ePub 版


the freedom, civil and religious, of all classes of the people.

And here, as in duty bound, and in feeling constrained, I desire to pay a passing tribute to the memory of a departed clergyman and friend, the erudite, zealous, and estimable Lewis Matthias, late curate of Falmouth, to whom I am indebted for much information connected with ecclesiastical questions. The parishioners of Falmouth have erected a handsome monument to his memory in the church of that town, and to their record of his worth they will permit me to add mine.-A grateful sense of what is due from me to some who are living, would have induced me also to name them, were I not assured that such publicity would not be in accordance with their feelings. I beg, at the same time, with reference to those who are opposed to me in opinion, to observe, that I desire to contend against principles, and not against individuals. My having named the Dymond family could not well be avoided; and I hope I shall not be deemed, by any of the surviving relatives or friends of the author of the pamphlet alluded to, as wanting in personal respect towards them, however strongly I may have expressed my sentiments.

S. C. R.

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

THE question will probably beasked, What could have induced the author to adopt the singular title of “ The Queen and the Quakers” for his work? I have no desire to keep the reader in doubt or suspense on this point; and, as my reason does not require to be concealed, I will at once answer the question. It will be recollected that, in the early part of the year 1837, there was considerable agitation throughout the country, on the subject of church-rates

-meetings having been got up by the DissentingRadical party and the Romanists, in almost every town, to petition Parliament in favour of the destructive Ministerial Bill, which proposed to abolish this ancient property right of the Established Church of these realms. A very large meeting was held in Exeter, at the Guildhall, and the anti-church-rate party, by means of the hands of the lower classes, who do not pay church-rates, but who had been inflamed and misinformed by the specious misrepresentations of the leaders in the crusade against the Church of the Constitution, carried their petition in support of the Government measure.

This was deemed by the opponents of the Church, and by the enemies of religion generally, as a very glorious triumph-large posting-bills being stuck on the walls about the city, announcing the “ signal defeat of the lay and clerical bigots!" I considered this as a reflection on the character and principles of my native city; and after examining, with much care and attention, the speeches delivered in support of the abolition of church-rates, as reported in the leading organ of the Liberals, I found that hardy assertion, contrary to the truth, with mere declamation, had been substituted by the speakers for solid facts and sound arguments; and this induced me to undertake the bold task of proposing to answer these speeches, seriatim, by a discussion with the speakers themselves, before an equal number of the friends of both parties. This challenge was not accepted by the anti-church-rate gentlemen, and I published my answers to their speeches in Woolmer's Exeter and Plymouth Gazette. During the time I was engaged in this heavy and most responsible task-for such I may state, with sincerity, I felt it to be--I received a pamphlet from Mr. Balle, bookseller, with a note as follows:

“ Sent per request of Mr. Dymond, sen., the father of the author of the enclosed pamphlet.'

I read the publication with as much care as time would then permit me to bestow upon it, and found that it had been written by the late Jonathan Dymond, with the view, as he intended, of “showing that religious establishments derive no countenance from the nature of Christianity, and that they are not recommended by public utility.” The author had gone to his account” long before the pamphlet was sent me; and what the motive of Mr. Dymond, sen., was for presenting me with a copy, at such a time, I cannot say; but I have reason to suppose that it was a good, although a mistaken,

[ocr errors]

motive. If that venerable man expected that this pamphlet of his departed son would change my opinion, he must, I think, have laboured under great delusion; since no work could, in my opinion, have been less calculated to effect such an object with any man who had examined into the merits of the question. I found the contents of the pamphlet to be a very strange compound -misrepresentation and fallacy in great profusion, with some sprinkling of truth; assumptions without any attempt at proof; untenable objections to a “state religion,” and

compulsory payments” in support of Church establishments; illiberal and uncharitable attacks on the Church and clergy, oddly blended with a little strong praise of clergymen ; isolated extracts, picked out, without reference to the context, and made to suit the occasion, from the works of a few divines of the Church, against some parts of the liturgy and discipline of the Establishment_“that Establishment, the fate of which (as the author observes) is sealed;" the Church and clergy, in connection or union with the monarchy, described as an “unholy alliance"“ that alliance which will assuredly be laid in the dust;" with other idle prophecies of the speedy « doom” of our national Zion. I looked, however, in vain for any sentence produced by the author from the New Testament, “ showing that religious establishments derive no countenance from the nature of Christianity;" and I was equally unsuccessful in my search for evidence in the pamphlet to prove that the union of Church and State is 6 unholy alliance." The Quaker author asserted these things; but, like other speakers and writers, whether of the Red Cross-street conclave of political Dissenters, or others, who have presumed to declare the British Constitution, in its amalgamation of religion and laws, to be “ unscriptural,” « unholy," and even) " blasphemous," he took care to omit anything


A 3

in the shape of valid evidence in support of his propositions.

I felt much regret that a publication, tending to encourage the "scoffer and mocker" at our national Christianity--to mislead the ignorant and unwaryand to counsel the destruction of our sacred and most glorious Constitution, by a separation of Church and State, and the confiscation of the property set apart for ages for the support of the public altar, should have emanated from an Englishman, and that man a member of the Society of Friends; as I considered it to be most inconsistent with the

professed loyalty and Christian principles of his sect, and manifestly at variance with their avowed desire for the peace and good order of society. With these feelings I put the pamphlet of the late Jonathan Dymond aside, and proceeded with my.

task of answering the anti-church-rate speeches, which, after protracted, anxious, and severe labour, I completed, through Divine Providence, to the satisfaction of the friends of the Church, to some of the most. distinguished and influential of whom, in Exeter and the diocese, I owe a debt of gratitude which I trust will remain in the deep of my heart to the last moment of my existence, strengthened by the wellfounded belief, that


humble labours in THE CAUSE was the means of conferring lasting benefit on many of my fellow-countrymen, who were previously in error on the question, as well as of obtaining their kind encouragement and approval.

On the accession of Queen Victoria to the throne of her ancestors, I observed among the addresses presented to her Majesty, one from the Quakers (July 20th, 1837), read by William Allen, which contained the following paragraph :

Convinced, as we are, that the religion of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, is the only foundation for the true happiness of man, and the prosperity of the people,

« 上一頁繼續 »