it be that the parties concerned will adhere to it in opposition to present temptation. But let us come a little closer to the point, which is to show that the particular tendency of population to keep within the powers of the soil will have its complete operation, so as to prevent any mischievous pressure even against the actual supply of food, in proportion as religion, morality, rational liberty, and security of property approach to the attainment of a perfect influence. And first of religion. It will scarcely be denied that if every man conscientiously consulted its dictates as to the connexions which he formed, as to the diligence and sobriety with which he conducted himself individually, and as to the mode in which he regulated his social or charitable relations towards his fellow creatures; there would, by the principles established in the first book of this treatise, be actually no distress arising from the want of a plentiful supply of the people's wants. For on the one hand, no greater proportion of the people would elect to marry than the interests of the state required, nor any more children be brought into the world than the demand for industrious labourers would be able to employ as they grew up. And on the other hand as every man would be sober and industrious, he would contribute his full share towards the production of the comforts and necessaries of life, or towards the fulfilment of other useful duties. But it would of course be absurd to expect so general a conformity with the commands of religion, and I have only exhibited the picture with a view to show the consequences that would ensue from the reality, if it existed, in order to make it more apparent that the nearer we approach towards it the less difficulty will be experienced from any mischievous tendency in the population to press against the existing supply of food. For if complete conformity would insure complete success, and every step in advance be (as in the case before us it evidently is,) of itself a positive good and a solid acquisition, it follows as an undeniable conclusion that the degree of success will be in proportion to the degree of conformity. Let us suppose, for example, a village or a family in which the doctrines and discipline of real christianity were cultivated and observed, and where its genuine effects of decency, sobriety, honesty, industry, and charity, with the repression of the opposite vices, were generally apparent; doubtless this family or village would be much more happy and prosperous, and especially with respect to its comfortable subsistence, than those which were regulated upon opposite principles. It follows then as a matter of course (if the principle of population be in fact adjusted as I have contended in the first book of this treatise,) that the more families and villages can be brought under the same regimen the greater will be the general happiness, comfort, and prosperity of the community at large. I have been induced to repeat this observation, because according to the principle of population as laid down by my opponents, the conclusion is in some respects different; and the consequences, although admitted with respect to a private family or a village, are denied to hold good with respect to the whole community. If the reader, however, be disposed to agree in the view I have taken, he must not shrink from the necessary consequences, but apply the argument to his own conduct; and, (in so far as he possesses legitimate influence,) to the principles upon which the government of the state is conducted. The immediate effect of religion upon the individual mind of a statesman belongs to a department of inquiry less elementary than that pursued in this treatise. But if he believe that the machinery of society works freely for the benefit of the people in proportion to the prevalence of religion; and if he also acknowledge the duty, asserted by Dr. Paley, of endeavouring to produce the greatest portion of public happiness and prosperity in a given space of country; then he must of course, as a mere politician, be occupied in a continual struggle to increase the influence of sound, pure, and orthodox principles of Christainity. He will not be satisfied with that moderate portion of morality which may be thought barely sufficient to prevent the actual degradation of society, but he will aspire after that further and higher portion which shall urge it on to a continual state of advancement. He will never suppose that his task in this respect is concluded; for it would be to forget the principles of the system he has adopted, were he to rest upon any other supposition than that human affairs have a natural tendency towards the principle of evil, which requires incessant counteraction. It would be his policy then to countenance every institution, public or private, fulfilling the great objects of circulating the Holy Scriptures, of spreading the knowledge of their contents, and of extending the influence of , their precepts among the people, Nor would he be prevailed upon to withdraw that countenance, although trifling inconveniences, from which no human institutions are exempt, may be thought to qualify

their general usefulness. That the good outweighs the evil in the balance will be sufficient to influence his determination. Above all, should a church establishment fulfilling these conditions be one of the public institutions of his country, he will consider it as so much the more entitled to his special care and protection as well as to his love and veneration, as it affords, from its fixed and permanent principles, the greater security against perversion and abuse, and an acknowledged standard of reference by which any deviation into the paths of heresy and immorality may be immediately discovered. Moreover, if the connexion of religion with policy be as close as I have ventured to assert in this treatise, I think it cannot be disputed that such a churchestablishment is emphatically a part of the political constitution of the state; and that it is strictly the duty of the government to provide means both for the efficiency of its ministers in learning and piety, and for an adequate increase of their numbers in proportion to the augmented wants of an increasing population. When these conditions are fulfilled, it obviously follows that official encouragement should be exclusively confined to the clergy of the establishment, since through its agency alone can the state have due security for the permanent instruction of the people in those tenets upon which its political prosperity mainly depends. And as in a free country men are only amenable for their public conduct to the laws, and this by a slow and tedious process, it seems absolutely necessary to the security of the state that no persons among the laity professedly hostile to the religious establishment, or even indifferent to its welfare, should be admitted to offices of dignity and influence. In a despotic country, where the will of the sovereign can instantly and effectually interpose, and where all dignity and influence centre in his person, greater latitude may perhaps be admitted without detriment. These several conclusions can only be impugned by arguments which suppose either that the interests of policy are altogether independent of religion, or that the religious establishment of a country is not founded upon the orthodox principles of Scripture. But as the state in providing an establishment substantially denies the first of these propositions, and in fixing its particular doctrines virtually contradicts the other, it is undoubtedly bound to use every legitimate effort to secure the religious instruction of the people in the established tenets. If it be evident that a political establishment cannot endure in a free country unless the habitual opinions of the people are directed in a current favourable to its objects and principles, it is doubly so that, in a case so exclusively within the province of mind as religious instruction, an establishment formed for that purpose must fall to the ground, unless it possess the means of obtaining a permanent influence over public opinion. The duty of the statesman therefore, (and under that denomination I include every individual of influence in the state,) does not admit either of doubt or dispute. But his success will, after all, be contingent. If the establishment he supports be really founded in the pure doctrines of the Gospel, and has been duly and zealously set forth to the people in all its purity, it will doubtless secure their hearts against the inroads of all opponents. But if both, or either of these conditions be wanting, the spiritual arms, which can alone be fairly used in its defence will not be found of temper to

« ForrigeFortsett »