Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

prominently to indicate, among other conspiring | verdict even the semblance of an appeal is imforces, the desire on the part of our ministers to get piety. possession of that power in the Church which the patrons had heretofore possessed. Ministers, according to the Vice-rector (who in this follows in the wake of others nearer home), wished to transfer the powers of the patron to the mass of the people, from whom it would not be difficult afterwards to wrest it, at least in substance, and thus possess themselves of the entire government of the Church.

Our readers will notice how careful this Papal Vice-rector is to reiterate the old Moderate charges. Error is homogeneous as well as truth, for the one is just the contrast or antithesis of the other. At Rome

in the Parliament House-in the House of Lordsand on the floor of the General Assembly, when a Moderate had possession of it, the spirit is essentially the same. Men do not judge of principle by the standard of God's Word-they appeal to their own hearts for principles, and " as they think in their hearts so are they." They impute to others what they themselves would be or do; and no one who understands the divine theory of fallen human nature will be surprised to hear the same charges reiterated by worldly men, whether they adopt the dogmata of Rome, or support the ecclesiastical system of which the House of Lords is at once the fountain of power, the lawgiver, and the court of last appeal. The author of the dissertation repudiates the positions of Non-Intrusionism, and reasons against them precisely as he would have done had he been in circumstances for perpetrating a violent settlement at Marnoch, or ordaining a man to the pastoral superintendence of the inn-keeper and the beadle of a parish.

The next attempt of the Vice-rector is to convict Free Churchmen of inconsistency and incoherence, in adopting or continuing a system so complicated as ours. He admires the exquisite simplicity of the ancient Church, where all was peaceful as the grave, and wonders that we, and other Reformers, had not our system so perfectly matured as to prevent such collisions as within the last few years have taken place. Of course the whole lecture which he thus reads, regarding our ecclesiastical constitution, has an assumption for its text. Our system was settled, but it was violently trampled on by men who would substitute the human for the divine; our constitution was adjusted, but it was rudely outraged by men who would grasp at a power which was not theirs. The Word of God, to which the advocate of Rome makes no reference, was at once its origin and standard; but men would have another; and it was from the violence of Erastianism, not the "incoherence" of Reformed doctrine, or the complexity of Reformed systems, that our controversy arose. Indeed, the leading doctrines involved in it—which it may be hoped neither we, nor our children, nor our children's children, will ever forget-rank among the simplest that can be proposed to the mind of man. That the civil power has no right to interfere in purely spiritual things-that Christ's will alone, according to his Word, should rule in Christ's house-that both his people and his ministers are robbed of their rights when an alien power interferes between Him and them-these are truths as transparent as they are scriptural, so that it is simply not true that the "election of ministers was an undecided question in the Scottish Church." It was decided, and that according to the mind of Him who is head over all things to his Church, and from whose definitive

We do not stay to consider this reverend father's. allegation, that we claim arbitrary power for the people, in rejecting ministers; nor his travestie, in the true Moderate style, of the Veto law. In keeping with Romanist policy, Sir William Hamilton's famous pamphlet, with his quotations from Beza, are duly referred to, but we miss all allusion to Dr. Cunningham's reply. We need not marvel after this to find the Dissertation very much a special pleading for Intrusion-just such a production as a Moderate could write, and crowd with conclusions like the following:-Sir W. Hamilton has given "original documents from the most conspicuous Calvinists, quite contrary to the maxim of Non-Intrusion;" that is, this Vice-rector, and Sir W. Hamilton, as the advocate of Moderatism, agree in arguing that the most conspicuous Calvinists were Intrusionists. Nor need we wonder when we hear this Romanist arguing, that as the question affects the intellect, the Moderates had the advantage, and that "only ignorant fanaticism, which takes no care to examine the truth of its imputations," could impugn their positions. To suppose that the doings of Intrusionists amounted to a "dethroning of Christ, to admitting an illegal power to rule in his government, to placing the Church under the opprobrious yoke of the State, and depriving the Christian people of their spiritual independence;"-to allege such things, as the Non-Intrusionists did, amounted, in this Dissertator's mind, to fanaticism, and nothing more. And when he stoops to enlist the poor device of the prominent part which females took in the recent controversy, the identity of the Popish and the Moderate positions is nearly established. In short, all argument is on the side of the Moderates-all fanaticism and ignorance on the side of the Non-Intrusionists!

[ocr errors]

From this subject, which is obviously congenial to the author's mind, he passes to discuss our claim to the title Evangelical. He glances at the decay of vital religion in Scotland, and proceeds to caricature the style of preaching which was designed to restore the gospel in its purity and power. The profound mysteries of grace and predestination "the internal operations of the Divine Spirit;"—these, he says with censure, or a sneer, were frequent topics in our pulpits. Even laymen, he says, held frequent meetings for prayer. Nay, their common conversation, he alleges with a kind of simple-minded astonishment, was about religion, as if both David (Ps. lxvi. 16) and Malachi (iii. 16) were at fault in what they record. Extempore prayer, divine grace, religious conversation among ignorant and unlettered menall, in short, that the Bible indicates as the means of promoting growth in grace, and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is repudiated or censured by this Popish advocate; and his horror at such proceedings is summed up in one emphatic word, which he uses as describing the flower or consummation of such excesses as he reprobates-that word is Ravriramento, a Revival. It is described as a kind of alienation of the senses," occasioned by evangelical preaching; it is something "beyond the range of nature;" it is sneeringly said that "the revived claimed an extraordinary influence, or influx of grace." The excitement, this Romanist proceeds (plagiarizing, we cannot help supposing, from some accredited organ of Moderatism), grew and spread_ sermons were multiplied. For hours without inter

66

ruption men continued in the churches. Even nightfall did not warn them to retire. Whole congregations were dissolved in tears, and gave vent to sighs and exclamations, like the ancient, accompanied with agitations and convulsions of the body. -But we pause. Our readers have heard all this advanced a hundred times before by Moderate ministers, and Moderate elders, and Moderate men of every class and name. Sneers and innuendoes, the old common places of unostentatious piety, decency, and virtuous habits, are the arguments or appeals which the Romanist employs against the men who presumed to be in earnest about their sins and their souls, in spite of the close fraternizing of Popery and Moderatism. He likens the effects again and again to mental alienation, to the results of animal magnetism, and cheers on the Moderates, who "laughed or wept" at these excesses, because of "their fatal effects on religion and virtue." Even the Moderates, indeed, are allowed to be less perfect than the Church of Rome, but still they are the fondled favourites of this Vice-rector. He cannot but censure them as heretics; but their short-comings, in his eyes, are venial things compared with the "absurdities," "the ignorant fanaticism," "the limited understanding, and the small virtue," of the Non-Intrusionists.

all their forms intrinsic and essential to Presbyterian life, and the substituting of a new system, which is that of the truth, and at the same time utterly opposed to the former, is indeed a most difficult enterprise." In all this he is at once pronouncing an eulogy and teaching us a lesson. His words are indeed encouraging," Il numero di questi è assai piccolo e la generale prospettiva non è molto ridente;" in other words, he entertains little hope of converting Presbyterians to Popery.

But it is not with this that we are at present mainly concerned. Let us rather advert to the close affinity in argument and view that obtains between the Romanist and the Moderate. Some of the sentences of the Dissertation might have been used by ministers whom we could name. During the controversy, we were often taunted with attempting to erect another Papacy. Ours were the insolent endeavours of Hildebrand, and other imperious Churchmen, seeking to erect an ecclesiastical dominion on the ruins of the civil. Who has not heard the sophism both from the flippant and the ponderous in the Moderate ranks? But, as if to refute the allegations, here is a Romanist, writing at Rome for Romans, deliberately arguing on Moderate principles, and calmly concluding his argument thus-"PREFERIBBE I MODERATI PIU CHE I LORO OPPOSITORI, PERCHE L'ASSENZA DEL BENE SI VUOL PRE

FERIRE AL MALE POSITIVO." He repudiates our affinity. It is Moderatism, then, that fraternizes with Rome. Both of them are opposed to the truth of God, and they band like brothers to condemn the men who seek to hold the religion which the Holy Spirit taught Paul to record. Moderatism, when it dare, and Ro

Of course, the end of the whole matter is to establish the necessity of an Infallible head, to settle or silence all such discussions. If, however, they cannot be prevented, this Romanist leaves no doubt to which side he would incline. If a Catholic must side either with Moderates or Non-Intrusionists, he says, "preferibbe i Moderati piu che i loro oppositori, perche l' assenza del bene si vuol preferire al male positivo"-manism at Rome, unite in reprobating Christians as

he would prefer the Moderates to their opponents, because the absence of good is to be preferred to positive evil.

After this honest avowal, a sketch is given of our progress as a Church during the first year of our existence. Lord Aberdeen's chivalry, in aiding the tottering Establishment, is then recognised; and the Papist here starts at the idea of a law for regulating ordination originating with the civil government, and shrewdly questions the success of any such attempt. | He then felicitates himself and his fellow-Romanists on the repose enjoyed in their Church, and piously looks forward to the day when the schismatics will return to her embrace, like the dove when it returned to the ark, having found only angry waves to alight on. Regarding us all as cut off from the parent stem, he loses the sense of our recent schism in the grand schism of the Reformation. He cares not who minister in the conventicles which now disfigure the land," but is smitten to the heart with anguish at the ruin of its churches and monasteries. He laments that the numbers returning to the fold in Scotland are so few, and confesses that "Presbyterianism, perhaps more than any other form of Protestantism, has cancelled every tradition and memorial of Catholicism. Its doctrines, its discipline, its habits, and usages," he says, “are diametrically opposed. The education," he continues, "which is given to the people is in harmony with these maxims, and the mind of a Presbyterian is imbued with a religious system which leaves no bond of affinity by which to re-tie it to the ancient faith. In this respect," he adds, "the eradication of Presbyterianism from the mind, the extracting of those fibres which are entwined with the ferlings and with habits the most inveterate, and in

He says that at the beginning of this century Romanists in Scotland amounted to about 20,000, now to about 120,000.

"absurd," as "ignorant fanatics," as "mentally deranged," as "hostile to virtue," and to be wept over as the enemies of religion.

It is well, then, the means have been supplied, from so unequivocal a quarter, for repelling the allegation that the principles implied in our recent controversy were identical with Popery. Popery, in its citadel and stronghold, in express terms, sensitively repudiates our principles. In language no less explicit, used by the Vice-principal of one of her Colleges, she approves of the tenets of Moderatism, as far as she can. And now let our readers judge.

THE FREE CHURCH, VOLUNTARYISM, AND THE CONFESSION OF FAITH.

IT is a curious fact, that though the Free Church has renounced the advantages of an Establishment, it appears to be still regarded by our Voluntary brethren as the most formidable defender of the Establishment principle, Though it has made no effort to attain, and has no prospect in the present state of society of attaining, those advantages for itself, it would still seem to be viewed as a peculiarly dangerous antagonist. For our own part, we neither complain of this nor regret it. Considered as a compliment to ourselves, though modesty might induce us to decline it in favour of other Presbyterian bodies, we are yet by no means offended with it. what is of far greater importance, we are glad that the controversy should cease to appear to be one between Churchmen seeking public money, and Dissenters grudging or refusing it, and should be seen to be one between those who maintain that the governments of the world have duties which they owe to

And

the Church of Christ, and those who deny that they have any such duties, unless it be the negative obligation of leaving it alone. In this controversy, we take the side which we have ever done. We maintain that it is possible and lawful and right for a State, in the prosecution of its own legitimate objects, and without interfering with the laws of Christ, to help the Church, and to make it a greater blessing to the commonwealth than it would otherwise be. And from all that we know of the opinions of the ministers of the Free Church, we believe that it is still their conviction that a faithful servant of their Master, when not merely acknowledged as pastor of a congregation, but recognised as the minister of a parish, has peculiar advantages for spreading the knowledge and influence of divine truth, and extending the kingdom and glory of his Lord. Even these high advantages they dare not purchase by the surrender of the liberties and powers which Christ has given them, or by a sordid stipulation to perform acts of tyranny, when required, against the flocks of which they are the pastors. But they do not think it necessary, or wise, or right in the State, to accompany the advantages which it can confer with such conditions. The State, however, thinks otherwise; and for aught that we can see, is likely to think as it does for many a day to come. Meanwhile, the Free Church has duties on hand far more immediately urgent than the pulling down of the existing Establishments, or the constructing of new ones. our Voluntary friends can bring down the present Establishments, let them do so-it is no great matter to us; and when they have done so, and thought coolly over their achievement, we may invite them to deliberate along with us about the erection of others. There is no hurry, however; and in the meantime we would say to them, in the most kindly feeling, that they may employ their Sabbath evenings better than in preaching at us.

If

These remarks have been suggested by the recent perusal of a discourse preached by Dr. Wardlaw, "at the request of the Committee of the Glasgow Voluntary Church Association."* The Rev. Doctor

has been long before the view of the public. It is forty years since his ingenious discourses on the Abrahamic covenant earned him a fair reputation, which, a few years later, was greatly raised by his works on the Socinian controversy. And it is because we look back with pleasure and gratitude on the performances of his early life, that we should feel some regret at seeing him, in advancing years, becoming the mere advocate of Voluntaryism and Independency. We have no time, however, to review the literary and theological history of Dr. Wardlaw. We do not even intend to discuss the resuscitated arguments of the Voluntary controversy contained in the little brochure before us. But there is something good in the pamphlet, of which we willingly avail ourselves, and there are some things also which seem to require a little friendly remonstrance.

In opening the treatment of his text (Eph. i. 22, 23), and in closing his lecture, Dr. Wardlaw leads us to feel what an interesting discourse he might have made had he treated the whole subject as a purely religious one. We give the pages to which we refer :— The Headship of Christ, as expressed in the words selected for our text, evidently divides itself into two departments :— 1. He is Head of the Church.-2. He is Head over all things, The Headship of Christ, as affected by National Church

Establishments; a Lecture delivered on the evening of Lord's-day,

May 2, 1847."

for the Church. We shall discuss the two in their order, and with an immediate reference to the one point before us.

1. He is HEAD OF THE CHURCH:-" Which," says our text, "is his body, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all.” -Now, this relation of Christ to his Church under the image of that which the Head sustains to the body, might be taken. up in various points of view. The analogy is repeatedly employed by the apostle; and in one or two instances is dwelt upon in considerable detail. It might be viewed, for example 1. As the headship of eminence and honour:-2. As the headship of vital and active influence :-3. As the headship of intelligence of spiritual "wisdom and knowledge: and 4. As the headship of authority.-All these views of the relation are pregnant with interest and instruction. But three of them we must pass entirely over; and confine ourselves exclusively to the last, as the one that belongs most appropriately to our present subject.

We are to regard Christ, then, as, in his Church, the Head of authority-sole, exclusive authority.

The Headship of Christ over the nations, and the Headship of Christ over his Church or spiritual kingdom, as they are different in kind, are different in duration. The one is temporary; the other is eternal. I am not aware of any satisfactory principle on which to reconcile the two statements"Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father," and, "He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end," but that which is found in the distinction between these two headships or reigns-his headship and reign over the Church, and his headship and reign over the world in subserviency to the interests of the Church, and to the final accomplishment of the ends of his mediation. The latter has, and must have, an end. It is a reign delegated to him as Mediator, for special purposes. When these purposes shall all have been accomplished-when, in successive generations, the multitude of his redeemed shall have been gathered to himself-when the thousand years of the triumph of his cause on earth shall have come to a close there shall be no more foes to conquer and put under his feet -when "the last enemy" shall have been "destroyed," and

when, by the judgment of the great day, the final destinies of all mankind shall have been settled, and the gulf of final separation shall have been fixed between the righteous and the wicked-when the very theatre of this reign shall have been burned up the all-glorious designs of God's justice and mercy toward this apostate province of his universal empire, having, by the wisdom and power and grace of Immanuel been consummated--he shall resign this sceptre into the hands from which he received it. In such circumstances, his resignation of it will be his triumph. The acceptance of it from him by the Father will be the public testimony, to angels and to men, not of the government represented by it having proved a failure, and of God being dissatisfied with his administration, honour-with the acquisition to himself and to the Godhead but rather of his having swayed it with more than untarnished of new and imperishable glory, the subject of universal and perpetual celebration. But while his headship over the nations and over the world shall terminate, when the nations and the world shall themselves cease to be, there is a headship which remains. It is his reign over his redeemed people--his spiritual Israel-the true "seed of Abraham"-the true "house of Jacob." This is the reign that is to be "for ever "-this the "kingdom" of which there is to be " no end." Were it otherwise, he would be resigning his sceptre at the very time when he was only completing the number of his subjects. There would be a proportion of them, the last subdued, over whom he could hardly be said to reign at all. Over this 'holy nation," then, he shall reign, in the strictest sense, "to eternity." His throne in heaven-his mediatorial throne occupied by him as God in our nature-is a throne which

[ocr errors]

he can never vacate. All the redeemed above will, with grateful delight, regard that throne as the centre of their holy and happy union, the union of the entire community of the faithful, whose allegiance will be as unweariedly and delightedly permanent, as the sceptre of love that is swayed over them in the "better country, even the heavenly," will be graciously held for perpetuity. THERE, THEN, and OVER THEN, he shall reign "without end," "FOR EVER," "EVEN FOK EVER AND EVER!" May hearers and speaker be found among his blessed subjects! Amen and Amen!

The other parts of the lecture are not much in harmony with the tone of these extracts. Even on

66

the one point reserved for discussion, under the first head of discourse, there is no exposition of the subject, unless it be contained in certain quotations from the address of our own Convocation, of which he says that the sentiments are sound, scriptural, noble." The greater part of the argument is occupied with a vehement, and, we are sorry to say, a somewhat ill-natured attack on the Confession of Faith. He describes it as 66 our most Erastian Scottish Confession," as making " a strange jumble of the sacred and the civil," as so inconsistent with itself, that its consistency can only "be made out by a process of interpretation such as might render easy the establishment of any imaginable contraries." According to it, he says, "all the intermeddling must be on one side, the civil with the ecclesiastical-not the ecclesiastical with the civil. God must bow to Cæsar-not Cæsar to God." It teaches "that of the purity and integrity of divine truth, of what constitutes blasphemy and heresy, and corruption and abuse, in worship and discipline, and the due settlement, administration, and observance of ordinances, he (the civil magistrate) is judge, and ultimate judge, on earth. This much the terms plainly imply, if they are not employed in sheer hypocrisy, and intended, amid great swelling words of vanity, to make a cypher of the magistrate after all." Hard words these, good Doctor--it is a great comfort that the arguments are not nearly so hard. We wonder that it never occurred to Dr. Wardlaw, that if all these representations and insinuations were truc, the authors of the Confession must have either been enormous knaves, or miserable ninnies; that there was good reason to believe that they were neither the one nor the other; and that it was possible he himself might have misunderstood them. We knew a young mathematician who commenced the study of the Mecanique Celeste of Laplace, and who, before he reached the twentieth page, thought he had discovered a gross paralogism, or rather a downright absurdity. He considered, however, that the work had not only been written by a mathematician of the highest order, but had been approved and admired by all the most distinguished judges, and therefore he kept silence on the subject till he at last discovered the source of his own mistake. Now we are far from saying that Dr. Wardlaw is as inferior to the Westminster divines as the young student was to Laplace. Still we know enough of the learning, and piety, and intellect contained in that Assembly, to be satisfied that Dr. Wardlaw is more likely to have misunderstood their meaning than they were to have condemned Erastianism in one sentence, and to have affirmed it in the very next. And this, on the Doctor's part, would have been the safer, as well as the more modest, conclusion. They were fallible and sinful men, no doubt. But they were not exactly the men to be guilty of the gross absurdity and the gro impiety, if not "sheer hypocrisy," with which he charges them. That he has misunderstood them we hold to be demonstrable to any unprejudiced inquirer. Yet while the Confession is studied in the temper evinced in the expressions we have quoted, we do not expect that our proof will be satisfactory to the Doctor.

Mark, for example, his reference to the twentieth chapter of the Confession, from which he infers that "a share" in the " power of the keys" is conceded to the civil magistrate. Would it not strike any calm inquirer into the meaning of a work delibe

[ocr errors]

rately composed by intelligent men, that when they were treating expressly of the distinct powers and provinees of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities, they had explicitly stated that the former must not assume any ecclesiastical function or power? "The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and Sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Is it not reasonable, that expressions which may appear to have a bearing on the same point, but which occur incidentally in connection with a subject entirely different, should be interpreted in accordance with the general and explicit statement, if they will bear such an interpretation? For, let it be observed, the twentieth chapter of the Confession does not treat, nor profess to treat, of the objects or limits either of secular or ecclesiastical authority. The subject of it is, "Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience"the former of these being explained in the first section, and the latter asserted in the second, while the third section distinguishes the former from licentiousness, and the fourth is manifestly designed to show the compatibility of the latter with the existence and exercise of all lawful authority. After the broad statement that God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men in matters of faith and worship, it might naturally be asked, Is the plea of conscience, then, to be heard in bar of judgment, or rather to the exclusion of all jurisdiction, either ecclesiastical or civil? Is no sin, or heresy, or crime, fit to be matter of judgment, if it is said to be conscientiously committed? It is to this question that the Confession gives a decided negative, and affirms, on the other hand, that if the belief be clearly heretical, or the conduct manifestly criminal, it is a fit subject for the cognizance of the appropriate judges, notwithstanding any plea of conscience on the part of the accused. Who the proper judges are in different cases, the article does not profess to decide. It only states, that both the Church and the civil magistrate are entitled to disregard the plea of conscience, when urged, in defence of what is clearly wrong, and urged, besides, with the view of resisting the lawful exercise of lawful authority. That this is the real meaning of the article is apparent, from the peculiar form of expression in which it is stated; not that such parties ought to be prosecuted, but that they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate; in other words, that if the laws of the Christian Church, or the good of the commonwealth, require such characters to be dealt with, no injury is done to Christian liberty or freedom of conscience by their prosecution. We are persuaded that this view of the Confession will commend itself to the judgment of every candid and considerate mind; and if it be just, where is the propriety of the assertion, that even in regard to the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the civil magistrate, according to the Confession, must have his share? Where is the truth of the sarcastic charge, founded upon this chapter, that the Westminster divines were "liberal, in surrendering to and dividing with the secular rulers the rights and duties which their divine King had made exclusively their own?"

We do not intend, however, to lecture formally on the Confession of Faith; nor have we any pleasure in dealing with Dr. Wardlaw as an antagonist; we would rather help him if we could to the attain

ment and acknowledgment of the truth, and so, perhaps, repay in kind a debt which we owe him. And as Milton, after Horace, tells us that

"Joking decides great things

Stronger and better oft than earnest can," we will venture on a somewhat homely illustration of this same twentieth chapter. It was our lot many years ago to hear the famous Jonathan Martin, the modern Herostratus, detailing his experiences in a Methodist chapel, very much to the vexation of the worthy minister who presided. Jonathan had felt pressed in spirit to expose the formalism of the worshippers in the Established Church, and had on some previous occasion been turned out of the church when he interrupted the service. On this occasion he told how he had baffled the vigilance of the beadles and the precautions of the churchwardens, and in defiance of both, had secreted himself in the pulpit for a couple of hours till the congregation had met and the service was about to commence, and how he then denounced the vanity of their worship, and exposed the error of their ways. Jonathan, no doubt, thought this a laudable exercise of his Christian liberty, or a faithful discharge of a conscientious obligation; and yet we think it likely that he was proceeded against by the censures of his Church, and certainly he was by the power of the civil magistrate, for he was, if we remember rightly, sent for a month to prison. "What a power is this!" says Dr. Wardlaw, "which is declared to belong rightfully to secular rulers." We cannot see, however, that it was either an assumption of the power of the keys, or a very intolerant use of the secular power, though a more relevant plea than that of conscience might have been put in by the friends of Jonathan Martin in his behalf. It may seem rather frivolous to refer to such an event in the history of a half-witted creature. But our case would have been nothing the weaker had it related to numbers of individuals of sounder wits-resisting higher authorities than the beadles and justices of a provincial town, and maintaining practices, as he did, destructive of the external peace and order of the Church. The reader has only to imagine such cases as existing in the middle of the seventeenth century, and we think he will have no difficulty in explaining this part of the Confession without imputing to its authors either Erastianism or Intolerance.

In discussing the twenty-third chapter, Dr. Wardlaw compares its clauses with each other, and with chapter thirty-first, and declares that the one passage "neutralizes the other, turning it into mere words with out meaning." In other terms, Dr. Wardlaw cannot reconcile the different passages, and chooses rather to believe that the Assembly of divines spoke nonsense, than that he himself failed to understand them. With all our respect for Dr. Wardlaw, and it is quite sincere, we cannot concur in this conclusion. We imagine that we perceive a sound and consistent meaning in the different passages, and that the soundness of the twenty-third chapter, in particular, is likely to receive a striking illustration from the events of the present time. We think it is becoming more and more apparent, that it is a question in which the guardians of the commonwealth have a deep interest-whether the Christian Church shall enjoy unity and peace, or be rent and distracted by jarring factions?-whether Christian piety and morality shall be generally diffused, or heresy and blasphemy shall be rampant?-whether a simple scriptural

worship shall prevail, or a demoralizing superstition overspread the land? These are questions in which the peace and prosperity of the community are involved, and to which an intelligent and benevolent ruler cannot be indifferent; and though he is not entitled to administer the government and regulate the worship of the Church, or to harass any man on account of his religious convictions, he will feel it his duty to seek for means and employ them; or, in other words, "to take order" that truth and morality, peace and pure religion, may prevail, rather than falsehood and faction, blasphemy and superstition. Every day is showing more clearly the silliness of the cry that Government has nothing to do with religion. The reverse is likely to be proved by a kind of reductio ad absurdum. Ignorance, and vice, and crime are accumulating among the masses of our great towns. The pauper population of Ireland is swarming from its shores to settle on our own, adding at once to the pauperism, the ignorance, and the crime of our people. And looking at the deterioration of the lowest ranks of the community, the intelligent regard the evil with anxiety and fear. And yet the hands of Government are paralyzed in attempting to apply a remedy. They may, perhaps, be allowed to punish crime, and yet even to this there seems to be an increasing objection; capital punishment is declared by many to be legal murder, and transportation and imprisonment have each their opponents. But on all hands it is admitted, that the mere punishment of crime will not meet the existing and increasing evil. And yet when it is proposed to counteract it by moral influence and training, we are told that Government has no right to educate; that the attempt, on its part, to communica te any education, is wrong; and, in particular, that to attempt to afford religious instruction, is intolerable. Imprisoning, banishing, nay, hanging itself, may (perhaps) be endured; but for Government to furnish instruction in reading and writing, and above all, to supply instruction in the truths of Christianity, is a violation of duty and a usurpation of power, to be resisted by every possible means! This is a curious conclusion for Christian men to come to. And yet there are men who, we believe, would spend their strength and substance to abate the evil by their own exertions, who would at the same time rather see it increase and multiply, than see Government apply the only remedy. And how is it that these principles have been formed? Principally, we believe, from the divided state of the Christian Church, each section believing that the interference of Government would tend only to diffuse the principles and extend the influence of an antagonist section. And how have these divisions themselves arisen? In the great majority of cases they may be traced, directly or remotely, to the unwise and Erastian intermeddling of Government with the internal administration of the Church. We argue, therefore, in this way: The employment of moral and religious means is necessary to check the progress of misery and crime, and consequent danger to the State. The employment of these means is greatly obstructed by the religious divisions of the community. These divisions are themselves mostly the result of injudicious government, and therefore the State, with a view to the safety of the commonwealth, should take order for the healing of those divisions, and the restoration of peace and unity in the Church. It is right to take means to advance that pure and undefiled religion

« AnteriorContinuar »