building funds were raised by local acts, which, though stated in the Census Report under the head of public beneficence, is really a tax, as much as the State Church is involuntary to the Dissenting minority of the State? How much of those funds were due to the exertions of the Established clergy, and to the numerous lay agencies they set set in operation? How much of the incomes of our eighteen thousand and odd clergy, who minister in every parish, is due to voluntaryism? Let the known condition and sentiments of the labouring masses in manufacturing and commercial towns, and the mental depression and poverty of agricultural labourers, answer the question. The Census Report states, as the income of the Church of England in 1831, the following:-Bishops, £181,631; deans and chapters, £360,095; parochial clergy, £3,251,159; church rates, £500,000: total, £4,292,885-derived from lands, tithes, &c., and adds that now probably the total income of the Church exceeds £5,000,000. I demand of B. S. how much of this is due to voluntaryism? Taking from it the utmost that can be traced to such a source, will he venture to assert that voluntaryism produces annually twenty-five times as much as the remainder? Let readers examine who are in every locality the prime agents in getting up contributions for church building, and other purposes of a religious nature; let them consider whether, if those agents-the clergy-were not there, those contributions would ever be thought of or commenced; let them remember the truism I have elsewhere stated, that in every district the desire of religious instruction is in inverse proportion to the need of it, and they will understand what I meant when I said, "the voluntary system is utterly inefficient." Would England have been what she is, the first Christian nation in the world, if her religion had been left entirely to voluntaryism for support? Does not the history of all nations, in all ages, from Abraham downwards, declare the general belief of mankind that religion, as a national principle, cannot safely be trusted to such support? Does not the policy of the United States, by which every man is compelled to contribute to the support of religion, justify that belief? I would by no means underrate free agency as subsidiary to the State support of religion. It has in our days done wonders. But until it can be proved to me that the more debased and corrupt a society is, the more it feels its need of reformation, and strives to attain it, I shall venture to hold the opinion I expressed, that the voluntary system, by itself, without extraneous assistance, is utterly inefficient. I cannot see, then, that I have anything to confess or retract; that I have been guilty either of untrue assertions or misrepresentation; whereas B. S., unless he can make good his insinuations, or will apologise for his carelessness in making them, must stand convicted of the very faults with which he has charged me. I will now briefly pass a few more of B. S.'s arguments under review. We are inforined that a national religion without persecution is an absurdity. Is it so? May we not suppose the possibility of an entire people professing a religion, without any dissentients?-have we no parallel in history? And may there not be a religion established on sound reformed principles, of the majority of a nation, observing the healthful mean between Popery and extreme spiritualism? Does the history of this country, or of Scotland, afford no parallel? Is there not an absurdity in supposing that a State religion must needs persecute? Has not Christianity, from the time of the first Christian emperor, wherever it has appeared and prospered, generally taken the form of a national religion; and has not history proved that nothing so much hindered its taking that form as persecution? I accept, then, B. S.'s challenge. By means "short of actual persecution," I intended those means which are and have been employed in England, in Scotland, and in other reformed communions to support religion: by giving the State Church an integral share of the legislative functions; by making it necessarily the bona fide religion of the throne; by allowing it State funds to diffuse sound religious principles among the masses. But let me exemplify what I understand by "actual persecution." If a man be imprisoned for his religious opinions: or if, as in the case of the Royalist clergy under the Commonwealth (see p. 574), a man be deprived of his benefice, or forbidden to use the prayer book he has been used to, or to act as an instructor of children,—I call this "actual persecution," and though it is a length to which many good men, Dissent ers and Churchmen, have conscientiously proceeded, I consider it both morally wrong and politically absurd. I beseech B. S., however, before he sets himself up as a judge over this country, and threatens, in the true spirit of persecution, to deprive her of her Church to which she owes so much, to ponder well to what excesses of "actual persecution" his own party proceeded when they were in power.* But exclusion from colleges endowed by and for a particular Church of Dissenters from that Church cannot be termed "actual persecution." Otherwise, of what preposterous folly are Dissenters guilty in crying out against such persecution, and yet excluding Churchmen from their own numerous colleges numerous that they cannot themselves fill them! Confining himself still to the same unimportant section of my first article, B. S. next questions the good effects of a national religion, and adduces against me the Papal States, Naples, Russia, and Spain. Now, if those countries have such a national church, as it is evident, from the very section B. S. attacks, that I intended, viz., a church "based on essentially scriptural and catholic principles; " supported by the State indeed, but by means "short of actual persecution;" one of those means being "the control of the educational establishments," and those educational establishments, as explained in an after part of the same article, such only as rightfully and legally belonged to the Church:-if those countries have such a national church, I own myself vanquished, not otherwise. The United States will hardly, I fancy, assist B. S., as the assailant of established religion; for, if my memory does not mislead me, all persons there are compelled to contribute to the support of religion, though each is left free to choose to what denomination his contribution shall be given; and I am by no means certain that our Church would not be greatly benefited by the same policy being adopted in this country, provided that her position as the Church of England be otherwise left untouched.† B. S.'s comparisons, then, of Washington and Hume's "History of England," chap. 54 to 62 inclusive; and see note DD at end of vol. vi. See the "Edinburgh Review," before referred to, on " Church Vestries and Church Rates" (No. 204). Has Rome, &c., fall pointless to the ground. So does his criticism of my next adaptation from Gladstone. Will he deny that all power (seeing that "all powers are ordained of God") should be used with reference to God's will? Does he, who has said, "By me kings reign and princes decree justice," take care of individuals and neglect nations? his power no influence in determining the destinies of the latter? Does not every Christian nation acknowledge it by national humiliations,—by national thanksgivings? Have not all governments, all legislators, been obliged, whatever their own private opinions may have been, to recognize the existence of such a power? But B. S. must be blind not to see the very obvious reasons why one nation should not interfere with the religion of another, - -one I may remind him of which he might have gathered from the section he attacks, that all such attempts and interference as he describes, and especially "our army and navy exerting all their powers of destruction" in such attempts, could not be in accordance with the principles of a Church "based on scriptural and catholic principles," could not be "short of actual persecution." Such means of extension are unworthy of any but a Mahommedan or Pagan; are utterly incompatible with Christianity; and their recommendation cannot, by any twisting and torturing, be extracted from my "Gladstonian logic; "therefore B. S.'s assumption that it can, is untrue in fact, and arguments built upon that assumption must go for nothing. Lastly, B. S., fondly thinking to floor H. D. L., asserts that the universities are not private property, but "civil lay corporations, public institutions." This assertion is only half true; it is true in one sense, in one degree, but not altogether. The universities cannot, indeed, be strictly termed private property, any more than the English Church can be termed a private institution; but neither can they be termed "public institutions," in the sense of being necessarily and rightfully open to all who may choose to use them. For obvious reasons they are not regarded in the eye of the law as strictly ecclesiastical corporations; not even colleges, though possibly composed wholly of ecclesiastics; but as civil corporations they were founded, endowed, and have always existed for a particular purpose-the advancement property, i. e., restricted to those who have the qualifications which the Church, to whom the universities of right belong, requires of those who would share in her endowments. I will then attempt a new definition:-Oxford and Cambridge are mixed lay-clerical corporations, the qualifications for admission to which have been, and in strict justice ought to be, Church-membership; they are educational institutions, endowed by and justly belonging to Churchmen. To assert that they were originally, or have generally been, in a religious sense, unrestricted, is historically untrue (for the Popish clergy considered them as strictly ecclesiastical corporations); to pretend that they ought so to be, is theoretically absurd. of religion as by law established, together with general learning. Such corporations exist for the very purpose of preserving intact the rights and privileges which, if granted only to individuals, would expire at their death, and for this end are regarded as one person by law; " as one person, they have one will, which is collected from the sense of the majority of the individuals," and which may establish rules for the regulation of the whole. And "the privileges and immunities, the estates and possessions of the corporation, when once vested in them, will be for ever vested without any new conveyance to new successors." All civil corporations, as the College of Physicians and Surgeons, require certain qualifications of candidates for membership; and one of the qualifications In conclusion, it may be as well to add, hitherto required by law of candidates for lest the animus in which the foregoing admission to degrees at the universities has thoughts have been penned, should be misbeen Church-membership, most rightly and understood, that I have generally had in justly, as I proved that these corporations view not the simple admission of Nonconowe their existence, their present condition formists to all the educational advantages of and prosperity, entirely to members of the the universities (to which there is no very National Church,-of the National Church great objection), or even to degrees, but under one form or another, but chiefly under the entire secularization of the universities its present Protestant form. The law acts by taking away the clerical tenure on which as an unjust aggressor when it infringes fellowships and most professorships are held such privileges: Churchmen would, I am (which must result if Dissenters are admitted sure, scorn to gain such forced admission to to them), and the destruction thereby of the Dissenting corporations and colleges. Where- only safeguard against the evils of disunion fore the decision B. S. refers to proves no- and Atheism, and, the excesses of all thing to the point at issue; for if to enact kinds to which they naturally lead. It is a religious test is virtually to change the needful to remind readers of this, lest they universities into ecclesiastical corporations, should misinterpret the strong language I how singular is it that Dissenters, immedi- have occasionally used. I can honestly affirm ately on that decision being given, by which, that I have uniformly written without the on B. S.'s own showing, the test of Church-slightest hostility save to principles that I membership was rendered illegal, did not considered dangerous, and that there is noclaim and gain admission to them! The universities then are, in the sense intended by H. D. L. and "Justice," strictly private * H. J. Stephen's "New Commentaries on the Laws of England," vol. iii., p. 166, 7. thing I desire more earnestly than that “all Social Economq. OUGHT GOVERNMENT TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF INTOXICATING DRINKS? AFFIRMATIVE REPLY. WE concur, in its whole substance, with that of our opponent J. G. R.; and we do the article of "Maine Law," in answer to not consider it necessary to make any addi tion to it. Scarcely any one who peruses the article of J. G. R. can conceive that there was any intention in the author of it to grapple seriously with the question. If we have any fault to find with the individual who baptizes himself with the honourable name of "Maine Law," it is in expending so much strength in reply to an article so frivolous. The plan, so frequently adopted in the Controversialist of late, of the writer of an article answering that which appeared in the preceding number on the opposite side, materially restricts the province of the party whose special duty is to reply. We fully admit what "Horatio" says, regarding the benefit of discussion. The opponents of the abstinence movement had little disposition to discuss the question; certainly no desire to do so with a conviction of the important matters involved in it. Their general answer was a contemptuous or angry one, embracing merely the determination not to allow argument to have any weight in producing practical conviction. By the Maine Law agitation discussion cannot be avoided. The movement is intended to be national. It is insisted that the trade in intoxicants shall be put down, a step which must affect the position of the mode rate drinker. We rejoice in the fact that the question must inevitably be discussed, inasmuch as in this way the agitation will be propelled, and a conviction favourable to a law of the kind for this country will prevail. In any fair discussion, independent of the principles on which such a law is advocated, the enormous evils of intemperance, and the favourable results wherever a Maine Law has been put in force, meet us at the threshold, and cannot be overlooked. Neither of these facts appear to be disputed by either of our opponents, and so far the field is unquestionably our own. We must endeavour to find a remedy for intemperance; and we should be slow to believe that a law is founded on erroneous principles which would remove the evil referred to, and promote the happiness and morality of society to an extent much beyond what any other means could do. If the tree is to be judged by its fruit, the Maine Law cause may be regarded as established on a very strong foundation. Our opponents in the present debate do not seem to us antagonistic to total abstinence. "Horatio" says, "Total abstinence is truthful, so long as it is confined to individuals believing it, and we are of that class." We are willing to assume that both of those gentlemen are total abstainers; that they are themselves labouring, in some form or other, in the cause of temperance. We think it proper to observe, however, that many who never did anything to promote total abstinence, and would not now become total abstainers, affect to be favourable to that cause, and blame its advocates for insisting on the Maine Law. The question cannot be, Total Abstinence versus the Maine Law.. Our opponents need not be afraid that the Maine Law agitation will absorb the other. When we begin practically to realize that man is our brother, that we are the disciples and should follow the example of One, the energies of whose life were expended for us, there is a fund of moral energy bestowed on us which will not allow the rear of a noble cause to languish as we press on towards its national realization. As the grounds on which the Maine Law is advocated are in many respects similar to those advanced in favour of total abstinence, it is probable that the agitation for the former may induce many to become personal abstainers; or, in other words, to be "a" Maine "Law" to themselves. The evil of intemperance is great enough to require both agencies. Without the preparation of the abstinence movement, the advocacy of a Maine Law would have been fruitless; and even after our country shall have the benefit of such a law, the total abstainer will still require to urge his principles, so that both individually and nationally their triumph may be secured. On the other hand, without a law of this kind, it is the experience of total abstainers, as a body, that they cannot be successful; that they are met by obstacles which cannot be removed by the process of individual conviction, but require the interposition of the law. While the total abstainers will support the legislative enforcement of their views, a large number desire a Maine Law as a deliverance from the evils of the drinking customs; and it is both to total abstinence and a Maine Law that we must look for the cure of intemperance, accompanied with those means of rational instruction and innocent recreation, which require a Maine Law before the people can have much taste for them. We have considered it pro 66 There are per to make these observations, with the | In the State of Maine, and other places where view of presenting, in a clear light, the posi- the sale of intoxicating liquors has been protion and relation of the two movements hibited, the question underwent a long and referred to, which have been controverted in searching discussion; the law has been conthe present debate. firmed, after its adoption, by largely increasing majorities; not merely has the law been discussed by the people, but also in the legislature, and its strict justice and constitutional character maintained in courts of law. "Horatio" proceeds to speak of the proposed law as "a degrading dietetic restraint;" and in another part of his article observes, “We had intended to show that a law to regulate men's stomachs was unjust in principle." It is not a general dietetic measure, laying down minute regulations regarding different articles of food. It deals only with the case of intoxicating liquors, and these are acknowledged to be a luxury, something for which a taste must be acquired, and not a proper article of diet. The law does not prescribe what we shall eat and drink. certain cases, as when a great scarcity of food prevails, with reference to which it would be reasonable in a legislature to prohibit the production of food into that which would be at best a mere luxury. The distilleries in Ireland were once shut up under the operation of a temporary law, and the people were never happier. Even now, with the high price of food, the heavy taxation, the curse of war, and the curse which the publican spreads abroad, Parliament would be justified in prohibiting brewing and distillation, if, in the present state of public opinion, the law could be enforced. A Maine Law does not prohibit the use of intoxicating liquors; it puts a stop to the public sale of them. We trust, then, that the bugbear of a dietetic law will not be considered any obstacle to its enactment. Even if it be, in the strictest sense, dietetic, the peculiarity lies in the dietetic character of the evil. It is easy to talk of such restrictions as degrading; but the imperfection of society, and the misconduct of a portion of its members, both justify and compel the adoption of many restrictions on the rights which individuals might otherwise enjoy; so that the good of society as a whole may be promoted, by lessening the unnecessary temptations before which the more exposed classes are certain to fall; and the State should not be prevented from doing its duty by any punctilious notions regarding individual liberty. 'Horatio" cautions us against our feelings being so worked on, in view of the magnitude of the evil of intemperance, that we might "be led to assent to propositions which the morning's reflection would show to be extremely fallacious." We cannot keep out of view the important results which will follow the introduction of a Maine Law into this country, as well as the fact that unless the law referred to be passed, it is hopeless to expect any material diminution in the prevalent intemperance. We have to fight against the frigid influence of men who, in reference to the abstinence movement, could not be awoke to a sense of the stupendous evils resulting from the drinking customs, and to their duty in relation thereto. There is a danger, then, that many will take too low a view of the question; and surely if, as we maintain, and we think have proved, that the proposed law is just per se, and is consistent with the theory and the practice of modern legislation, and that to refuse to adopt that law would be inconsistent with what is most valuable on our statute book, the interests of the country demand that we should give the law a fair trial. The publican has not suffered wherever the law in question has been adopted; he has found other occupations: and in this country he need not lose in the improved condition of affairs introduced by a Maine Law; but even if he did, the welfare of the community should not be sacrificed to his. Our two opponents at least cannot object to this, on the ground of their maintaining the right of the publican to sell intoxicants; they do not share in the intense sympathy which has been aroused for the publican. We presume they agree with us in thinking the trade in intoxicants a nuisance. They rather argue for the right to drink, a right with which the proposed law does not interfere, as it would only prohibit the existence of houses for the sale of drink -houses which spread disease, poverty, and misery in every neighbourhood where they are opened. "Horatio" need not be alarmed that the Maine Law advocates should fill the public mind with untenable and extravagant views, which would speedily be regretted. |