THREE LETTERS ON THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH AND DISSENT. THE FIRST ADDRESSED TO JOSEPH COTTLE, ESQ. THE SECOND AND THIRD TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE. THREE LETTERS ON THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH AND DISSENT. I. TO JOSEPH COTTLE, ESQ. [In answer to a letter animadverting on his language respecting the Established Church.]* March, 1830. MY DEAR SIR,-Allow me to beg you, first to accept my most sincere thanks for the kind spirit and intention of your letter; and next, to take in perfect good part a few sentences, which respect for my excellent friend, and (perhaps I may think) justice to myself, may seem to require of me. I remember the conversation to which you refer, and remember too, that I was stimulated to a certain something * Bristol, March, 1830. MY DEAR SIR,-To renew the subject on which we lately conversed, and had the misfortune amicably to differ; namely, the church of England. It would be inconsistent in me, as a Dissenter, not to admit, that our religious services are more conformable with the primitive church than the Establishment; but the liberty of private judgment which we exact from others, we must also grant. I dislike intolerance, in whatever form it displays itself. There are wise and holy men who deem the church of England the concentration of excellence. On the contrary, I take it to be, not a "milk-white hind," but Dryden's "spotted panther," yet still a section of the "true church." Will you allow one of equal years, but very inferior pretensions, to suggest for your calm consideration, whether you do not extend your strictures on the church, sometimes, rather too far? I am no advocate for frippery and popish decorations, and ordinances; immense revenues to uronisn bishops, while the inferior clergy are often worse paid than mechanics, although they are in general as well educated, and possess like vehemence, which I soon afterwards became sensible was considerably out of place, for that I had been under the influence of an essential mistake. I was assuming (having never been apprised of the contrary) that my friend was really a Dissenter on principle, and therefore I was struck with, what appeared to me, a very great inconsistency tastes as refined, as their diocesans. Pluralities, also, I am willing to allow, are carried to an unjustifiable extent, to the great prejudice of meritorious curates. And I must, in justification of myself, as a nonconformist, express, among other things, a decided objection to the burial service; to that part of the church catechism, where the sprinkling of a few drops of water, perhaps by an irreligious clergyman, converts, as it is supposed, the recipient into a "member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." This baptismal regeneration is not more opposed to scripture than it is to common sense. Apostolic succession, also, is regarded even by some dignitaries of the church, with as much disfavour as it is by myself. But all this, and more, may be admitted without invective, in which there is no argument. Excuse me in saying, I do think you err in this respect. Are we not Christians? and must we not exhibit the mind of Christ, who, "when he was reviled, reviled not again,” and by which spirit his disciples are to be distinguished? You seem to consider the Establishment as combined with unmitigated evil. I, on the contrary, regard it, with all its faults (by which I shall certainly please neither party), as productive of a great preponderance of good; nor, on the whole, do I ever desire to see the day when there shall be no Establishment; or rather an establishment of Independents, Methodists, or Baptists. Neither of them would bear their faculties more meekly than the present hierarchy. Scholars and gentlemen, as the generality of clergymen are, although many of them may not have attained to a knowledge of the truth, in its highest sense, they still soften the charities of life, and being scattered through the thinly-peopled districts, convey a knowledge of Christianity, often by their sermons, but always by their prayers, where, otherwise, it is to be feared, there would be heathenish darkness; so that in the present condition of society, I cannot but regard the church as producing more good than harm. With these views, it is always painful to my mind to hear harsh and indiscriminate reflections passed on the Establishment. It is engrafted in my very nature, not to do unnecessary violence to the feelings, and even prejudices, of any man. The same bias of mind makes me restrain severe animadversions on all bodies of men, as well as on individuals, where silence does not compromise conscience. You have known me for more than a quarter of a century, and did you ever hear me speak censoriously either of an individual, or a body of men? ... The injunctions, to "love each other with a pure heart fervently;" to "speak evil of no man;" are not the mere garnish of religion, but were designed to enter into the substance of our creed, and become the germinating principle of our lives. I am sure you must admit that every vicinity offers abundant scope for energies a thousand times more potent than any we can command, in dis in hearing your language respecting the Established Church. I was not fully made aware of my error till near the end of the dialogue, when you avowed your wish for the permanence of that establishment. Now I mean no disrespect to that class of the community (many among them excellent Christians) who are Dissenters only as a matter of habit, from the accidents of association, locality, preference for a certain mode of preaching, &c., &c. I mean no disrespect, when I say that this is not at all what has been always understood by dissent, as a matter of systematic principle. Dissent, as argued and practised by the whole school of our most venerated teachers and examples, has been founded on the plain principle, that making religion. a part of the state, is anti-christian in theory, and noxious in practice. With consenting voice they would have denied any one to be a Dissenter who did not hold this doctrine, and desire, in obvious consistency, the abolition of all secular religious establishments. Latterly, all this seems to have been forgotten,-very much from the want of instruction, and consequent want of thought, about the real nature and reason of dissent. But I am of the old school,-at the same time, not caring very much how little the people understand about the theory of the matter, provided religion and practical dissent be making progress. The fundamental principle of dissent is, that the religion of Christ ought to be left to make its way among mankind in the greatest possible simplicity, by its own truth and excellence; and through the labours of sincere and pious advocates, under the presiding care of its great Author; countenancing vice, and fostering all the channels of benevolence; why therefore should Christians dissipate those energies in detracting from each other, which should be reserved for more legitimate objects?... Pray excuse any stray expression which may appear defective in respect, and believe me to remain, P.S. My dear Sir, most truly yours, The largest and best part of nonconformists desire, I doubt not, to live on friendly terms with Episcopalians, and willingly concede to them what they so zealously require for themselves the exercise of private judgment, being quite satisfied, if they behold in them a resemblance to their Divine Lord, which can alone comport with universal holiness. This forms the true bond of union. |