Imagens da página
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

Art. VII. 1.“ The Progress of Dissent ;" containing Observations

on the remarkable and amusing Passages of that Article in the Sixty-first Number of the Quarterly Review: addressed to the Editor. By a Nonconformist. 8vo. pp. 140. Price 25. 6d. London. 1825. 2. The Protestant Dissenter's Catechism ; containing-1. A Brief History of the Dissenters. 2. The Reasons of Dissent from the National Church. The Seventeenth Edition, with an Appendix and Preface. By. William Newman, D. D. 12mo. Price Is.

London. 1823. AT length we have endeavoured to do our duty. Where

soever the English language is understood, there will this Review go forth.'*-Such is the imperial tone in which the Conductors of the Quarterly Review now think themselves warranted to speak of their critical labours. On the strength of a large sale, which is not precisely synonymous with a rising reputation, this' holy alliance' of literature, the Church, Albemarle-streel, and the Admiralty, imagine that they may dispose of facts, doctrines, and reputations, in the same style as the Congress of sovereigns partitioned territories, and cut and shuffled nations. We deeply feel our comparative insignificance in the presence of this mighty boaster; we have no such means of forcing our way into high places, and making our voice to be heard. Nevertheless, we have a duty to perform to our readers, and to ourselves, which forbids our passing over in silence the wanton aggressions of this literary autocrat.

The tract which stands second at the head of this article, has lately obtained very distinguishing attention, no fewer than three Reviews in the interest of the hierarchy having condescended to notice it. To review a pamphlet for the first time in its seventeenth edition, when its Author has been deceased inore than twelve years, is a somewhat unusual mode of

proceeding; and in the present instance, the circumstance is the more remarkable, inasmuch as other recent publications bearing on the same points, have been passed over in expressive silence. We happen to know that the writer of one of the articles alluded to, had forwarded to him, by his own desire, several of these publications, among others, Mr. Conder's work,) for the purpose of reviewing ; but, when the Number appeared, lo! an article on Mr. Palmer's Catechism! The Quar

# No.Ixi. p. 125.

terly Reviewer affects to consider this tract as a sort of official

publication, being a modified reprint of the old standard work among Dissenters. For this representation there is not the

' slightest ground: it has not a single mark of an official or semiofficial publication. It has not the recommendation of any name affixed to it besides that of the Editor,-a deservedly respected individual, but who would indignantly repel the charge of having put forth this Catechism in the name and on the responsibility of the body to which he belongs. It can only be in sarcasm, or for the purpose of misrepresentation, that this Reviewer styles this Catechism, a standard work' among the Dissenters. We cannot give him credit for so much ignorance. There are tracts explanatory of the principles of Dissent which have obtained a ten-fold larger circulation. But, if he never met with any of these, he must have heard of Towgood's Letters to White, which, perhaps, has some claim to be styled a standard work among Dissenters, as it is a staggering work among Churchmen,-a work which it would have been worthy of the prowess of a Quarterly Reviewer to encounter. We say nothing of Mr. Conder's work for obvious reasons,-although it might be presumed to be not less a standard work, than the Protestant Dissenters' Catechism. The Reviewer is, in fact, pleased to refer to it as a work of superior pretensions, and to style its Author the defender of Protestant Nonconformity.' Mr. Conder would, we are persuaded, feel duly grateful for the high honour conferred upon him by this condescending reference, slight and passing as it is, were it not that the compliment has attached to it, the drawback of a gross misrepresentation, and, founded on that misrepresentation, a sweeping charge of intolerance. In a passage cited by the Reviewer, the De

a fender of Nonconformity' ventures to put the question, What is the Scriptural character of the possessors, the proprietors of this world ? • Whom, * under any conceivable change in • human affairs, which should leave human nature itself un

changed, can we expect them to be, but such as the inspired • writers emphatically denominate the men of this world;

men who • discern not the things of the Spirit of God."

• This charitable and sweeping condemnation, be it observed,' says the Reviewer, comprises in its sweeping malediction, all the prelates and chief ministers of the crown, in whom the greatest part of church patronage is usually vested.'

By what spirit was the Reviewer actuated when he termed

* Printed in the Revie

How,' under any, &c.

the statement we have transcribed, a malediction? According to this use of the word, the Apostolic writings are full of maledictions. No candid reader could possibly misunderstand the passage referred to, as denying that any devout and spiritual individuals are to be found among the higher classes. The very next sentence fixes the meaning in a qualified sense, --that such is not, and never can be expected to be, the prevailing character of the mighty, the noble, and the rich. Is the Reviewer prepared to maintain the reverse of this proposition ? Will he venture, in the teeth of facts and of every Scriptural representation of human nature, to contend that all the pre• lates and the chief ministers of the crown,' and other holders and dispensers of church patronage, are men enlightened by the Spirit of God, and characterised by those qualities which constitute, in the Scriptural sense of the word, a spiritual, in contradistinction to a worldly man. The Author is speaking of the questionable competency of the bulk of patrons, to judge of the qualifications of the men on whom they bestow livings. He maintains that they are for the most part secular and irreligious men. Not a word is said by him of prelates and ministers of the crown, but the Reviewer introduces their names for an obvious purpose. Let them be included, howerer, in the general statement; and we again ask, will this writer carry his sycophancy so far as to maintain that the prevailing character of the higher classes in this country, is that of men of piety and spiritual discernment? We imagine that he would not; for he has not dared directly to impugn the statement he misrepresents. But if he would not maintain this, where is his candour, where his honesty, in attempting to fasten on the Defender of Nonconformity,' an invidious opinion, a 'malediction,' when his own observation and conscience admonish him that the statement is in accordance with notorious fact?

We shall have occasion to recur to the sentiment in question; but, before we dismiss the Catechism which has led to this digression, we must in fairness state, that while we give great credit to Dr. Newman for his modifications of the original, we are not prepared to give our sanction to its re-publication. Several years ago, the Writer of this Article had occasion to examine the Catechism, with a view to revising it for the

press'; but the result was, a conviction that it was not an eligible form in which to exhibit either the history of the Dissenters or the reasons of Dissent. This conviction has been strengthened by the readiness which the Reviewers referred to have shewn to drag it into notice,-a sure indication that they consider it as ineffective and harmless. In the first place, an

6

[ocr errors]

6

historical catechism has always appeared to us a most hungling method of teaching history. Historical questions, referring the pupil to a work from which he is to derive the proper answers, are quite a distinct method of instruction, and a most excellent one. Then, we object to the very first question in the history, and still more strongly to the answer which is given to it. To speak of the Pagan Religion,' is absurd; to name it the first of the four,' is grossly improper; to class the · four' together, and not add a word either as to their distinguishing characteristics, or the evidence which proves the Christian to be the only true religion, is the height of injudiciousness and impropriety. This single question, placed as it is in the front of the Catechism, might almost seem to give colour to the first part of Bishop Horsley's condemnatory sentence. We will not pursue our criticism. To the sentiments and statements of the Catechism, we should not find much occasion seriously to object, nor are we aware that it contains one • thrice refuted calumny against the Church ;' but we regard the catechetical form as a vehicle wholly unsuitable for the sentiments and information which the work comprises, and we very much doubt the useful tendency of such a mode of stating and inculcating the principles of Dissent. The liberties which Dr. Newman has taken with the original, shew that he was far from satisfied with it, and he must pardon us for carrying our dissatisfaction still further, so as to apply to its republication in any shape.

We return to the Quarterly Reviewer. The object of the somewhat singular article in question is, to vindicate the clergy from the general impeachment upon their conduct

which is often deduced from the progress of Dissent.' honestly admitted, that Dissent has made progress in this country ; - that its progress has begun to occupy public attention, and that too in influential quarters ;-and that inferences have been drawn from that circumstance, not in perfect unison with Paley's doctrine of the expediency of an Establishment. In plain words, the immense revenues of the Established Church of Great Britain and Ireland have begun to attract the attention of the nation's representatives. Who those persons are, that have been guilty of sacrilegiously mooting this delicate point, the Reviewer tells us—the blundering demagogue, • the bitter and envious Dissenter, and the artful infidel.' He means Mr. Hume and Mr. Bentham, and the Dissenter is suspended between the two for the sake of completing the triumvirate. On the part of the Dissenters, this attack of the Quarterly Reviewer has been wholly unprovoked. They have not been bringing impeachments against the clergy. They

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

have not been petitioning against tithes and church-building. The Dissenters of this kingdom never led more quiet and peaceable lives: and unless, like troublesome children, their being quiet is deemed a proof that they are busy with mischief, we cannot conceive of any occasion that they have given to these new demonstrations of activity and alarm among the churchmen. This Reviewer represents us indeed as having grown most complacent towards Mother Church. That the interests of the Church,' he says, are dear to the nation at large; that by the Dissenters themselves it is considered ab'solutely necessary for the maintenance of true religion in this country, we have no doubt whatever.' Fond man, he may not doubt it, but he is mistaken for all that. A few 'sour fanatics,' he adds, and a few cross-grained politicians may look forward with bitter hope to its downfal, or with greedy anticipation to its plunder.' A tolerably intelligible insinuation that all who do not think the Church Establishment absolutely necessary for the maintenance of true religion, belong to one of these classes. But what does this pretty word plunder mean? Suppose the case-that any portion whatever of the Church property were applied by Parliament to the relief of the public burdens and the further diminution of taxation, what individuals would gain any plunder by it? In imputing such base and mercenary motives to any crossgrained politicians, the Reviewer sins not more grossly against charity than against good sense. He must be thinking of the suppression of monasteries. But a politician must not only be cross-grained but light-headed, not merely greedy but mad, to dream, at this time of day, of coming in for plunder, in case of the suppression of prebends and chapters, or any other alienation of unproductive church property.

[ocr errors]

But leaving the politicians and fanatics to answer for themselves, we shall confine ourselves for the present, to the causes adduced by the Reviewer, as accounting for the diminished influence of the clergy, and the accession to the Dissenters. The first and greatest cause has been, he contends, the enormous increase of local population, in connexion with the supineness of the clergy? Oh, no, If any where, the blame clearly attaches to the legislature.' The clergy, no doubt, did all they could do. As the population increased, and their tithes increased, they doubled their exertions, and finding their churches overflowing, made every effort to provide churchroom for the poor! They are not to blame if the Legislature turned a deaf ear to their petitions, and left unencouraged and unrewarded their activity and zeal. Was it so? We shall

« AnteriorContinuar »