СНАР. 14.] WITH RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 349 that persecuted the first Christians.-"Who was it that crucified the Saviour of the world for attempting to reform the religion of his country? The Jewish priesthood.-Who was it that drowned the altars of their idols with the blood of Christians for attempting to abolish paganism? The Pagan priesthood.-Who was it that persecuted to flames and death those who in the time of Wickliffe and his followers laboured to reform the errors of popery? The popish priesthood.-Who was it and who is it that both in England and in Ireland since the reformation-but I check my hand, being unwilling to reflect upon the dead or to exasperate the living."-We also are unwilling to reflect upon or to exasperate, but our business is with plain truth. Who then was it that since the reformation has persecuted dissentients from its creed, and who is it that at this hour thinks and speaks of them with unchristian antipathy? The English priesthood. Not to mention that it was the state religion of Judea that put our Saviour himself to death. It was and it is the state religion in some European countries that now persecutes dissenters from its creed. It was the state religion in this country that persecuted the Protestants; and since Protestantism has been established, it is the state religion which has persecuted Protestant dissenters. Is this the fault principally of the faith of these churches or of their alliance with the state? No man can be in doubt for an answer. We are accustomed to attribute too much to bigotry. Bigotry has been very great and very operative; but bigotry alone would not have produced the disgraceful and dreadful transactions which fill the records of ecclesiastical history. No. Men have often been actuated by the love of supremacy or of money, while they were talking loudly of the sacredness of their faith. They have been less afraid for religion than for the dominance of a church. When the creed of that church was impugned, those who shared in its advantages were zealous to suppress the rising inquiry; because the discredit of the creed might endanger the loss of the advantages. The zeal of a pope for the real presence was often quite a fiction. He and his cardinals cared perhaps nothing for the real presence, as they sometimes cared nothing for morality. But men might be immoral without encroaching upon the papal power:they could not deny the doctrine without endangering its overthrow. Happily, persecution for religion is greatly diminished: yet, while we rejoice in the fact, we cannot conceal from ourselves the consideration, that the diminution of persecution has resulted rather from the general diffusion of better principles than from the operation of religious establishments as such. In most or in all ages a great portion of the flagitious transactions which furnish materials for the ecclesiastical historian have resulted from the political connexions or interests of a church. It was not the interests of Christianity, but of an establishment which made Becket embroil his king and other sovereigns in distractions. It was not the interests of Christianity but of an establishment which occasioned the monstrous impositions and usurpations of the papal see. And I do not know whether there has ever been a religious war of which religion was the only or the principal cause. Besides all this there has been an inextricable succession of intrigues and cabals,-of conflicting interests,—and clamour and distraction, which the world would have been spared if secular interests had not been brought into connexion with religion. * Miscellaneous Tracts, by Richard Watson, D. D. Bishop of Landaff, v. ii. 350 LEGAL PROVISION. [ESSAY III. Another mode in which religious establishments are injurious to the civil welfare of a people, is by their tendency to resist political improvements. That same cause which induces state religions to maintain themselves as they are, induces them to maintain the patron state as it is. It is the state in its present condition that secures to the church its advantages; and the church does not know whether, if it were to encourage political reformation, the new state of things might not endanger its own supremacy. There are indeed so many other interests and powers concerned in political reformations that the state religion cannot always prevent alterations from being effected. Nor would I affirm that they always endeavour to prevent it. And yet we may appeal to the general experience of all ages, whether established churches have not resisted reformation in those political institutions upon which their own privileges depended. Now these are serious things. For after all that can be said and justly said of the mischiefs of political changes and the extrav agances of political epiricism, it is sufficiently certain that almost every government that has been established in the world has needed from time to time important reformations in its constitution or its practice. And it is equally certain, that if there be any influence or power which habitually and with little discrimination supports political institutions as they are, that influence or power must be very pernicious to the world. We have seen that one of the requisites of a religious establishment is a "legal provision" for its ministers,-that is to say, the members of all the churches which exist in a state must be obliged to pay to the support of one, whether they approve of that one or not. Now in endeavouring to estimate the effects of this system, with a view to ascertain the preponderance of public advantages, we are presented at the outset with the inquiry,-Is this compulsory maintenance right? Is it compatible with Christianity? If it is not, there is an end of the controversy; for it is nothing to Christians whether a system be politic or impolitic, if once they have discovered that it is wrong. But I waive for the present the question of rectitude. The reader is at liberty to assume that Christianity allows governments to make this compulsory provision if they think fit. I waive too the question whether a Christian minister ought to receive payment for his labours, whether that payment be voluntary or not. The single point before us is then the balance of advantages. Is it more advantageous that ministers should be paid by a legal provision or by voluntary subscription? That advantage of a legal provision which consists in the supply of a teacher to every district has already been noticed; so that our inquiry is reduced to a narrow limit. Supposing that a minister would be appointed in every district although the state did not pay him, is it more desirable that he should be paid by the state or voluntarily by the people? Of the legal provision some of the advantages are these: it holds out no inducement to the irreligious or indifferent to absent themselves from public worship lest they should be expected to pay the preacher. Public worship is conducted, the preacher delivers his discourse, whether such persons go or not. They pay no more for going, and no less for staying away; and it is probable, in the present religious state of mankind, that some go to places for worship since it costs them nothing, who otherwise would stay away. But it is manifestly better that men should attend CHAP. 14.] VOLUNTARY SUPPORT. 351 even in such a state of indifference than that they should not attend at all. Upon the voluntary system of payment this good effect is not so fully secured; for though the doors of chapels be open to all, yet few persons of competent means would attend them constantly without feeling that they might be expected to contribute to the expenses. I do not believe that the non-attendance of indifferent persons would be greatly increased by the adoption of the voluntary system, especially if the payments were as moderate as they easily might be ;-but it is a question rather of speculation than of experience, and the reader is to give upon this account to the system of legal provision such an amount of advantage as he shall think fit. Again.-Preaching where there is a legal provision is not "a mode of begging." If you adopt voluntary payment, that payment depends upon the good pleasure of the hearers, and there is manifestly a temptation upon the preacher to accommodate his discourses, or the manner of them, to the wishes of his hearers rather than to the dictates of his own judgment; but the man who receives his stipend, whether his hearers be pleased or not, is under no such temptation. He is at liberty to conform the exercise of his functions to his judgment, without the diminution of a subscription. This I think is an undeniable advantage. Another consideration is this:-That where there is a religious establishment with a legal provision it is usual, not to say indispensable, to fill the pulpits only with persons who entertain a certain set of religious opinions. It be would be obviously idle to assume that these opinions are true, but they are, or are in a considerable degree, uniform. Assuming then that one set of opinions is as sound as another, is it better that a district should always hear one set, or that the teachers of twenty different sets should successively gain possession of the pulpit, as the choice of the people might direct? I presume not to determine such a question; but it may be observed that in point of fact those churches which do proceed upon the voluntary system, are not often subjected to such fluctuations of doctrine. There does not appear much difficulty in constituting churches upon the voluntary plan which shall in practice secure considerable uniformity in the sentiments of the teachers. And as to the bitter animosities and distractions which have been predicted if a choice of new teachers was to be left to the people,-they do not I believe ordinarily follow. Not that I apprehend the ministers, for instance, of an Independent church are always elected with that unanimity and freedom from heart-burnings which ought to subsist, but that animosities do not subsist to any great extent. Besides, the prediction appears to be founded on the supposition, that a certain stipend was to be appropriated to one teacher or to another according as he might obtain the greater number of votes,—whereas every man is at liberty, if he pleases, to withdraw his contribution from him whom he disapproves and to give it to another. And after all, there may be voluntary support of ministers without an election by those who contribute, as is instanced by the Methodists in the present day. On the other hand, there are some advantages attendant on the voluntary system which that of a legal provision does not possess. And first, it appears to be of importance that there should be a union, a harmony, a cordiality between the minister and the people. It is in truth an indispensable requisite. Christianity, which is a religion of love, cannot flourish where unkindly feelings prevail. Now I think it is mani 352 DISADVANTAGES OF LEGAL PROVISION. [ESSAY III fest that harmony and cordiality are likely to prevail more where the minister is chosen and voluntarily remunerated by his hearers, than where they are not consulted in the choice: where they are obliged to take him whom others please to appoint, and where they are compelled to pay him whether they like him or not. The tendency of this last system is evidently opposed to perfect kindliness and cordiality. There is likely to be a sort of natural connexion, a communication of good offices induced between hearers and the man whom they themselves choose and voluntarily remunerate, which is less likely in the other case. If love be of so much consequence generally to the Christian character, it is especially of consequence that it should subsist between him who assumes to be a dispenser and them who are in the relation of hearers of the gospel of Christ. Indeed the very circumstance that a man is compelled to pay a preacher, tends to the introduction of unkind and unfriendly feelings. It is not to be expected that men will pay him more graciously or with a better will than they pay a tax-gatherer; and we all know that the tax-gatherer is one of the last persons whom men wish to see. He who desires to extend the influence of Christianity would be very cautious of establishing a system of which so ungracious a regulation formed a part. There is truth worthy of grave attention in the ludicrous verse of Cowper's, A rarer man than you, But yet methinks to tell you true, It is easy to perceive that the influence of that man's exhortations must be diminished, whose hearers listen with the reflection that his advice is "plaguy dear." The reflection too is perfectly natural, and cannot be helped. And when superadded to this is the consideration that it is not only sold "dear," but that payment is enforced,-material injury must be sustained by the cause of religion. In this view it may be remarked, that the support of an establishment by a general tax would be preferable to the payment of each pastor by his own hearers. Nor is it unworthy of notice that some persons will always think (whether with reason or without it) that compulsory maintenance is not right; and in whatever degree they do this, there is an increased cause of dissatisfaction or estrangement. Again. The teacher who is independent of the congregation, who will enjoy all his emoluments whether they are satisfied with him or not,—is under manifest temptation to remissness in his duty,-not perhaps to remissness in those particulars on which his superiors would animadvert, but in those which respect the unstipulated and undefinable but very important duties of private care and of private labours. To mention this is sufficient. No man who reflects upon the human constitution, or who looks around him, will need arguments to prove that they are likely to labour negligently whose profits are not increased by assiduity and zeal. I know that the power of religion can, and that it often does, counteract this; but that is no argument for putting temptation in the way. So powerful indeed is this temptation that with a very great number it is acknowledged to prevail. Even if we do not assert, with a clergyman, that a great proportion of his brethren labour only so much for the religious benefit of their parishioners as will screen them from CHAP. 14.] CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT.' 353 the arm of the law, there is other evidence which is unhappily conclusive. The desperate extent to which the non-residence is practised is infallible proof that a large proportion of the clergy are remiss in the discharge of the duties of a Christian pastor. They do not discharge them con amore. And how should they? It was not the wish to do this which prompted them to become clergymen at first. They were influenced by another object, and that they have obtained;-they possess an income and it is not to be expected that when this is obtained the mental desires should suddenly become elevated and purified, and that they who entered the church for the sake of its emoluments should commonly labour in it for the sake of religion. Although to many the motive for entering the church is the same as that for engaging in other professions, it is an unhappiness peculiar to the clerical profession that it does not offer the same stimulus to subsequent exertion, that advancement does not usually depend upon desert. The man who seeks for an income from surgery or the bar is continually prompted to pay exemplary attention to its duties. Unless the surgeon is skilful and attentive, he knows that practice is not to be expected: unless the pleader devotes himself to statutes and reports, he knows that he is not to expect cases and briefs. But the clergyman, whether he studies the Bible or not, whether he be diligent and zealous or not, still possesses his living. Nor would it be rational to expect, that where the ordinary stimulus to human exertion is wanting, the exertion itself should generally be found. So naturally does exertion follow from stimulus, that we believe it is an observation frequently made, that curates are more exemplary than beneficed clergymen. And if beneficed clergymen were more solicitous than they are to make the diligence of their curates the principal consideration in employing them, this difference between curates and their employers would be much greater than it is. Let beneficed clergymen employ and reward curates upon as simple principles as those are on which a merchant employs and rewards a clerk, and it is probable that nine-tenths of the parishes in England would wish for a curate rather than a rector. But this very consideration affords a powerful argument against the present system. If much good would result from making clerical reward the price of desert, much evil results from making it independent of desert. This effect of the English establishment is not, like some others, inseparable from the institution. It would doubtless be possible even with compulsory maintenance so to appropriate it that it should form a constant motive to assiduity and exertion. Clergymen might be elevated in their profession according to their fidelity to their office: and if this were done, if as opportunity offered all were likely to be promoted who deserved it; and if all who did not deserve it were sure to be passed by, a new face would soon be put upon the affairs of the church. The complaints of neglect of duty would quickly be diminished, and non-residence would soon cease to be the reproach of three thousand out of ten. We cannot however amuse ourselves with the hope that this will be done; because in reference to the civil constitution of the church, there is too near an approach to that condition in which the whole head is sick and the whole heart faint. If then it be asserted that it is one great advantage of the establishment that it provides a teacher for every parish, it is one great dis |