With every disposition, however, to do the author justice, we have some fear for the success of his argument; suspecting the Dissenters will be ready to reply, Our pastors cordially embrace the doctrine contained in your Articles; and as this cannot be affirmed of the majority of yours, the question of perpetuity is reduced to this amusing theorem,-In which of two given situations will a doctrine last the longest, where it is believed without being subscribed, or where it is subscribed without being believed?" The equal justice it is our duty to maintain, obliges us to notice another aspersion which the author casts upon Dissenters. 'Every addition Separatism makes to its supporters, alters the proportion existing in this country between the monarchical and the democratic spirit; either of which preponderating to a considerable degree, might be productive of the most serious consequences. For it is certain, that as our church establishment is favorable to monarchy; so is the constitution of our dissenting congregations to democracy. The latter principle is cherished in all communities, where the power resides not in one, or a few, but is shared, in certain proportions, among all the members; which is the case in most of the religious societies under consideration. Let it be remembered, then, that if religion increase in this way, there is that increasing with it which is not religion; there is something springing up with it which is of a different nature, and which will be sure to stand, whether that better thing with which it may grow, do or not.' P. 20. In this statement, the author has exhibited his usual inattention to facts. That the people had in the first ages a large share in ecclesiastical proceedings, and that their officers were chosen by themselves, is incontrovertibly evident, as well from Scripture, as from the authentic monuments of antiquity. The epistles of St. Cyprian, to go no farther, are as full in proof of this point, as if they had been written on purpose to establish it. The transfer of power, first from the people to their ministers, and afterwards from them to the bishop of Rome, was a gradual work, not fully accomplished till many centuries had elapsed from the Christian era. Until the conversion of Constantine, the Christian church was an imperium in imperio, a spiritual republic, subsisting in the midst of the Roman empire, on which it was completely independent; and its most momentous affairs were directed by popular suffrage. Nor did it in this state either excite the jealousy, or endanger the repose, of the civil magistrate; since the distinction betwixt the concerns of this world and those of another, so ably illustrated by Locke, taught the Christians of that time to render to Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's. Instructed to yield obedience to princes for conscience' sake, they were not the less orderly or submissive, because they declined their interference in the suppression of error, or the punishment of ecclesiastical delinquency. If there be that inseparable connexion between political disaffection and the exercise of popular rights in religion, which this writer contends, the primitive Christians must have been in a deplorable state; since it would have been impossible for them to quiet the just apprehensions of government, without placing a heathen emperor at the head of the church. What must we think of the knowledge of a writer who was ignorant of these facts, of the candor which suppressed them, or of the humanity which finds an occasion of aspersing his fellow Christians, in what escaped the malignity of heathen persecutors! The Dissenters will not fail to remind the writer, that the British is a mixed, not an absolute monarchy; that the habit of considering the people as nothing, is as repugnant to its spirit as that of making them every thing; and that to vest the whole power in the hands of one person without check or control, is more suited to the genius of the Turkish, than the British government. And to this retort it must be confessed, the conduct of the High Church party, who have seldom scrupled to promulgate maxims utterly subversive of liberty, would lend a very colorable support. The whole topic, however, is invidious, absurd, and merely calculated to mislead; since the construction of the Christian church is fixed by the will of its founder, the dictates of which we are not at liberty to accommodate or bend to the views of human policy. The dispute respecting ecclesiastical government, must, like every other on religion, be determined, if it ever be determined at all, by an appeal to Scripture, illustrated, perhaps, occasionally, by the approved usages of the earliest antiquity. To connect political consequences with it, and to make it the instrument of exciting popular odium, is the indication of a bad cause and of a worse heart. After the specimens our readers have already had of the author's spirit, they will not be surprised to find he is not quite satisfied with the Toleration Act, which, he complains, has been perverted from its purpose of affording relief to tender consciences, to that of making Dissenters. We are not acute enough to comprehend this distinction. We have always supposed it was the intention of the legislature, by that Act, to enable Protestant Dissenters to worship where they pleased, after giving proper notice to the magistrate; how their availing themselves of this liberty can be construed into an abuse of the Act, we are at a loss to conceive. This writer would tolerate Dissenters, but not allow them to propagate their sentiments; that is, he would permit them that liberty of thinking which none can restrain, but not of speaking and acting, which are alone subject to the operation of law. It is quite of a piece with the narrow prejudices of such a man, to complain of it as an intolerable hardship that a minister of the establishment is sometimes in danger, through the undistinguishing spirit of hospitality, of being invited to sit down with religionists of different descriptions; and he avows his manly resolution of going without his dinner, rather than expose himself to such an indignity. It is certainly a most lamentable thing to reflect, that a regular clergyman may possibly lose caste, by mixing, at the hospitable board, with some of those, who will be invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb. When Burke was informed that Mr. Godwin held gratitude to be a crime, he replied, 'I will take care not to be accessary to his committing that crime.' We hope the lovers of hospitality will take the hint, and never insult the author of Zeal without Innovation' by exposing him to the touch of the ceremonially unclean. Although we have already trespassed on the patience of our readers, we cannot dismiss this part of the subject without craving their indulgence a little longer. We are much concerned to witness the spirit of intolerance that pervades many recent publications. If the uniform course of experience can prove any thing, it is, that the extension of any particular frame of church government will of itself contribute little to the interests of vital Christianity. Suppose every inhabitant of the kingdom were to return to the bosom of the establishment tomorrow, what real accession would be gained to the kingdom of Christ? Is there any magic in the change of a name, which can convert careless, profanc irreligious dissenters into devout and pious churchmen? The virtuous part of them do honor to the Christian profession in the situation they occupy at present; and for the vicious, they could only infect and disgrace the community with which they proposed to associate. What means this incessant struggle to raise one party on the ruins of another, this assumption of infallibility, and the clamorous demand for the interposition of the legislature, which we so often witness? If the writers to whom we allude will honestly tell us they are apprehensive of their craft' being in danger, we will give them credit for sincerity; but to attempt to cover their bigotry under the mask of piety, is too gross a deception. Were the measures adopted for which these men are so violent, they would scarcely prove more injurious to religion than to the interests of the Established Church; to which the accession of numbers would be no compensation for the loss of that activity and spirit, which are kept alive by the neighborhood of rival sects. She would suffer rapid encroachments from infidelity, and the indolence and secularity too incident to opulent establishments would hasten her downfall. Amidst the increasing degeneracy of the clergy, which must be the inevitable effect of destroying the necessity of vigilance and exertion, the people that now crowd the conventicle, would not repair to the church; they would be scattered and dissipated, like water no longer confined within its banks. In a very short time, we have not the smallest doubt, the attendance at church would be much less than it is now. A religion, which by leaving no choice can produce no attachment, a religion invested with the stern rigor of law, and associated in the public mind, and in public practice, with prisons and pillories and gibbets, would be a noble match, to be sure, for the subtile spirit of impiety and the enormous and increasing corruption of the times. It is amusing to reflect what ample elbow-room the worthy rector would possess; how freely he might expatiate in his wide domain, and how much the effect of his denunciations against schism would be heightened by echoing through so large a void. Hic vasto rex Eolus antro The Gallican church, no doubt, looked upon it as a signal triumph, when she prevailed on Louis the Fourteenth to repeal the Edict of Nantes, and to suppress the Protestant religion. But what was the consequence? Where shall we look after this period, for her Fenelons and her Pascals, where for the distinguished monuments of piety and learning which were the glory of her better days? As for piety, she perceived she had no occasion for it, when there was no lustre of Christian holiness surrounding her; nor for learning, when she had no longer any opponents to confute, or any controversies to maintain. She felt herself at liberty to become as ignorant, as secular, as irreligious as she pleased; and amidst the silence and darkness she had created around her, she drew the curtains and retired to rest. The accession of numbers she gained by suppressing her opponents, was like the small extension of length a body acquires by death; the feeble remains of life were extinguished, and she lay a putrid corpse, a public nuisance, filling the air with pestilential exhalations. Such, there is every reason to believe, would be the effect of similar measures in England. That union among Christians, which it is so desirable to recover, must, we are persuaded, be the result of something more heavenly and divine, than legal restraints, or angry controversies. Unless an angel were to descend for that purpose, the spirit of division is a disease which will never be healed by trou bling the waters. We must expect the cure from the increasing prevalence of religion, and from a copious communication of the Spirit to produce that event. A more extensive diffusion of piety among all sects and parties will be the best and only preparation for a cordial union. Christians will then be disposed to appreciate their differences more equitably, to turn their chief attention to points on which they agree, and, in consequence of loving each other more, to make every concession consistent with a good conscience. Instead of wishing to vanquish others, every one will be desirous of being vanquished by the truth. An awful fear of God, and an exclusive desire of discovering his mind, will hold a torch before them in their inquiries, which will strangely illuminate the path in which they are to tread. In the room of being repelled by mutual antipathy, they will be insensibly drawn nearer to each other by the ties of mutual attachment. A larger measure of the spirit of Christ would prevent them from converting every incidental variation into an impassable boundary, or from condemning the most innocent and laudable usages for fear of symbolizing with another class of Christians,-an odious spirit, with which the writer under consideration is strongly impregnated. The general prevalence of piety in different communities, would inspire that mutual respect, that heartfelt homage for the virtues conspicuous in the character of their respective members, which would urge us to ask with astonishment and regret, Why cannot we be one? What is it that obstructs our union? Instead of maintaining the barrier which separates us from each other, and employing ourselves in fortifying the frontiers of hostile communities, we should be anxiously devising the means of narrowing the grounds of dispute, by drawing the attention of all parties to those fundamental and catholic principles, in which they concur. To this we may add, that a more perfect subjection to the authority of the great Head of the Church would restrain men from inventing new terms of communion, from lording it over conscience, or from exacting a scrupulous compliance with things which the word of God has left indifferent. That sense of imperfection we ought ever to cherish, would incline us to be looking up for superior light, and make us think it not improbable that, in the long night which has befallen us, we have all more or less mistaken our way, and have much to learn and much to correct. The very idea of identifying a particular party with the church would be exploded, the foolish clamor about schism hushed; and no one, however mean and inconsiderable, be expected to surrender his conscience to the claims of ecclesiastical dominion. The New Testament is surely not so obscure a book, that, were its contents to fall into the hands of a hundred serious impartial men, |
