Α

It by no means follows, that a judicious man should always interfere with his authority and advice because he has always the means; he may connive at many things which he cannot approve, and suffer some little failures to proceed to a certain extent, which, if indulged in wider limits, would be attended with irretrievable mischief: he will be aware, that his object is to fit his pupil for the world; that constant control is a very bad preparation for complete emancipation from all control; that it is not bad policy to expose a young man, under the eye of superior wisdom, to some of those dangers which will assail him hereafter in greater number, and in greater strength -when he has only his own resources to depend upon. private education, conducted upon these principles, is not calculated to gratify quickly the vanity of a parent who is blest with a child of strong character and pre-eminent abilities to be the first scholar of an obscure master, at an obscure place, is no very splendid distinction; nor does it afford that opportunity, of which so many parents are desirous, of forming great connections for their children: but if the object be, to induce the young to love knowledge and virtue, we are inclined to suspect, that, for the average of human talents and characters, these are the situations in which such tastes will be the most effectually formed.

:

TOLERATION. (EDINBURGH REVIEW, 1811.)

Hints on Toleration, in Five Essays, &c. suggested for the Consideration of Lord Viscount Sidmouth, and the Dissenters. By Philagatharches. London.

1810.

Ir a prudent man sees a child playing with a porcelain cup of great value, he takes the vessel out of his hand, pats him on the head, tells him his mamma will be sorry if it is broken, and gently cheats him into the use of some less precious substitute. Why will Lord Sidmouth meddle with the Toleration Act, when there are so many other subjects in which his abilities might be so eminently useful-when enclosure bills are drawn up with such scandalous negligence-turnpike roads so shamefully neglected-and public conveyances illegitimately loaded in the face of day, and in defiance of the wisest legislative provisions? We confess our trepidation at seeing the Toleration Act in the hands of Lord Sidmouth; and should be very glad if it were fairly back in the statute book, and the sedulity of this well-meaning nobleman diverted into another channel.

The alarm and suspicion of the Dissenters upon these measures are wise and rational. They are right to consider the Toleration Act as their palladium; and they may be certain that in this country there is always a strong party ready, not only to prevent the further extension of tolerant principles, but to abridge (if they dared) their present operation within the narrowest limits. Whoever makes this attempt, will be sure to make it under professions of the most earnest regard for mildness and toleration, and with the strongest declarations of respect for King William, the Revolution, and the principles which seated the House of Brunswick on the throne of these realms;-and then will follow the clauses for whipping Dissenters, imprisoning preachers, and subjecting them to rigid qualifications, &c. &c. &c. The infringement on the militia acts is a mere pretence. The real object is to diminish the number of Dissenters from the Church of England, by

abridging the liberties and privileges they now possess. This is the project which we shall examine, for we sincerely believe it to be the project in agitation. The mode in which it is proposed to attack the Dissenters is, first, by exacting greater qualifications in their teachers; next, by preventing the interchange or itinerancy of preachers, and fixing them to one spot.

It can never, we presume, be intended to subject dissenting ministers to any kind of theological examination. A teacher examined in doctrinal opinions, by another teacher who differs from him, is so very absurd a project, that we entirely acquit Lord Sidmouth of any intention of this sort. We rather presume his lordship to mean, that a man who professes to teach his fellow creatures, should at least have made some progress in human learning;-that he should not be wholly without education; that he should be able at least to read and write. If the test is of this very ordinary nature, it can scarcely exclude many teachers of religion; and it was hardly worth while, for the very insignificant diminution of numbers which this must occasion to the dissenting clergy, to have raised all the alarm which this attack upon the Toleration Act has occasioned.

But, without any reference to the magnitude of the effects, is the principle right? or, What is the meaning of religious toleration? That a man should hold, without pain or penalty, any religious opinions,-and choose for his instruction, in the business of salvation, any guide whom he pleases;-care being taken that the teacher and the doctrine injure neither the policy nor the morals of the country. We maintain that perfect religious toleration applies as much to the teacher as the thing taught; and that it is quite as intolerant to make a man hear Thomas, who wants to hear John, as it would be to make a man profess Arminian, who wished to profess Calvinistical principles. What right has any government to dictate to any man who shall guide him to heaven, any more than it has to persecute the religious tenets by which he hopes to arrive there? You believe that the heretic professes doctrines utterly incompatible with the true spirit of the gospel ;-first you burnt him for this, then you whipt him, then you fined him,— then you put him in prison. All this did no good; and, for these hundred years last past, you have let him alone. The heresy is now firmly protected by law;-and you know i

must be preached:-What matters it then, who preaches it? If the evil must be communicated, the organ and instrument through which it is communicated cannot be of much consequence. It is true, this kind of persecution against persons, has not been quite so much tried as the other against doctrines; but the folly and inexpediency of it rest precisely upon the same grounds.

Would it not be a singular thing if the friends of the Church of England were to make the most strenuous efforts to render their enemies eloquent and learned?—and to found places of education for Dissenters? But, if their learning would not be a good, why is their ignorance an evil?—unless it be necessarily supposed, that all increase of learning must bring men over to the Church of England; in which supposition, the Scottish and Catholic universities, and the college at Hackney, would hardly acquiesce. Ignorance surely matures and quickens the progress, by insuring the dissolution of absurdity. Rational and learned Dissenters remain :-religious mobs, under some ignorant fanatic of the day, become foolish overmuch,-dissolve, and return to the Church. The Unitarian, who reads and writes, gets some sort of discipline, and returns no more. What connection is there (as Lord Sidmouth's plan assumes) between the zeal and piety required for religious instruction and the common attainments of literature? But, if knowledge and education are required for religious instruction, why be content with the common elements of learning? why not require higher attainments in dissenting candidates for orders; and examine them in the languages in which the books of their religion are conveyed?

A dissenting minister, of vulgar aspect and homely appearance, declares that he entered into that holy office because he felt a call;—and a clergyman of the Establishment smiles at him for the declaration. But it should be remembered, that no minister of the Establishment is admitted into orders, before he has been expressly interrogated by the bishop whether he feels himself called to that sacred office. The doctrine of calling, or inward feeling, is quite orthodox in the English Church;—and, in arguing this subject in Parliament, it will hardly be contended, that the Episcopalian only is the judge when that call is genuine, and when it is only imaginary.

The attempt at making the dissenting clergy stationary, and persecuting their circulation, appears to us quite as unjust

and inexpedient as the other measure of qualifications. It appears a gross inconsistency to say-I admit that what you are doing is legal,-but you must not do it thoroughly and effectually. I allow you to propagate your heresy,—but I object to all means of propagating it which appear to be useful and effective.' If there are any other grounds upon which the circulation of the dissenting clergy is objected to, let these ground she stated and examined; but to object to their circulation merely because it is the best method of effecting the object which you allow them to effect, does appear to be rather unnatural and inconsistent.

It is presumed, in this argument, that the only reason urged for the prevention of itinerant preachers is the increase of heresy; for, if heresy is not increased by it, it must be immaterial to the feelings of Lord Sidmouth, and of the imperial Parliament, whether Mr. Shufflebottom preaches at Bungay, and Mr. Ringletub at Ipswich; or whether an artful vicissitude is adopted, and the order of insane predication reversed.

But, supposing all this new interference to be just, what good will it do? You find a dissenting preacher, whom you have prohibited, still continuing to preach, or preaching at Ealing when he ought to preach at Acton;-his number is taken, and the next morning he is summoned. Is it believed that this description of persons can be put down by fine and imprisonment? His fine is paid for him; and he returns from imprisonment ten times as much sought after and as popular as he was before. This is a receipt for making a stupid preacher popular, and a popular preacher more popular, but can have no possible tendency to prevent the mischief against which it is levelled. It is precisely the old history of persecution against opinions turned into a persecution against persons. The prisons will be filled,-the enemies of the Church made enemies of the state also, and the Methodists rendered ten times more actively mad than they are at present. This is the direct and obvious tendency of Lord Sidmouth's plan.

Nothing dies so hard and rallies so often as intolerance. The fires are put out, and no living nostril has scented the nidor of a human creature roasted for faith;—then, after this, the prison-doors were got open, and the chains knocked off;— and now Lord Sidmouth only begs that men who disagree with him in religious opinions may be deprived of all civil