_Thoughts on the Religious State of the Country; with Reasons for
preferring Episcopacy. By Rev. Calvin Colton. New York: Harper &
Brothers._
If we are to consider opinions of the press, when in perfect
accordance throughout so wide a realm as the United States, as a fair
criterion by which to estimate the opinions of the people, then it
must be admitted that Mr. Colton's late work, “Four Years in Great
Britain,” was received, in the author's native land at least, with
universal approbation. We heard not a dissenting voice. The candor,
especially—the good sense, the gentlemanly feeling, and the accurate
and acute observation of the traveller, were the daily themes of high,
and, we have no doubt, of well merited panegyric. Nor in any private
circle, we believe, were the great merits of the work disputed. The
book now before us, which bears the running title of “_Reasons for
Episcopacy_,” is, it cannot be denied, a sufficiently well-written
performance, in which is evident a degree of lucid arrangement, and
simple perspicuous reason, not to be discovered, as a prevailing
feature, in the volumes to which we have alluded. The _candor_ of the
“_Four Years in Great Britain_,” is more particularly manifest in the
“_Reasons for Episcopacy_.” What a lesson in dignified frankness, to
say nothing of common sense, may the following passage afford to many
a dunder-headed politician!
Inasmuch as it has been supposed by some, that the author of these
pages has made certain demonstrations with his pen against that which
he now adopts and advocates, it is not unlikely that his consistency
will be brought in question. Admitting that he has manifested such an
inclination, it can only be said, that he has changed his opinion,
which it is in part the design of this book to set forth, with the
reasons thereof. If he has written against, and in the conflict, or in
any train of consequences, has been convinced that his former position
was wrong, the least atonement he can make is to honor what he now
regards as truth with a profession as public, and a defence as
earnest, as any other doings of his on the other side. It is due to
himself to say and to claim, that while he remained a Presbyterian he
was an honest one; and it would be very strange if he had never done
or said any thing to vindicate that ground. Doubtless he has. He may
now be an equally honest Episcopalian; and charity would not require
him to assert it.
But the truth is that Mr. Colton has been misunderstood. To be sure,
he has frequently treated of the evils attending the existence and
operation of the church establishment in England—the union of Church
and State. He manifested deep sympathy for those who suffered under
the oppression of this establishment, and even allowed himself to be
carried so far (in some early communications on the subject which
appeared in the columns of a New York weekly paper,) as to animadvert
in unbecoming terms upon a class of British {454} clergymen, whose
exemplary conduct deserved a more lenient treatment, but whose zeal
for the Church of England blinded them to a sense of justice towards
Dissenters, and induced them to oppose that just degree of reform
which would have proved effectual in remedying the great causes of
complaint. He contended, however, if we are not greatly in error, that
total reform, to be safe, must be slow—that a separation at a single
blow, could not be effected without great hazard to the public
interest, and great derangement of private society.
It is even possible (and Mr. Colton himself admits the possibility)
that, mingled up with these animadversions of which we speak, might
have been some censures upon the Church itself. This was nothing more
than natural in an honest and indignant man—an American too, who
beheld the vices of the British Church Establishment. But it appears
to us quite evident, that the strictures of the author (when
considered as a whole and in their general bearing,) have reference to
the character—not of the Church—but of the Church of England. Let us
turn, for an exemplification of what we say, to his chapter on “The
Church of England,” in the “_Four Years in Great Britain_.” This
chapter consists principally of a collection of facts, tending to show
the evils of a conjoined Church and State, and intended especially for
the perusal of Americans. It is great injustice to confound what we
find here, with an attack upon Episcopacy. Yet it seems to us, that
this chapter has been repeatedly so misunderstood, by a set of people
who are determined to understand every thing in their own particular
fashion. “That Episcopacy,” says Mr. Colton, in vindicating himself
from the charge adduced, “is the established Church of England is an
accident. Presbyterianism is the established religion of Scotland and
of some parts of the north of Europe. So was it of England under the
Protectorate of Cromwell. No matter what had been the form of the
established religion of Great Britain, in the same circumstances the
results must have been substantially the same. It is not Episcopacy
that has induced these evils, but the vicious and impracticable plan
of uniting Church and State for the benefit of society.”
While in England Mr. Colton wrote and published a book on the subject
of _Revivals_, and declared himself their advocate. In the fifth
chapter of his present work he opposes them, and in the Preface
alludes to his so doing, maintaining that these religious excitements
are materially changed in their character. He speaks also of a chapter
in a former work, entitled “_The Americans, by an American in
England_”—a chapter devoted to the removal of aspersions cast in
England upon the developments of religion in America. For some such
defence it appears that he was called upon by friends. The effort
itself was, as Mr. C. assures us, of the nature of an
_apology_—neither attempting to recommend or establish any thing—and
he thus excuses himself for apparent inconsistency in now declaring an
opinion against the expediency of the practices which were
scandalized.
The _Episcopacy_ of Mr. Colton will be read with pleasure and profit
by all classes of the Christian community who admire perspicuity,
liberality, frankness, and unprejudiced inquiry. It is not our purpose
to speak of the general accuracy of his _data_, or the soundness of
his deductions. In style the work appears to us excessively
faulty—even uncouth.