« PreviousContinue »
or vice equal to the evil or vice of a religion established, protected and supported by law.
But however clear Mr. Cobbett might be on the question of paper money and its relations, he is most confused on the subject of trade, or what is commonly called free trade. He spake on this subject before the Lincoln's-Inn-Fields asseinbly, and I see his words correctly reported in the Morning Herald. I could not have supposed that such a man could have committed sucherrors, even upon the first glance at a subject. But they are errors which we shall find to arise from a bigotted attachment to oldsystems, to country with or without honour, and to the nonsense about the “ wisdom of ancestors.”
He says, that two nations cannot trade together and both gain. That for both to gain, there must be a third to give a higher price for the articles which the first sells to the second at a profit. He illustrates the case by supposing himself a butcher buying meat from another butcher at eightpence per pound, and selling it to a neighbouring gentleman at ninepence. Then, says he, we butchers both gain from the gentleman consumer, and adds, that for two nations to gain, there must be gentleman nation” to buy at a higher price what the first sold to the second, This is a confined and imperfect view of the case.
Two nations can trade together and both gain.
If England cannot get wine without sending cottons to France, nor France cottons without sendiug wine to England, both gain ; England gains the wine, and France the cottons. This is not gain, says Mr. Cobbett, because value is given for value; he says neither gain; but, I and, others say, both gain. If all property consists ultimately of labour, all the labour generated and well applied is clear gain; and if the labour in cottons could not have been well applied without sending them to France in exchange for wine, the wine is so much clear gain, and the same, if the wine could not have produced cottons, or if cottons could not have been obtained in France without the production and export of wine.
Gain is that which adds to our happiness, such as a plenty of food and raiment, even luxuries; and if I can only obtain wines and agreeable clothing, by sending books to France, I gain by that exchange, that which I could not otherwise have gained. If England and France were each to produce something new, and the one could only be had in interchange for the other, there is mutual gain. To say that there can be no gain, unless the one party be in a condition to dictate terms and prices to the other, as Mr. Cobbett said in Lincoln's-Inn-fields, is just as wise and honest as it would be to say, that there is no gain but in bold and successful robbery. It is a great thing to teach nations, and it will be well for Mr. Cobbett to learn it, that the highest amount of gain is ultimately to be obtained by the most free and fair trade,
and not by the trick which one can practise upon the other, nor by the oppression of the one, and the submission of the other. Mr. Cobbett's assertions were, that England has flourished by dictating the terms on which she would deal with other nations, and that she can only flourish while in the possession of power to dictate such terms. Never was idea more erroneous; more vicious. It matters not whether England gets metal or food and raiment in exchange for her produce; the question is, which mode of trading will yield her people the greatest amount of comforts, to pursue a system that cannot fail to impoverish other nations, or a system that shall so enrich them, as to make them the consumers of twice or thrice the former quantity of our produce ?
This subject will admit of extensive illustration, and I shall return to it. But I have said enough to shew, that Mr. Cobbett is not the wisest man in the country, and no man will say, that he is the most honest, Still I have no objection to his being sent into Parliament; for if he cannot teach, he may learn something, by clashing with opposition, and in being examined by men who take no notice of his writings. It requires more of impudence than of ability to pass for a wise man among the multitude; but it wants more ability than impudence, to pass for a wise man in a public assembly, where every thing said is exposed to all sorts of subtle opposition. February 9, 1826.
MR. J. G. WARD of Yarmouth will obtain no further notice of his article, ontil be sends half-a-crown to pay the cost of transmitting it. It is a barefaced robbery to leave an Editor to pay for a parcel of that kind. For letters, we recover our money; but for parcels, we have no redress ; at least, so says tiie book-keeper at the office,
The wish of G. H. is in the course of being complied with, as to an abridged edition of “ WHAT IS Love?"
COURT OF KING'S BENCH. The King against RICHARD CARLILE; AND RICHARD CARLILE
against the KING.
In this contest, which is as yet far from being at an end, Mr. Carlile has just obtained, from the Court of King's Bench, a Rule Absolute, ordering the Sheriffs to restore to him the undisposed of part of his property seized in 1819. Mr. Bolland appeared on
the part of the Sheriff, and the Attorney General on the part of the Crown; but neither of them objected to the making of the Rule absolute. This is a first step towards a redressing of the wrongs inficted by the crown, and others must follow, even to a reversal of the judgment.
THE FIFTY-SIXTH ORATION,
Delivered before the Christian Evidence Society on Tuesday, Feb.
7, 1825, by the Rev. Robert Taylor, A.B. Secretary of the Society, in refutation of the Bishop of London's Seventh Proposition.
“The rapid and successful propagation of the Gospel, by the first teachers of
it, through a large part of the world, is a proof that they were favoured
with Divine assistance and support,' MR. CHAIRMAN, Members of the Society of Christian Evidence, Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is ever to be regretted, when the advocates of our most holy faith so far depart from the simplicity of the Gospel as to attempt to support a divine revelation upon the unsanctified principles of human evidence, because this is not only degrading the subject itself, but must greatly tend to demoralize their own minds, by driving them upon the necessity of saying a great many things which otherwise there would be no occasion to say. It is, in fact, over-doing the thing-like helping a man on horseback by pitching him on the other side! Therefore I shall endeavour to fix religion upon the saddle, by observing a middle course, and maintaining the best equilibrium I can between superstition, on the one hand, and infidelity on the other.
The Bible has God for its author, happiness for its end, and truth, without
any mixture of error, for its matter; “ and he that believeth not may be damned.” Now is not that evidence enough? What would men have? Shall the gods descend from “ huge Olympus' cloud capt top," to mix in mortal conflict? Will the Clergy and Preachers of Christianity come down from the sacred altitude of authority, and talk with us of dates, and facts, and proofs, where we are at home as well as they? O no. No; the pulpit—the pulpit only, is the safe ground for Christianity. We must be honest here !
It is a very awkward thing to be exposed to the liability of being contradicted, and I can tell our most popular preachers in this metropolis, that there are no men in the world more sensible
of that awkwardness than themselves. That will do, and do very well, for an Unitarian congregation (poor innocent sheep of Christ), which their Unitarian shepherds would not dare to utter to men who knew “ a hawk from a hernshaw."
No part of this reflection, however, should infringe on the character of our Right Reverend Bishop, who, in the proposition before us, has admitted and given us the very particular truth which our Unitarians and Sectarians of every denomination have directed all their efforts (and directed them in vain) to disprove and overthrow, because it is this truth that gives an Established Church its rights, and its ascendancy, over all their pitiful coteries of caballing craft, and constitutes a reason for the religion of a gentleman which 'none of them can pretend to.
* The final establishment of Christianity was by Constantine," says the Lord Bishop. “ It was under Constantine,” he repeats, " that the Empire became Christian.” It was, indeed! And, but for Constantine, the world would never have heard of Christianity. Here, indeed, as a Clergyman of the Church of England, I stand on 'vantage ground against all her enemies without, or traitors within her pale, by being able to shew who the author and finisher of our faith was--CONSTANTINE THE GREAT, TIIE EMPEROR OF THE WORLD. Can they shew any other? We have the highest authority on earth for the origination of our religion. Have they any higher? And, after this, shall our reason any more be insulted with tales of baby wonderment? Shall we be seduced to forsake the religion of our ancestors; of mighty kings; of sovereign pontiffs, and despotic emperors, to pin our faith upon the ruffian sleeves of pedlars, slaves, and fishermen ? Must we, for the mere must have of a supernatural religion, overlook the obvious; the apparent; the sufficient sources of its originator, to cheat our fancy with a conceit that the royal pearl had been stolen out of a beggar's baggage. O it out Herod's Herod. We ascribe no other religion to supernatural causes. Why, then, ascribe our own to the sword ? The sword is its evidence; put up that, and heaven is innocent. Could we really think that God would condescend to commune with men (though it is like our impudence to dream of such a thing): the least he could have done would have been to send a gentleman on his errand, and to treat him as such: but hanging; crucifying; putting him into a bloody sweat; and sending him to hell after it, were enough to make a wicked man say, what Augustus said of Herod, “ It were better be his swine than be his son.”
But Constantinopolitan Christianity delivers us from all these absurdities; and, though it possesses all the mysteries, miracles, and prophecies, necessary to entertain the imaginations of the weak; the ignorant; the wicked, for whose use only religion is chiefly designed, does not need to be deeply thought of by any body, and therefore cannot corrupt the understanding; it does
Is it so.
not require to be believer, and therefore cannot spoil the heart.
It is this intrinsic excellence of our most holy faith that has made me such a good Christian as I am. Not to speak it boastfully, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury is not a better. Yes. We will wear the established faith, if it must be so, in our bonnets, and pin it on our gloves, and it shall sit as loosely-but none of your fooleries--out of the cut and fashion of the day. The canting hypocrites and overbearing tyrants that would tell us, that Christianity requires our hearts, shall have them when they can tear them out of our bosoms. But Constantine, we shall be told, found Christianity previously existing. He only adopted, and by his adoption corrupted it.' He only introduced its exterior splendour, pride, pomp, and circumstance. He established nothing else but its clergy; its tythes, and first fruits ; its magnificent edifices, lordly titles, and enormous revenues,
Aye! A fair experiment then! And if these things be not absolutely essential to Christianity; if they be not the “ totum illud”-ihe every thing of the system-take them away again; and
my life on it, but in six years the whole world shall have said, “Good night to Jesus Christ!" So
If the fire goes out we shall catch the Salamander; and if the Church goes out we shall catch the Christianity.
Here, then, is our answer to the eternally repeated question, “ How can we account for the wonderful and unexampled progress of Christianity.” CONSTANTINUS MAGNUS, the Roman Emperor, has taken away the wonderfulness, and Mrs. JOHANNA Southcott, the washerwoman, has taken away the unexampledness. Nay, my Lady of the Soapsuds, in the extension and progress of her faith, beat my Lords of the Fishbasket in the spread of theirs, at one against the dozen. They laid their Shiloh in a sordid manger; she laid her Shiloh in a silver cradle. They, with Omnipotence itself to back them, played their card so ill, that poverty, persecution, and martyrdom, were their portion. She!
succeeded “Ille crucem sceleris pretium tulit, bæc diadema." She made thousands in the 19th century, and in this supposedly civilized metropolis, recognize her mission; and physicians, bishops, lords, and princes, did her homage. She lived in splendour, and she died in triumph. Give Christianity every other species of evidence that may be; but I shall think ye love it less than I do, if you say anything more about its “ rapid and successful propagation," Are they, then, whom their Christian opponents brand with the opprobrious names of intidels and scep. tics, after all the most credulous of men ? And are we still to read, in pamphlets directed against this Society, of the credulity of incredulity; the belief of unbelief; and that they who don't believe the Gospel, must believe much greater absurdities than