« PreviousContinue »
instruct, support, and oblige them. The consequence was, on their part, an attachment to him and his successors, which was never broken.'
We conclude this part of our subject with the following citations, in the full purport of which every rightly-constituted mind must cordially concur. We can only wish that all colonists of the present day would abide by its precepts and imitate the example it sets forth.
• The Aborigines have been often treated as though they were wild and irreclaimable savages. They have been often shamefully deceived, insulted, trampled upon, pillaged, and massacred. Their resistance to oppression, after long and patient endurance, has been again and again appealed to as evidence of their cruel and revengeful spirit. But how seldom have Christian dispositions been recommended to them by example? How seldom has the attempt been made to win them over, not by force, but by love? It is, indeed, melancholy to reflect that the superior knowledge and acquirements of their white brethren, instead of being employed in setting forth a noble example of mercy and truth, have seemed in too many instances only to give increased energy to the efforts of cruelty and avarice.
• The Christian and candid manner of William Penn towards the Indians appears to have made a deep and lasting impression on their minds, and his name and memory were held in grateful remembrance by succeeding generations of them, being carefully handed down by tradition from father to son. An instance of this was shown in a conference which Governor Keith had with the Five Nations in 1721, when their chief speaker said, “They should never forget the counsel that William Penn gave them; and that though they could not write as the English did, yet they could keep in the memory what was said in their councils.' At a treaty renewed in the following year, they mention his name with much affection, calling him a 'good man,' and saying, 'we are glad to hear the former treaties which we have made with William Penn repeated to us again.' At a treaty held with the Six Nations at Philadelphia, in 1742, Canassatego, chief of the Onondagoes, said, 'We are all very sensible of the kind regard which that good man, William Penn, had for all the Indians.' Again, at a treaty held in 1756, a Delaware chief thus expressed himself: Brother Onas, and the people of Pennsylvania, we rejoice to hear from you that you are willing to renew the old good understanding, and that you call to mind the first treaties of friendship made by Onas, our great friend, deceased, with our forefathers, when himself and his people first came over here. We take hold of these treaties with both our hands, and desire you will do the same, that a good understanding and true friendship may be re-established. Let us both take hold of these treaties with all our strength, we beseech you; we on our side will certainly do it.' On concluding a peace in the same year, an Indian said, 'I wish the same good spirit that possessed the good old man, William Penn, who was a friend to the Indians, may inspire the people of this province at this time,' &c. These, with many more instances of a similar kind that have come to our knowledge, confirm us in the belief, that the exercise of a just and kind treatment towards the uncivilized classes of our fellow-beings, is sure to win their confidence and affection, and be productive to both settler and native of incalculable advantages.'— pp. 43, 44,
Again, the success and internal prosperity of the State of Pennsylvania, as compared with other States, at least so long as the Friends retained a power in the government, speaks highly in favour of the course of policy adopted by them at its first settlement. The contrast, (which however we have not room to detail,) between the peaceful and prosperous condition of this province for a period of about seventy years, and the warlike and troubled state of some of the other colonies during the same time is remarkably striking. The editors observe :
* The upright and candid line of conduct pursued by William Penn, and the government of Pennsylvania towards the Indians, and their care fully to recognise their rights, seems to bave tended in no small degree to its success and prosperity. Although the colony of Pennsylvania was established considerably after most of the other provinces bordering upon the Atlantic, and without possessing the advantages which several of them had in the produce of staple articles of trade, yet, it was estimated, that in 1760 it contained more wbite inhabitants than all Virginia, Maryland, and both of the Carolinas. The plan for Philadelphia was laid down in 1682. In 1718, William Penn died, in which year it is stated that Philadelphia contained 1,400 houses, and 10,000 inhabitants; and the province altogether, about 60,000 people. In 1760, it is said, that there were in Philadelphia 3,000 houses, containing 20,000 inhabitants, and throughout Pennsylvania 200,000 people. In an account of the European settlements in America, published by Dodsley in 1757, the statistics of the white population exhibit a still greater proportion in favour of Pennsylvania, by which it appears that, excepting New England and New York, it contained more settlers than all the other provinces united : they are as under:New England
354,000 Pennsylvania, the youngest colony but Georgia and Nova Scotia
250,000 New York
80,000 Virginia, the oldest
70,000 New Jersey
40,000 North and South Carolina, and Georgia
60,000 • The cause of this increase of population in so short a time, is generally said to be the kind and just treatment which the Indians received from the settlers, whereby the province was rendered entirely
safe from any molestation or aggression from them. And thus, while the neighbouring states, by pursuing a different policy, were engaged in frequent broils and wars with the natives, which were attended with grievous loss of life and great expense, Pennsylvania stood alone in the enjoyment of uninterrupted peace and quietness.'-pp. 66–63.
We have adverted the more pointedly to the benevolent and humane treatment of the aboriginal Americans by William Penn and his brethren, and of the advantages which thence resulted alike to both parties, because it presents such a striking contrast to the present system of European colonization ; which, so far from being advantageous to the Aborigines, is productive to them of accumulative miseries, whilst it is attended with evident loss and prejudice to the new settlers. Look at Algeria, for instance, as colonized by the French; or at some of our own settlements in the islands of the Pacific, as described by that eminent missionary, Williams. So manifest, indeed, are the evils of this system, that a committee of the House of Commons appointed to consider what measures ought to be adopted with regard to the native inhabitants of countries where British settlements are made-in drawing up its report in 1836, thus alludes to these enormities :—'It is not too much to say, that the intercourse of Europeans in general, without any exception in favour of the subjects of Great Britain, has been, unless when attended by missionary exertions, a source of many calamities to uncivilized nations. Too often their territory has been usurped, their property seized, their numbers diminished, their character debased, the spread of civilization impeded, European vices and diseases have been introduced amongst them, and they have been familiarized with the use of our most potent instruments for the subtle or violent destruction of human life, viz., brandy and gunpowder. It will be only too easy to make the proof of all these assertions, which may be established solely by the evidence above referred to. It will be easy also to show, that the result to ourselves has been as contrary to our interest as to our duty; that our system has not only incurred a vast load of crime, but a vast expenditure of money, and amount of loss.'
Art. V. History of the Secession Church. By the Rev. John M‘Kerrow,
D.D. Bridge of Teith. Third Edition. A. Fullerton, and Co. 1844. However opposed to the ecclesiastic-political alliance, in any form in which it has yet been or in which we can expect to see it exhibited, we admit that there is a connexion of moral influence between the spiritual and temporal estates which it becomes the patriot and the philosopher, the statesman as well as the christian, to study and to appreciate. We do not here refer to the effect which a genuine belief of christianity will produce on the habits and deportment of the individual in every relation of life; but to the result upon the aspect, the spirit, and the institutions of society, which will assuredly be manifested according as we respect or confound the proper limits of civil and sacred jurisdiction. If the political encroach on the ecclesiastical, the liberties of the church will be invaded; if the ecclesiastical encroach on the political, the church under pretence of independence, will compromise her purity, and stand convicted of worldly-minded usurpation.
To distinguish with accuracy between these respective jurisdictions, and maintain them inviolate, is the great problem of religious liberty. But it is a problem in which the interests of civil freedom are likewise deeply concerned. Those who best understand the principles of religious liberty, are the most enlightened and consistent friends of the political rights of the subject. The history of our country in its most eventful periods, shows that bigots in the church are bigots in the legislature: that those who look with jealousy on the unfettered rights of conscience, from professed zeal for the religious interests of the community, are commonly the men who set their faces against reform in the state, under pretence of dangerous innovation; and who would, if they could, narrow the range of thought, bar the march of national improvement, awe the spirit of inquiry, curb the popular will, gag the freedom of the press, and thus throw up the barrier of their own imbecile fears and antiquated prejudices against the advancement of society and the best interests of mankind.
The spirit of division is in the church what the spirit of faction is in the state; but the independence of principle, the hatred of priestcraft, and the resistance of tyranny, which have ofttimes led to separation, instead of proving a mischievous agitation, are rather to be viewed as the active feeling and the effort to advance, which are incident to a healthy state of things. For this reason we look on the rise of the great bodies of dissenters in both parts of the kingdom, as at once the effect of salutary excitement and as an antidote to that tame and dormant state of mind which yields a blind submission to the dictates of authority and sinks the soul into the unquestioning, unreasoning, inert, and passive slave of ancient usage or of ecclesiastical dictation. The principle of dissent, when not schismatically acted on, is the true antagonist principle of this blind hereditary faith. We are persuaded that some of the most striking and instructive examples of it, have hitherto passed without due observation by persons not otherwise unacquainted with our national history, and by some who are even largely conversant with the economical and political interests of our land.
Availing ourselves of the ample information contained in the valuable work of Dr. M‘Kerrow, which we noticed in our number for October, 1842, and which we are glad to see has reached a third edition, we shall supply our readers with a chapter, more in detail than we formerly gave, from this volume of public instruction,-one which we believe to be possessed of general interest, as an illustration of great principles; and as a record of actual results affecting in no inconsiderable degree the state and prospects of the sister-country.
The Secession Church in Scotland is a body of presbyterian dissenters, divided into various sections by certain minor distinctions among themselves, but all originating in a separation from the national church, which took its rise in the year 1733. At that period, the church of Scotland was deeply imbued with a secular spirit, and was sinking apace into some of the very worst vices of ecclesiastical corporations,-indolence in the duties of the spiritual cure and subserviency to the politics of the world. Professing to be the church of the people, and established as such by law, it was nevertheless hostile to popular rights, and had, in repeated instances, evinced a scandalous indifference to doctrinal error under the guise of an orthodox confession. From the time of the Revolution Settlement till 1712, patronage in its rigorous form was abolished in Scotland, the right of nominating to vacant parishes being vested in elders and heritors, whose presentation took effect if acceded to by the majority of the people. The boon which was thus accorded to the people was wholly withdrawn by an act of parliament in 1712, which restored to lay patrons the rights they had formerly possessed. The church, after some show of resistance, submitted to the yoke, and became in turn an invader of the liberties of the people.
Although by the Act of 1712, the law of patronage was restored, the oppressiveness of the enactment was for some time greatly mitigated by the conduct of patrons, who frequently,