ftruct the improvement, and dimi- the Jews, appointed even by God himself. But let us attend to the Diffen. ter's argument. "When a government," fays he, "appoints a body of men in the capacity of what is called a church establifhed, it always (exprefsly or in effect,) prescribes to them the promulgation of certain doctrines which it decrees to be truth, and reftricts the conclufions of their inquiries to a confiftency with the prefcribed doctrines." This is by no means, a juft account of the matter. The government, as fuch, does not decree what doctrines fhall be truth; it leaves the decifion to thofe who are better qualified for the talk, thofe who have made themselves acquainted with the fcriptures, which are acknowledged by proteftants, and not denied (at leaft in exprefs words) by the Diffenter, to be the only infallible standard of faith and manners; and all that government in this cafe does, is only to declare, that it will fupport and countenance a particular body of men, in teaching and illuftrating that fyftem of doctrines, which the church has, upon the moft mature deliberation, found to be molt conformable to the word of God. By the way, it may not be improper to obferve, that the Diffenter feems all along to entertain a very contined and improper notion of the province of a teacher of religi on He fuppofes it to be the whole bufinefs of fuch a one, to teach a certain fyftem of doctrines, in other words, merely to tell the people what they are to believe. This, however, is very far from being the cafe. A much more extenfive and important part of his office is, to inftruct the people in what they are to practise, to remind them of their duty, and to enforce the performance of it. And this is a province which will admit of very great great variety, and where the fpecu. lations of ingenuity are but little reftricted by human creeds or fyftems. In all Christian churches, the great duties of morality are the fame, and to inculcate these is a tafk which the teachers of religion cannot be at too much pains to discharge. THE Diffenter goes on to confirm his affertion by fome particular arguments. The first is, that "the influence of an establishment upon the appointed teacher is pernicious, by debafing his own mind, and rendering him hurtful to others. When a man is hired to teach a particular set of doctrines, he will moft frequently teach them, because he is paid; and, therefore, he can feldom be the difinterested admirer and indefatigable advocate of truth." This is indeed a moft formidable argument, but the misfortune is, that if it proves any thing at all, it will prove a great deal too much. When a profellor in an univerfity is appointed to teach the Elements of Euclid, and has a falary for fo doing, he will moft frequently teach them, because he is paid, but it will not follow, that he himfelf does not believe the propofitions which he demonftrates. In the fame manner, though a clergyman of the established church teach the doctrines of Chriftianity, because he is paid for teaching them, ftill he may be as much convinced of their truth, as if he received no reward for his trouble. Befides, will it make any effential difference in this refpect, whether the teacher is paid by government, or by his own particular hearers? Almost all the different fects of diffenters in this country, it is well known, have public teachers or minifters appointed to preach in their feveral congregations, who are paid by contributions from their flocks. The only exception of any confequence is among a fet lately fprung up, but who, as far as I underftand, do not call themselves diffenters, I mean the perfons who go by the name of Miffionaries, whofe ministers are paid, fometimes at leaft, not by their congregations, but out of fome other funds, the nature of which I do not profefs to know. And yet it is prefumed that it will be found, that these minifters are hired to teach a particular fet of doctrines. And I would only here beg leave to afk a few plain queftions-Is not the minister of every feparate congregation in this coun. try paid, either one way or other for what he teaches? Is he not paid, or hired, as the Diffenter expreffes it for teaching a particular fet of doc. trines, namely, thofe of the fect or party to which he belongs? and is it not poffible that a diffenting minifter may at least as frequently as one of the established church, for the fake of hire, teach to others what he does not believe himself? It is well known, that the great body of diffenters adhere with great ftrictness to their standards which, in general, are the fame with that of the established church, and it is exprefsly for teaching thefe doctrines, that their refpective ministers are paid by their people. And how fuch a plan can promote the liberal investigation of truth, any more than the establishment of a national church, I own, I can by no means discover. Will it for a moment be maintained, that the teacher in a diffenting congregation, who is entirely dependent on his people, will venture to publifh any doctrines as the result of liberal investigation, which are not strictly conformable to thofe ftandards to which he has promised an adherence? Are not free enquiry, and "unrestrained fpeculations" neither to be expected from thofe even who are not dependant on on the caprice of the multitude; and who, provided they do not attack what the church confiders as the fundamental doctrines of religion, may publifh to the world any peculiar opinions of their own, without running the risk of that perfe cution to which those who have nothing to fupport them but the juftice of their caufe, will often be expofed from the prejudice of narrow minds? AFTER all, few of your readers, I prefume, will be difpofed to admit in its full extent, the doctrine of the Diffenter, who takes it for granted, "that when a man can fay only what is prescribed to him, no matter by what authority, and when all his investigations must terminate at a point defined by another, as the ultimatum of his research, his communications muft, in many inftances, be loaded with errors, which mislead and render his auditors vicious and unhappy." We all feel the truth of the maxim, bumanum est errare, but if fystems of doctrines and creeds, compiled by councils and affemblies, muft of necessity be loaded with many errors, is it abfo. lutely certain, that no individual, when allowed to "deviate into the region of unreftrained fpecula tion," will be in danger of falling into any mistakes? a man of plain understanding is apt to fufpect, that if the collective wifdom of a national church, in attempting to define the articles of religion, cannot poffibly avoid numerous errors, individuals, if left to their own fpeculations, would not be more infallible. If he who teaches what is prefcribed to him by another, muft of neceffity teach many errors, is it certain, that he who indulges his own reveries, never can fail in the discovery of truth? But is it neceffary, in order to discover either religious or moral truths, that the teacher fhould be allowed to "devi ate into the region of unrestrained fpeculation?" I always understood, that among Chriftians, revelation, and not "fpeculation" was the fource whence all our knowledge was derived. The poet fpeaks of a religion which its profeffors feemed to think, was intended For nothing elfe but to be mended. If the Diffenter is of this religion, I will readily grant, that establishments of any kind, are extremely unfavourable to his purpose. Nay, if he is one, which, however, I have no right to fuppofe, who thinks that Christianity is merely of human invention, and that a religion might be discovered much better adapted to the circumstances of mankind, I will admit, that establishments are by no means favourable to fuch difcovery. But, though the establifhed church were completely overturned, it would ftill be true, "that a credulous ignorant man on the one hand, or a man deftitute of principle on the other (either of which, he modeftly afferts, that a churchman muft too often be) will be found very inadequate to the task of beneficially improving mankind." A perfon of this character, whether a churchman or a diffenter, is indeed very ill qualified for being a teacher of religion, but whether he be credulous or ignorant, or defti. tute of principle, it would be fully as well for thofe whom he is to inftruct, that he were reftricted to say only what was prefcribed to him, as that he were allowed to "deviate into the region of unreftrained fpeculation." I HAVE not left room for a particular examination of the ad argument, which, however, as far as I can obferve, does not differ much from the former. "A creed, we are told, is fet up, as the standard of truth, truth, a confiderable obftacle is therefore thrown in the way of free difcuffion, and unlimited communication of opinion, which are the most ample stores whence we derive useful knowledge." Still, revelation is overlooked as the fource of religious knowledge, which is to be acquired by "free difcuffion," or as formerly, "by deviating into the region of unreftrained fpeculation." The New Teftament feems to me to recommend to Christians, unity of faith; but, according to the Diffenter, the greater variety of opinions, fo much the better, and if I understand his meaning, it is, that no two congregations fhould agree together, either in articles of faith, or in modes of worship, and that there fhould be no common principle to which an appeal should be made. ESTABLISHMENTS are alfo charged with hypocrify, which the Diffenter fays must be a general vice, and a most odious vice to be fure it is: but as we have only his own word for it, I must be excufed if I do not ftay to examine the evidence by which he may choose to fupport this affertion. As to religious tefts and penal ftatutes of every kind, which the Diffenter lays hold of, they do not properly belong to the prefent queftion. I fhall neither undertake to defend nor condemn them. Free toleration, fuch as the diffenters in this country enjoy, I confider as one of their natural rights, of which I fhould be very forry to fee them deprived. But it may be worthy of remark, that the diffenters themfelves, at least the burgher and antiburgher Seceders, and church of Relief, in ftating the grounds of their feparation from the church, do not feem to look upon establishments with fuch an evil eye as your correfpondent. They state thefe grounds to be the corruptions which they allege have crept into the church, and far from wishing to fee it overturned, they only profefs to bear teftimony against its errors, and even call themselves the uncorrupt part of it, and maintain, that their principles are the fame with those of the establishment in the times of its greatest purity. Nor do I believe, that the overthrow of the established church would add much to the flourishing condition of the diffenters. On this fubject, I would beg leave to call the attention of your readers to an elegant quotation by Dr Gleig, in your Magazine for October, page 791. "To be of no church is dangerous. Religion, of which the reward is diftant, and which is animated only by faith and hope, will glide by degrees out of the mind, unless it be invigorated and re-impreffed by external ordinances, by stated calls to worship, and by the falutary influence of example." As to what the Diffenter fays of the flourishing state of religion, and the great happiness enjoyed in the United States of America, I own my information is not very extenfive, but from any thing that I have heard, I very much fufpect the truth of this flattering picture. But having already extended this paper to fo great length, I fhall not enter upon the confideration of what the Diffenter farther advances on the fubject. If notwithstanding the communication of Lælius, you deem the foregoing obfervations worthy of a place in your Mifcellany, your inferting them will very much oblige, Sir, FIFE, Nov. 26. 1802. Yours, &c &c. SINCERUS. EXTRACTS FROM THE JOURNAL OF A TOUR THROUGH FRANCE AND PART OF ITALY, IN THE COURSE OF LAST WINTER AND SPRING. My Dear HENRY, LETTER I. DOVER,08. 16. 1801. AS I ftood this morning on one of the cliffs which overhang this town, and stretched my view across the ftraits to trace the dim outlines of the oppofite coaft, I remembered the promises you exacted of me before I left Scotland, and refolved, by beginning my journal without delay, to convince you, that I am not difpofed to break it. The fact is, that, in fulfilling this engagement, I fhall gratify myfelf as much as you. I have fo long been in the habit of depofiting, in your bofom, a tranfcript of all my ftrong emotions, that without your participation, I already find my pleafures deficient in relifh, and my uneafy feelings doubly fevere. It is true, that in the companion of my travels, I have a friend, who is worthy of confidence and love; but he was not the companion of my boyhood, nor has he been long the friend of my riper years. tiality in my favour, to fufpect, that what I write can be read, by you, with indifference. But I have reafon to fear, nay, I am almost certain, that you entertain too fanguine expectations of inftructive amusement from the perufal of my journal. It is true, that I go abroad at an interesting period, and that the exertions of our good W. and of our ineftimable friend Dr C————— have procured me many valuable introductions; but the peculiar circumftances under which I travel, may render it highly improper for me to avail myself of these advantages as I could wifh, and I may return to England without having met with a fingle character of eminence, either in the mercantile or literary world. I foresee, too, that my obfervations will often be written under circumstances of fatigue and anxiety. However limited their sphere, therefore, they muft of neceffity be concife, and may often be incorrectly expreffed. But what is worfe than this, I think it my duty to warn you of it thus early, once for all; when you find me warm in my commendations, or fevere in my cenfure, you may often find it neceffary to make allowance for the feelings under which I wrote, or for the irrefiftible power of prejudice which may bias my judgment. I promife, however, never wilfully to miflead you, and I fhall at least endeavour to be candid. BUT |