66

mental truth, but who differ in secondary and inconsiderable matters, Study first to be peaceable, then pure"; "Receive ye one another, as Christ also received you, to the glory of God; "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, and let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth;" "Follow after the things that make for peace, and things whereby ye may edify each other." In your separate condition you have all arrived at the same views as to saving truth: expect further agreement as the reward of fellowship. "Let as many

as are perfect "-instructed in the fundamentals of Christian doctrine -" be thus minded;" and, "if in any thing ye be otherwise minded,” -if, on subordinate topics, you have different opinions, by proceeding together in brotherly communion, "God will reveal even this unto you.' Love in the heart will become light in the intellect; you will feel yourselves perpetually approaching to greater uniformity; in proportion as you have more of that visible oneness which will for ever be seen in the Church in heaven, you will display less of that diversity of sentiment which hitherto has distinguished and often distracted the Church upon earth.' Two Letters, &c. pp. 61-63.

We could wish here to close the present paper; but we must, with all convenient brevity, proceed to complete our design of adverting to the other branches of the ecclesiastical debate.

3. The original ground of the controversy between the Hierarchy and the Puritans, was the imposition of unscriptural rites and ceremonies. It was not Episcopacy, but the sign of the cross in baptism, kneeling at the eucharist, the surplice, and the other objectionable parts of the offices and ritual of the Church, which formed the main occasion of the long dispute within the Church, that terminated in the Act of Uniformity. With the discussion of these points, Hooker's fourth and fifth books are occupied; and they have assigned to them a very prominent place among the reasons of Dissent, in the Protestant Dissenter's Catechism. A new edition of this tract, with some judicious corrections and omissions by the highly respected Editor, is now before us; and we are tempted to take this occasion of saying a few words upon the publication.

We are not aware of the date of the original edition, but this Catechism must have been first published upwards of forty years ago, when it had the honour of being vehemently reviled by two of the greatest orators of the day, Bishop Horsley and Edmund Burke; a circumstance which must have tended greatly to promote its circulation. Its sale would not seem, however, to have been very rapid, since, in 1807, it had reached but a thirteenth edition, and six editions only have since been taken off in five and twenty years. Had this Catechism really been in popular use among the Dissenters, had it been generally regarded as 'a standard work', (as those who have made it the text of their aspersions upon the Dissenters, have affected to suppose,) it is needless to say that the sale would have been ten times, or we

VOL. VIII.-N.S.

M M

might say a hundred times as great. But it has little to recommend it to popularity, and we can hardly suppose that it was ever used as a catechism. It has more the character of a polemical squib, than of a collection of religious knowledge; and it was far better adapted to the year 1790, than to 1830. This, the present Editor appears to have felt, so far as to induce him to omit many offensive passages, for which he offers the following apology.

'A minute criticism on obsolete terms and phrases, in such a composition as the English liturgy, must appear invidious, and is not at all consistent with the candour and liberality which ought to be found among Dissenters. Some things which may be very proper, or necessary, in a controversy with a high-flying Churchman, will by no means fit the lips of a child or any young person of either sex, into whose hands this Catechism may come. I have softened one of those passages which relate to the Spiritual Courts: their thunders have long ceased to roar. And the universities are certainly in a much better state than when this little work was written. After all, I have left unaltered many lines which some perhaps will think had been better blotted out. In addition to the reasons which operate at all times, there are some derived from the circumstances of the time in which we live, to enforce a truly evangelical style of conduct towards those who differ from us in these matters. The Church of England, every one may see, is too much like "a house divided against itself", to be allowed to reproach us with our divisions.. If these things have contributed to place Dissenters on higher ground than that on which they formerly stood, let them disdain to dwell on little blemishes in the liturgy. Let them exhibit the dignified moderation and generous forbearance which must ever accompany "the meekness of wisdom."

These remarks are worthy of the amiable spirit of the learned Editor; but why, it may be asked, republish a Catechism open to such objections? If we may venture to conjecture the motives which have led Dr. Newman to sanction this reprint, we should suspect that his regard for the venerable name of old Samuel Palmer, and feelings of kindly remembrance towards one whose friendship he enjoyed, have had the chief influence; together with the wish that the Catechism should not again be printed without the removal of some of the more glaring improprieties. Dr. N. expresses his persuasion that the leading principles are derived from the Christian Revelation; but this says little in favour of the form in which those principles are exhibited. We doubt, however, whether the answer to the first question can be reconciled with those leading principles. That there are four religions' in the world, the Pagan, the Jewish, the Mahometan, and the Christian', we must think as crude and incorrect a notion as could possibly be instilled into the mind of a young Nonconformist. The first part comprises a brief his

6

6

tory', which comes down only to the year 1779. Part the second gives the reasons of Dissent, in the greater part of which we of course must coincide. Some of them, however, are but feeble reasons; others captious; and there is a disagreeable flippancy and pertness in the style, occasioned by the very form of the work, as a dialogue between Question and Answer. An instance of the captious remarks may be found at Q. 82. Why do Dis'senters object to the appointment of these holy days? A. It is impossible that many of them should be observed without a 'culpable neglect of business.' True, but many of them are not observed. Two only (not Sundays) are religiously observed by the Church of England; and the young Nonconformist should be told, that the appointment of the fasts and festivals did not originate with the Church of England, and has long ceased to be regarded as binding. Again, at Q. 113, we have a most curious piece of information. After the respondent has enumerated the crimes cognizable by the Spiritual Court', viz. adultery, fornication, simony, heresy, schism, slander, perjury, neglecting the sacraments, and the like '; he is questioned, what are the punishments inflicted on persons found guilty of such crimes? Answer. Chiefly those which the Gospel does not warrant; such as fines, imprisonments, deprivation, and excom'munication.' Does not the Gospel, then, warrant the excommunication of the adulterer? Or are fine and imprisonment improper punishments of the perjurer and the like'? It may be said, that the Spiritual Court is an unconstitutional tribunal; but that is another matter. Upon the whole, we are glad to notice the improvements in this twentieth edition of the Catechism; but we should not be sorry to think that it would be the last.

6

6

Were we required to state our reasons for dissatisfaction with the rites of the Church of England, we should refer to the confessions of Churchmen,-to the writings of Mr. Hurn, Mr. Riland, and others, which prove, beyond all possibility of denial, that what may be represented as mere cavils when urged by the Dissenter, are real grievances to the pious clergyman. And the less Dissenters say about these matters, the more boldly they will speak, who feel their pressure. Nonconformity no longer stands in need of this method of defence. On the other hand, if church reform takes place, the revision of the offices and liturgy, and of the terms of ministerial conformity, must follow. The repeal of the Act of Uniformity, one of the most iniquitous acts that ever disgraced a Christian Government, is fervently to be desired for this reason, were there no other, that its existence stamps with more than inconsistency any attempt on the part of the clergy to obtain the alteration of an iota in the book to which they have solemnly pledged their unqualified approbation.

4. The fourth branch of the controversy relates to the Esta

blishment as such, and to the Church property. This is, strictly speaking, a political enquiry, though one of vast importance to the interests of religion, as well as to the secular interests of the community. It embraces, indeed, a very extensive range, and subdivides itself into various distinct heads of inquiry: I. The expediency of Endowments in relation, 1. to the interests of learning; 2. the support of the ministry; 3. charitable and benevolent objects: II. the existing Church Property, considered, 1. as to its tenure and amount; 2. as to its kind and the mode of levying the tithe; 3. as to its distribution. We protest against the attempt to make any part of this extended enquiry a party or a Dissenting question. The tithe is a national grievance, but not more so to Dissenters than to others; for the allegation that it is an invasion of the rights of conscience,' we cannot but regard as altogether erroneous. The conduct of the Quakers, who, for conscience' sake, submit to inconvenience, gives a consistency and respectability to their collective protest against tithe, which must clear them of insincerity even in the eyes of those who consider their objections as unreasonable. But in Dissenters who pay tithe without scruple, the plea that their consciences are hurt at having the money to pay, sounds too much like a reason of self-interest, rather than of piety.

The Address to the Dissenters of England on the subject of Tithes,' we should presume to be a juvenile essay. Flippant, shallow, violent, and declamatory, it affords a flagrant specimen of that secularized, or rather vulgarized Dissenterism which makes a good cause look like a bad one. It is, in fact, a mere political tirade; and a single sentence will indicate the taste of the writer.

The true rights of mankind begin to develop themselves with a clearness that cannot fail to beget an energy in the assertion of them, that no corruption-no collective power of all the "would-be-tyrants" in the world-can possibly resist.' p. 23.

The subject of Tithe will infallibly undergo the searching inquest of the reformed Parliament: it is there that Dissenters might with the most effect contribute their assistance to the settlement of what is properly a legislative question. abstract question relating to the expediency of endowments, is quite another matter. Upon this point, we are inclined to think with Mr. Douglas and the Author of the Letters, that the extreme opinions are both remote from the truth. Then, again, as to the right of interfering with existing endowments, and of regulating Church property, there arises an important question of constitutional law, which we cannot regard as belonging to the ecclesiastical controversy. "Fiat justitia briefly touches upon the subject in a note, with equal good sense and moderation; and we shall transcribe his observations without going further into the subject at present.

:

What appears to me the common-sense view of the "Church and its endowments," as Dr. Dealtry would express it, may be given in very few words. Funds, acknowledged to be large, exist among us in the shape of property professedly devoted to God; that is, intended to provide for the service of God in order to promote the religious benefit of the people. This property has arisen, or arises, from the bequests of the pious, government grants, and direct taxation. Now, of all benevolent bequests, Government is the ultimate trustee; it can modify their use, or change their destination, whenever an obvious necessity requires it hence, it can authorize the Directors of the Harpur Charity, at Bedford, to apply a portion of their funds to objects not contemplated by him who bestowed them; hence, too, it can divert what was left to support Popery in general, or to provide masses for the souls of particular individuals, to the use of Protestant literary or religious institutions. Again: Whatever Government gives for the public advantage,—for the public advantage it can resume;-it ought to do so, if enlightened public opinion demand it ;-public opinion may demand, in such a case, the one of two things-either, that the grant be discontinued entirely, being found by experience to be injurious rather than beneficial; or, that it be discontinued as to its form, but still made in fact, though under a new modification.

Church-property is really the property of the nation. It has been left, or granted, as has been said, not for the private and pecuniary benefit of individuals who may happen to possess it, but for the religious benefit of the whole commonwealth. If this is not consulted or secured by its appropriation, the people have a right to demand that it should. It is property held upon certain conditions; and if these conditions are not fulfilled, the nation, whose property it really is, must look out for those who will fulfil them ;-those who are willing to do its work, and able to do it well: and, if it should be satisfied-rationally and religiously satisfied—that the creation of such property was a blunder and a mistake; that it has proved, and will ever prove, an obstacle to the attainment of those very ends which it is professedly intended to promote; that, in fact, the conditions on which it is held, will be better fulfilled without it: then-I do not hesitate to think, that it has the right-the legal and moral right-to annihilate it all, by devoting it to other objects of public utility.

On these principles some persons have advocated the application of Church property to the payment of the national debt. To me this appears to be a premature and violent proposition. I admit, that I think circumstances might authorize this; that is, when it should be completely proved to the intelligence and piety of the people, that this would be more for the glory of God, and the promotion of his cause, than putting it to any religious use. If, because property has been left to be employed in a certain way, it is to continue to be so employed in spite of all the lessons of experience to prove it an evil; this would not only be to consent to the continuance of the evil, but it would be to make the dead the legislators of the living,-to give the power of government to the grave, -to make the mistakes of the child imperative maxims for the man. I admit, therefore, the power of Government, or of the people speaking through their legitimate organs, to