notice cannot but be aware, that three years ago he could have concocted a statement of its condition much less favourable to its prosperity, than he can now venture upon; and he cannot but fear, that three years hence, he will have to admit the fact of a very large addition to the figures he has thought proper to put down. With this state of affairs we are well content. The little one has become a thousand,' and we are confident that it will still go on until it grow into a great nation.'
One of the statistical tables with which we are furnished, is of so strange a character, that we feel bound to take particular notice of it. It professes to set, in different columns,—the number of souls to one clergyman in each diocese of the kingdomthe number of Anti-State-Church districts, and of delegates to the Anti-State-Church conference, in these dioceses — the number of souls to one clergyman in the Anti-State-Church districts—and the provision made for the clergy in these respective divisions of the country. The object of this table is to prove, that where the church is in what is called the most efficient operation, the Anti-State-Church Association has been least successful. This, we are told, could not have been the case, if the church were really the source of the frightful evils depicted in the Association tracts. Now all this is a piece of pure humbug. It is so utterly and ridiculously beside the mark, that we are persuaded it was devised under a consciousness of its true character. It could prove nothing, and it was never meant to prove anything. It is neither more nor less than a solemn farce, played off upon the credulity of the 'sincere and devoted,' whom it is meant to dupe. We have not taken the trouble to examine whether the figures inserted answer at all to the facts they are brought forward to represent. This would be quite a work of supererogation. The very construction of the table is a cheat. We might point this out in various ways, but we shall confine ourselves to one illustration of it. In reckoning the number of souls to each clergyman in these dioceses and districts, no account at all is taken of dissenters as forming any part of them. This is a serious and, under the circumstances, a suspicious omission. It vitiates the whole story. The visits of the Anti-State-Church agents to any district, will naturally depend much more upon the number and activity of the dissenters in that district, than upon any particular state of the Church of England there. The number of souls to each clergyman in a district is, moreover, most materially affected by the amount of dissent which the district contains. When dissenters are deducted from the gross sum of the population, the remainder may present the very opposite result, as to church efficiency, to that which this table exhibits. What are here described as inefficient districts, may thus be