Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

interest to the middle classes, by the modification and extension of the house-tax, we, as religious journalists, do not reckon it our part to deal with in our notes on public affairs. But their project to benefit the farmers by the partial repeal of the malttax, comes entirely within our range, and deserves our heartiest reprobation. The idea is to increase the demand for the barley which the farmer grows, by rendering more easily its transformation into the beer which the people drink. The proposal we hold to be both a blunder and a sin. That beer will be cheaper to the consumer, provided the malt were cheaper to the brewer, is contradicted by the fact, that the reductions which at different times recently have taken place in the price of malt consequent on plentiful harvests, and the general operation of free trade, have never had the effect of reducing the retail price of malt liquors, and that the repeal of the tax would have this effect now, there is no evidence to prove. But apart from the blunder as a matter of finance, the morality of the proposal, as it seems to us, must be shocking to every Christian mind. The beerdrinking propensities of the English are already their deep reproach. It is found, by Parliamentary returns, that on an average some five and thirty gallons of malt liquor, or thereby, is consumed annually by every man, woman, and child in England; and if we make the necessary deduction for children, and the increasing body of total abstainers, the average consumption by the bee-drinking classes is enormously increased. But the people of England, it seems, don't drink enough for the purposes of Mr D'Israeli and the oppressed landowners; and they must be taught to drink more, so that barley may be in greater demand, and landowners get better rents for their land! That a Conservative ministry, professing to be the special friends of religion, and watching for every opportunity to multiply bishops and ecclesiastical endowments, for the alleged purpose of maintaining the interests of morality, should seek to promote a measure for debauching the people of England, is surely a specimen of inconsistency and selfishness unsurpassed by any organised hypocrisy of modern times.

BONDAGE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

THE authority vested in bishops and primates of the Church of England, seems to be powerful for evil only. Let it be appealed to for the protection of "them that do well," or for the suppression of evil doing, immediately it is found that its strength has departed. Bishop Philpots has in his diocese a presbyter, named Prynne, who

hears confessions with all the formality of a popish priest. The man was complained against to his bishop, and by him was acquitted on a plea, false in fact, and which would have been a ridiculous quibble, had it been true. But the Archbishop of Canterbury is set over Bishop Philpots, and to this orthodox primate appeal is made from the tractarian bishop's decision. The appeal is vain. The archbishop agrees that the practice complained of is unscriptural in principle, and mischievous in effect, that it cannot be distinguished from auricular confession, and cannot be reconciled with the principles of the Reformation; nevertheless, it is to continue unchecked, unless so far as "public opinon" may restrain it. On this humiliating answer of the archbishop, the "London Examiner" wisely remarks:

"Public opinion is not one and indivisible. In large divisions of society there is a correspondingly large division of public opinion. The Tractarians are numerous enough, we regret to admit, to have a public opinion of their own to comfort and keep them in countenance. All their qualities tend to their despising and spurning adverse opinion, however preponderating it may be numerically, for they are enthusiasts, and arrogant to boot, as the church to which they incline. Has Mr Bennet been controlled by public opinion? No more than Mr Prynne will be controlled by it. The Bishop of Exeter has been at loggerheads all his life with public opinion, and to his last breath will hold his perverse course in defiance of it. If indeed public opinion could avail, as the primate weakly supposes, to put down false doctrine and practices flattering to sacerdotal pride, what need should we have of archbishops, bishops, and the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy? If public opinion can suffice to suppress Tractarianism, and all forms of heresy, and to stand in the place of discipline, we may save ourselves the expense of maintaining prelates for purposes of authority, so much better and more cheaply answered by another power. Public opinion is vehemently opposed to outrage, robbery, and murder; but what should we think of the magistrate who answered a complaint of the breach of the laws in some important matter, by saying that it was of the worst example and tendency, but that public opinion was so uniform in condemning such doings, that the repetition of them would be more effectually prevented than it would be by the exercise of authority, or by legal enactments, which it is commonly easy to evade ? If the church, as appears, has no discipline to control them (the Tractarians), or to expel in default of control, it is idle to appeal to the judgment of the laity; and the archbishop's virtual abdication of his own authority, accompanied with a trust in an inoperative influence, is tantamount to a declaration that the Tractarians must be left free to sap the foundations of Protestantism, and to pervert the faith of their unfortunate

flocks. Three thousand congregations, we are assured, are thus surrendered to these faithless hands; and yet our church pretends to a government, and has an episcopal re

venue of L. 130,000 a-year upon the pretence of exercising a controlling power, and maintaining ecclesiastical discipline!"

THE ANTI-STATE CHURCH MOVEMENT.

THE re-organisation of the Anti-State Church Association must have given satisfaction to all the earnest friends of Voluntaryism. We have waited, with all the disappointment of hope deferred, for the recommencement of those vigorous efforts which produced such large and satisfactory results in days that are gone. There seems now, however, some prospect of the Voluntaries of Scotland awakening to a consciousness of their duty, and giving stirring proof of their confidence in the truth of their principles, and of their anxiety that the religion of Christ may have freedom to advance without any of those encumbrances which have been placed upon it by the time-serving policy of civil governments. The movement is commenced; companies are gathering in the high places of the field; and, that we may prove faithful to our trust, we hasten to waft the rallying cry through the length and breadth of the land. We are the more anxious to be vigorous and prompt in our assistance, since it is admitted that the friends of the Voluntary cause have been comparatively asleep for some time, and that they still require to be more thoroughly aroused.

Voluntaryism regards a State Church as, in its nature, an injury to religion; in its principle, involving the very essence of tyranny; and in its practical operations, perpetrating the grossest injustice. It was from a conscientious conviction of the truth of these opinions, that the Voluntary controversy was first commenced. It was for the removal of this incubus from religion; it was for perfect religious freedom throughout our land; it was for justice to all parties and favour to none, that we struggled in days which are past. It was for these things that we laboured; for these things that we agitated; for these things that we appealed to the country. The result of our efforts is known to all. We gained a victory, and such a victory as has advanced our cause far on the way for perfect success. But we have committed an error in relaxing our efforts after such a result. Natural it may be to rest awhile after such efforts and such realisations; but rest is not suggested by wisdom.

What is there to warrant such a cessation of effort? Is there not a State Church still in existence? Is it not there with all its deadening influence? there, with all its tyrannical principles? there, with all its deeds of injustice? Are its supporters at all more disposed to recognise the rights of others? If they are, then it is manifested by their clergy asserting their ecclesiastical authority over every man in their parishes, be he churchman or dissenter. It is manifested by their presbyteries asserting their right officially to visit all the schools within their bounds, whether these be connected or unconnected with the Established Church. It is true that our cause has so far triumphed that these are for the most part mere assertions, or if, occasionally, an attempt be made to carry them into execution, they are easily resisted by the insulted Voluntary. Still, these things show the spirit which is there, and what would be done could power be obtained. The men of the Establishment more disposed to recognise the rights of others! Let their conduct in reference to the parish schools bear testimony. What does their reasoning amount to? Simply this. The parish schools are supported by the funds of the nation, but they shall belong only to a fraction of the nation, and that fraction are we. Justice demands it. The schools are supported by the money of the people, but the teachers shall be selected only from one party; and that party are we. The principle of justice in every man's bosom decides it. The schools are supported by the money of the people, but an ecclesiastical power shall manage these scholastic institutions, and of all the ecclesiastical bodies in the kingdom only one shall exercise that authority; and that body are we. We only are fit for it, observation proves it ; in justice, we only are entitled to it; the law

says it. Now, are we to sit calmly by, and listen to such talk? Have we agreed to cease all effort, that we may have the privilege of seeing our money taken to support their ministers to maintain their churches-to support their teachersto keep up their schools? A practical grievance shows the evil of a system. And is not this one which we all feel, and from which we ought to be released? Or, if we want another, then look at University Tests. Nor is there here any disposition in the Establishment men to do justice to all, but they will keep the universities because they are their property. Staunch as ever in their claim of a monopoly, they back it with the old mutterings about treaties of union and coronation oaths. The universities are the property of the nation-and are we no part of the nation ?—are they not a mere fraction of it? Surely there is need that we should agitate till justice be done in the land.

We have for some time been allowing the question of a separation of Church and State to be at rest, and with what reason? Does the cause of religion not suffer from it? Do we not feel the evil influence extended to ourselves? There is an Established Church indoctrinating its people with the notion that it is no duty of theirs to support religious ordinances-no duty of theirs to maintain the minister by whose instructions they are edified-no duty of theirs to pay for the religious instruction of their families. Is it not the pernicious influence of such notions that renders it so strangely necessary to enlighten even our own people on the Christian duty of giving for the support of ordinances among themselves, and for the extension of them to others? Is it not the deadening influence of such notions which has checked thorough conscientiousness in giving "as the Lord has prospered?" Are not these the notions which have bred a withered, shrivelled selfishness in religious matters, which, as the influence of an Established Church diminishes, is now giving place to the beneficent results of a full flow of noble Christian gratitude? We are sometimes told that Voluntaryism does not thrive in agricultural districts. We deny it, and the numbers of people in such districts who tramp every Sabbath morning past the parish church, to go miles to a dissenting church, give to our state-paid clergy grievous ocular demonstration of the reverse. But we have this difficulty with which to contend-an Established Church professing to bless the people, and all the while reducing to dwarfish deformity the virtue of independence and the Christian duty of gratitude, and cherishing in the bosom of our rural population selfishness and worldly mindedness. But, are our Established churches maintained to supply the wants of destitute districts? Then, how is it that we find them in our large cities thrown open for the purpose of affording accommodation to our nobility, aristocracy, lawyers, and such poor needy men? Is it for such poor people that our members in Edinburgh are taxed? Is it for dispensing ordinances to this indigent part of the community, that Dissenters are compelled to pay for Established Church ministers, as well as for their own? Are Edinburgh Dissenters taxed to keep open half-empty churches that these poor subjects, having lolled to church in their carriages, may have room enough to lounge in their pews, without any anxiety as to the expense? We appeal to the country if such a state of things is to be calmly tolerated, and anxiously do we trust that the citizens of Edinburgh will not allow themselves to be hood-winked by any half measure. Let there be no surrender. Let them put forth every effort to extinguish the system which cherishes the notions which we have described. And let them as Christians do their duty in supporting ordinances as God requires, determined that while there is a God to bless them, and they have a heart to adore Him, they will choose for themselves the means for supplying them with a full exhibition of the glories of his grace, and put forth a liberal hand to maintain them.

Again we ask, what cause is there for Voluntaries relaxing their efforts? Is it on account of our recent victory? If this be said, we ask if our victory is complete? It is not, and till then there is no time for rest. Our victory rather demands increased effort that we may seize the advantage we have gained. We have opened the eyes of many to see their bonds. They felt them, they winced under them, and they shook them off. The system which forged the chains has been left weakened, power is passing from it-one more effectual effort, and it will

be numbered among the things that were. Does our inactivity, then, arise from an overweaning regard for the feelings of that body which has come out of the Establishment? Curious it is how their feelings should be affected by it. Yet so it is. The loudest bursts of indignation at the statement of our principles may sometimes be heard from that quarter, that is, from a body of practical dissenters ! Is this a reason for allowing the consideration of their feelings to stand between us and duty? If there are any amongst us who would look to that body for assistance, and are waiting till it come up, we remind them that on many questions, and specially on those with which the legislature is accustomed to intermeddle, the bulk of Free Churchmen have more in sympathy with the Church Establishment party than with Voluntaries. We have no need to go farther away than Edinburgh, nor farther back than the last Parliamentary election, for proof of this fact. We are not sure, indeed, that the party for whose sake some would keep the Voluntary discussion in abeyance, do not need the discussion more than any other party in the country; that they may learn more distinctly than many among them seem to have learned as yet, what really are our principles in reference to religious liberty and religious toleration.

But the Voluntary controversy has been allowed to rest, and why? What have to expect from Government? An answer to this question may be found in a recent conversation in the House of Lords, between Lord Derby and the Duke of Argyll, in reference to University Tests. Lord Derby admits that he is anxious to consider the interests of the two parties into which the Church of Scotland has been divided. He would like to satisfy the wants both of the Established Church and of the Free Church, but the difficulties are so great he cannot attempt it. The Duke of Argyll is very much satisfied with Lord Derby's anxiety about these two parties, and hopes he will keep their interests in mind. Is it to attain this desirable consummation that we Voluntaries have kept so quiet of late? Is it to gain this mighty result that we have been allowing others to carry on the work? Is it because Government is so enlightened that we have presented to them no demands? Look at the Established Church in England, a nursery garden of Popery-look at the Established Church in Ireland, which Papists delight to regard as a system of legalised Protestant robbery-look at the Church which is nourished by national money in the Maynooth grant, and we ask, Is this the system which supports religion? Is this the system which raises a bulwark against Popery? Is this the system which crushes immorality? Is this the system which withers infidelity? If these things are considered, surely they leave no room for doubt as to whether this be the time for movement in the Voluntary question? The entire state of matters around us calls for instant action. Let Voluntaries demand that the Government cease from that ruinous system which professes to cherish religion, but stabs it under the fifth rib. Let them enlighten the country as to the evils which result from such a system. There is still need that they make known their principles throughout the land, for there are multitudes who understand them not. Let them demand that justice be done to all parties by showing favour to none.

Printed by THOMAS MURRAY, of 2 Arniston Place, and WILLIAM GIBB, of 12 Queen Street, at the Printing Office of MURRAY and GIBB, North-East Thistle Street Lane, and Published by WILLIAM OLIPHANT, of 21 Buccleuch Place, at his Shop, 7 South Bridge, Edinburgh, on the 28th of December 1852.

THE

UNITED PRESBYTERIAN MAGAZINE,

FOR FEBRUARY, 1853.

Miscellaneous Communications.

LETTERS TO CHURCH MEMBERS.

[We deem it proper to state, that the writer of the following letter has won for himself a title to speak to church members on the subject on which he here addresses them -having well exemplified in his own case the Christian devotedness he inculcates. He occupies a place in one of the most arduous and dangerous fields of the foreign mission.-ED.]

LETTER I.—The Extent of the Devotement implied in Church Membership. CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,—It was a solemn moment when you took upon you the vows of the Christian faith. You called heaven and earth to witness of the sincerity of the profession you made, avouching the Lord to be your God, and giving yourselves to Him in an "everlasting covenant."

Did

Now to what do these vows bind you? What is the amount of that devotement to which you have pledged yourselves? Did you not give yourselves soul and body to Christ, without the least claim of reserve? you not dedicate to Him your talents and your time,—all that you have and all that you are, now and for ever. Your every faculty was consecrated to his service; all that you possessed was offered up on his altar. You professed to present yourselves living sacrifices, "holy and acceptable to God," as 66 your reasonable service."

It is a most important event in our lives, when we thus publicly renounce ourselves and the world, and take up the cross to follow Christ. From that moment we enter on a new course of life; and while we may confidently expect the strength and comfort needed by the way, we must also lay our account with toils and trials. We must "count the cost," denying ourselves; and the more thoroughly we do this, the more comfortable and successful will be our progress. Selfishness is the great sin of our nature. Fallen man has deified himself. He recognises not the claims of the Creator, nor the claims of a common humanity. But to those effectually called, the Gospel comes in its sovereignty of truth and power, and dethrones this idol, self. It gives to God his throne in the heart, and asserts his just and paramount claims, "casting down imaginations, and every high thing that

VOL. VII. NO. II,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »