Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

Subjects from resorting to the Universities of England, and proceeding to Degrees therein.' By the Rev. WILLIAM DALBY, M.A. Vicar of Warminster, Wilts, and formerly Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford. London: Rivingtons. Oxford Parker. Bath:

Upham. 1834. 8vo. Pp. 24.

VERILY, except their literary and parliamentary advocates, never was any thing so inconsistent with itself as the dissenters! Horace's Tigellius was but a modest type of them. They ridicule the very notion of a consecrated burial ground, AND YET, nothing will satisfy them but the burial of their friends in our churchyards. They tell us that to contribute to the support of another religion is an intolerable burden,AND YET, they would make churchmen support the sole expense of these same churchyards in which the dissenting ritual is to be employed. They inform us that the Universities are sinks of impurity, ignorance, and iniquity,- AND YET, they are making every exertion to obtain admission to them. They assume to be exclusively liberal, and the exclusive patrons and students of religious liberty, AND YET, there is no language too coarse or rancorous for their tongues and pens, no invasion of their neighbour's freehold too monstrous for their rapacity to contemplate, or their audacity to avow.

The history of "The Cambridge Petition" is one of the blackest in the dark annals of dissent and would that we could add that some names which were wont to shine in brighter pages, had not suffered some eclipse in the transaction! But the truth must be undisguisedly told. We do not believe that the 64 of unhappy celebrity intended to prostrate the Church at the feet of her mortal foes-we do not believe that they intended to banish religion for ever from the Universities of the land, or, if permitted to remain, to leave her

"With Ate at her side, come hot from hell."

The character of many of these men is sufficient warrant against this conclusion. But this we will say, that, had they intended thus, they could not have proceeded more judiciously to the accomplishment of their design. And we will further add that the principle on which they acted is one which would disorganize any social community whatsoever. If, on the representation of any small minority (the 64 are about one 80th of the senate of Cambridge, one 100th of the members, and one 200th of the members of both Universities), the interference of Parliament is to compel the remainder of a society to adopt the views of this little party, there is an end at once of all combination for especial purposes. In that case, the rules of a community, if a pledge for any thing, will only be a pledge for their violation; and the prevalence of particular views among its members will afford security that — those views shall never be realized.

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

It might be supposed that if men could be found sufficiently destitute of correct feeling to attempt the legislative coercion of the vast majority of their body into a measure which they conscientiously abominated, Government, Parliament, at least, would pause. The outrageous effrontery of the proceeding, the flagrant injustice of the prayer, the immeasurable peril of the precedent in the abstract, by breaking up all the bonds of social confidence, these things, it might be thought, might produce hesitation even in a reform ministry, and reflection even in a reformed parliament. And, doubtless, so they would, had not the Church been the first intended victim of the scheme. This, however, being the case, the unreasonableness, the iniquity, the danger of the precedent, were taken no account of; for it is a precedent which would perfectly justify the Repeal of the Union; Mr. O'Connell and his tail being only what Professor Sedgwick and his tail are—a small minority. Yet, this notwithstanding, it is taken up, if it was not originated, by Lord Grey. We know, from past events, how to estimate that upright and religious minister's professions of attachment to his Church; but this would be a sufficient assay whereby to try them.

[ocr errors]

If the measure were excellent as it is reprehensible, the means employed to effect it would still remain what they are disorderly, and, above all, illiberal and oppressive. But let us look at the measure itself. It is most unjust. It is said indeed by Mr. O'Connell that our Universities were founded for Romanists, and that opening degrees to Romanists would only be a return to first principles. Were the reasoning true, it would amount to a complete EXCLUSION of Protestant Dissenters. But the reasoning is not true. The Universities were founded for the education of young men in the principles of the Church. The Church in this country reformed herself; and she did not, by reforming herself, become disentitled to her property or her privilege. Let the advocates of modern Reform shew, if they dispute this conclusion, upon what principle the House of Commons, which also, according to them, reformed itself, retains all its ancient rights and immunities. If Mr. O'Connell's argument were worth any thing, it would put the property of the whole nation where it was in the time of Henry VIII. The mansions of some of our greatest Whig Lords would be converted into monasteries—and, as, of course, it would be great partiality to make these the sole exceptions, a popish priest would be forthwith inducted to every benefice in the kingdom. Whether Government is quite ripe for such things as these, we cannot say - but we will answer for THE PEOPLE-they are not. But, even allowing Mr. O'Connell's argument, what must we think of disturbing, by Act of Parliament, a title THREE CENTURIES OLD? What dissenting seminary can shew such a prescription as this? Beside, there is no immunity guaranteed to the colleges of Emmanuel and Downing; foundations, on Mr. O'Connell's principle,

inviolable, because founded for scholars of the Church of England, as now established. The pretence that this measure is a simple return to the state of things in Cambridge before King James's Letter, is the merest vanity. In the period referred to, dissent had no recognized existence. We might as well expect an especial exclusion of an outlaw in the statutes of our Universities, as of a Dissenter. The oaths and observances of the University were so framed as to exclude persons holding opinions different from those of the Church of England; but the elasticity of some dissenting consciences adapting itself to their use, the King's Letter added a further security. The real question, however, is, not, whether the present usage is the most ancient, but, whether, after its subsistence with good effect for 200 years, there is any sufficient ground for its abolition. We contend, on the contrary, that there is every ground for its retention.

Our Universities are (may they ever be!) places of religious education. This, however, if the pending bill pass, they must forthwith cease to be, unless they are to be places of irreligious education at the same time. They must be either Gower Street Universities, or they must have tuition and public worship for every shade of heresy and schism, not to say of unbelief and paganism. Papists, Socinians, Swedenborgians, Quakers, Ranters, must all have their separate institutions and rituals. Synagogues, mosques, and pagodas must be provided for their respective frequenters. The youthful seceder may now matriculate at Cambridge, but he comes not in that character. He is therefore obliged to conform to all the religious observances, and to share all the religious studies of the place. And frequently does he become ashamed of his dissent, and graduates as a Churchman. But, once permit him to appear as a dissenter, about to graduate in that character, and he will have conscientious scruples about lectures and chapel. These scruples it would be wrong to disregard - they must not be disregarded. What is the alternative? Either that the dissenters can have no religious instruction and worship at all in the Universities, or that such must be provided separately for every sect. Thus we shall have the Ro manist, Socinian, &c. PROFESSORS OF THEOLOGY! So much for the security of excluding dissenters from divinity degrees! It could not be done. The first necessity which the bill would create would be that of a supply of authorized dissenting teachers. Dr. Turton, in the admirable pamphlet whose title is prefixed to this article, has demonstrated the impossibility of educating together young men of different religious belief, allowing each to follow his own bias, by an examination of Dr. Doddridge's institution of this kind at Daventry. We recommend our readers to seek the argument at the fountain head, as we have not present leisure to pursue it; and they will, we think, thank us for the recommendation.

As to conciliating the dissenters, all we can say is, that we would rather endure their wrath, than purchase their love at such a cost as this. But this conciliation is a mere chimera. We have just received a pamphlet, in which the views of the dissenters are undisguisedly avowed. A few extracts from this may, perhaps, satisfy our readers, what estimate is to be taken of the probability that any measure will conciliate them. When they have trampled the Church in the dust, conscience may perhaps awaken them to a regretful remembrance of the mild and tolerant rule they have overthrown; but, while there is a stone of the Church standing, there will be a blot for the dissenter's Hear him :

arrow.

Lord Grey and his party might possess Downing-street till doomsday, for ought we care, provided, only, that the man of sin who has long been revealed be taken out of the way. The cabinet that destroys Babylon is the cabinet we feel attached to; it matters not to us whether the work be done by Lord Grey, Lord Durham, or the Duke of Wellington.-P. 9.

[The scriptural phrases which the old dissenters applied to Rome, are here intended for the Church of England.]

There is hardly to be found a serious Dissenter in all Great Britain, who does not in private confess that the Church of England is a conspicuous apostasy, and works great evil amongst the people; the deduction is evident, that it is a paramount duty to endeavour to destroy this evil. If the churchman cries out against this confession, and protests against the violence of the doctrine, our answer is, we have a great King's command to follow, and we dare not disobey him. The union of Church and State, is, in religion, a most sinful heresy, and, in practice, a most deadly evil; and it is just as much our duty to preach, and teach, and remonstrate, against this heresy, as it was incumbent on the Lollards, to preach and teach against the Scarlet Whore of Rome, who is elder sister of the Crimson Whore of Canterbury.-P. 26.

In my opinion, a solemn league and covenant should be drawn up by a meeting of delegate Dissenters next month; and in this document the principles of the Puritans should there be boldly avowed in the sincere language and doctrine of Prynne's days, whereby the world should understand, that we have taken up the cause of gospel truth, and that we never will give up the contest till we have completely effected the separation of Church and State. strength of the Dissenters cannot be resisted, as soon as it is put into right action; time enough has been wasted in making it work on trifles.-Pp. 34,35.

The

We would recommend our readers to look into "The Solemn League and Covenant," and refresh their memories on "the sincere language and doctrine of Prynne's days," and then see how far it is possible that any "conciliation" can be anticipated.

But the Universities will not, cannot submit. They are bound to resist by an authority which converts Acts of Parliament to waste paper-the obligation of an oath. Well says Professor Burton :—

It is idle, and worse than idle, to talk of Parliament interfering to throw the Universities open to Dissenters. If Parliament has the will, it has not the power to force men's consciences. The experiment was once tried by a King: and the firmness of a sing'e College was the first step to that resistance which

ended in removing him from the throne. Let Parliament make a similar attempt, and every College will produce a Hough, who will resist the illegal interference.-P. i.

Accordingly, the account of this attempt has been published at Oxford in the pamphlet at the head of this article, which we earnestly recommend our readers to procure and disseminate: we would also recommend our Cambridge friends to publish the history of a similar attempt made on their rights by the same tyrant. Even the blind impetuosity of the present administration will, we think, recoil from such precedents, and, if not sensible to considerations of justice, will not be insensible to those of more personal concern.

ART. III. On the Connexion between Geology and the Pentateuch; in a Letter to Professor Silliman, from Thomas Cooper, M. D. To which is added, the Defence of Dr. Cooper before the Trustees of the South Carolina College. Columbia: printed at the Times and Gazette Office, Jan. 1833.

WE have the recollection of a remark made once on a time by a shrewd observer of human nature, that Geneva was left a republic in the midst of the monarchies of Europe, to shew to the world what an absurd thing a republic is! Were we to extend the remark, so as to include our Yankee cousins, it would be, perhaps, equally true, and equally forcible; and certainly, if tried by such a test as the pamphlet before us offers, ten thousand times more so. The "free institutions" of America, so much an object of praise with Americans, are properly considered, by their old-fashioned relations in Europe, an experiment; and, as in other cases of like nature, whether scientific or political, it is by the result alone that we can judge of the value of the trial. Our readers will acquit the CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER of any unfair bias in opinion respecting the institutions of America, when they consider how frequently we have transferred to our pages the sentiments of those venerable men who, notwithstanding the peculiarities of their situation, have done such honour to the Episcopal communions of our TransAtlantic brethren. Whether it be true or not, that there is a prejudice in the minds of English people against the Americans of the States, whether or not Mrs. Trollope and Captain Basil Hall have done them injustice, the most candid and disinterested inquirer would, we think, rise from the perusal of the present publication fully absolved from any charge of injustice, if he should deem, as we do, that those who regard with horror that which forms the burden of an American song or sentiment, are trembling with a dread that reason, religion, and the better feelings of humanity cannot but approve. If such be the consequences

« ForrigeFortsæt »