Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

ESSAYS ON THE CHURCH.

No. I.

ON ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS GENERALLY.

MR. CECIL, in his Reasons for Repose, has the following striking passage, referring to those doubts and temptations from beneath, with which most Christians are at times assailed :—

"Like a man, who is told that the foundation of his house is in danger, I call for the key of the vaults on which my dwelling stands. I light a candle, walk down stairs, and pass very deliberately through the arches: I examine very particularly the arch suspected; and, after having satisfied myself that the foundation remains perfectly safe, I walk up again, lock the door, hang up the key, put out the candle, and quietly go about my business, saying, as I go, They may raise an alarm; but I find that all is safe.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

for

This passage occurred very cibly to my mind a few days since, when perusing Mr. James's work, entitled Dissent and the Church of England.' I did not indeed feel the weight of the arguments in that work, though declared by all dissenters to be irrefragable' and unanswerable,'-I did not, I say, feel the weight of Mr. James's arguments so strongly, as to be driven to the alternative of a reply; but yet I felt the occasion to be a proper one, for reviewing once more the grounds of my attachment to the Church of England, and for ascertaining that such attachment was not built upon the insufficient foundation of educational prejudice, party spirit, or accidental preference for this or that individual minister.

In

mere

thus re-considering my Church of Englandism' (to use Mr. Bentham's phrase) my thoughts soon began to arrange themselves

[blocks in formation]

in a form which something sug.. gested might be found useful to the minds of others as well as to my own; and I accordingly determined upon committing them to paper, with a view, if opportunity offered, of giving them to the public. I was already acquainted with two deservedly popular little works, of late publication, namely, Mr. Scott's tract on the Evil of Separation,' and Mr. Cawood's, on

But

the Church of England and Dissent,' to which latter Mr. James's pamphlet professes to reply. I could have no idea of producing anything superior or even equal to either of these tracts, in their own particular branches of the argument. neither of them is complete in itself; the one, being a review of a book which exposed to view the mischiefs of dissent, is therefore chiefly taken up with detail; and the other, an argument on the leading principle, leaving detailed objections out of the question. My object is to proceed more systematically, and to include, if possible, the main arguments furnished in both of these publications.

In thus treating the subject, it will be obvious that the first question which suggests itself, is that of the lawfulness and propriety of Ecclesiastical establishments generally. The denial of their lawfulness and propriety is now made the great fundamental principle of dissent. "Were the Church of England," says Mr. James, as much reformed as its most holy and zealous friends could wish; were its liturgy revised, and the defects of its creeds and catechisms supplied, and all that is objectionable in its offices taken away;-still the intelligent and consistent dissenter could not

66

be conciliated and drawn back to its communion; for his objection lies not merely against the contents of its Prayer-Book, but against its very constitution, as a church established by law, allied to and supported by the secular power."

This ultimate and irremoveable objection, then, must obviously be the first in our consideration; since, except it can be satisfactorily met and refuted, all further discussion becomes fruitless and unavailing.

It is a remarkable feature in this objection, that it is entirely modern; having scarcely been heard of until within the last thirty years. If it be truly, as it is now represented to be, the great fundamental principle of dissent, then we have hardly had, till towards the close of the last century, such a thing as an intelligent and consistent dissenter' in England. All the strictest and strongest nonconformists of other days, understood not, it seems, their own principles. They entirely mistook the decisions of Scripture on this point; fancying that rulers and legislators were under an especial obligation to employ their power and influence in furthering the spread of the gospel, and imparting sound religious instruction to their people. Numerous instances of their adoption and enforcement of these views might be adduced, but the single example quoted by Mr. Cawood from Dr. Owen, is quite sufficient. That great nonconformist, when preaching before the Long Parliament, delivered himself, on this point, in the following language:

[ocr errors]

Some think,' says he, if you [the rebel parliament] were well settled, you ought not, as rulers of the nation, to put forth your power for the interest of Christ.

The

good Lord keep your hearts from that apprehension! Have you ever in your affairs, received any encouragement from the promises of God? Have you in times of greatest distress been refreshed with the

testimony of a good conscience that in simplicity and godly sincerity you have sought the advancement of the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you believe that he ever owned

The cause,' [the Rebellion!] as the Head of his Church? Do not now profess you have nothing to do with Him: Had He so profess

ed of you and your affairs, what had

been your portion long since." Again : "If it once comes to this, that you shall say, You have nothing to do with religion as rulers of the nation, God will quickly manifest that he hath nothing to do with you as rulers of the nation. Certainly it is incumbent on you to take care that the faith, which was once delivered to the saints, in all the necessary concernments of it, may be protected, preserved, propagated to, and among the people, over which God hath set you. If a father, as a father, is bound to do what answers this in his own family unto his children; a master as a master to his servants : -If you will justify yourselves as fathers or rulers of your country, you'll find in your attempt this to be incumbent on you.'

In

But, in truth, this modern notion, of the unlawfulness of the interference of rulers and legislators in the religious instruction of the people, is nothing more than one of the by-shoots of the French revolution. It sprang up at that period, and is obviously connected with the great revolutionary maxim, Vox Populi, Vox Dei; the main drift and object of which is, to put the people in the place of God. former times, from the Apostles downwards, the Church was accustomed to look upon rulers, whether ecclesiastical or civil, as " ordained of God," and as by him "set over it." But according to modern notions, all power and all authority must be from the people, and in exact accordance with these political views, it is held that those who are to be taught must be the only competent persons to decide both up

on the lessons which they will learn, and the teachers from whom they will choose to receive instruction.

In defence, however, of this strange position, its advocates advance four assertions, 1. That a system of religious instruction, or an ecclesiastical establishment, erected and advanced by the state, is no where authorized by Scripture. 2. That such an establishment is even forbidden in Scripture. 3. That no responsibility belongs to rulers and legislators, as far as regards the providing Christian instruction for the people. And, 4. That an establishment is neither necessary nor advantageous to the religious instruction of the people, but is rather harmful and injurious. Now in opposition to these positions, I shall endeavour to shew,

1. That the general tenor of Holy Scripture is decidedly favourable to a provision being made by rulers, for the religious instruction of their subjects.

2. That there is no one passage of Scripture which, when fairly viewed, opposes this principle.

3. That the responsibility of rulers is no where limited, in Scripture, so as to exclude the employment of their power and influence in the cause of the gospel.

4. That an Established Church is the only efficient means of conveying religious instruction to the mass of the people, and that without some such extensive means, a miracle alone could preserve any nation from lapsing into heathenism.

First, then, of the general tenor of Holy Scripture. According to Mr. James, every man is to provide himself with religious instruction, as he provides himself with food or clothes. It is a matter so entirely between him and his God, that no one has any right to step in with the authority and power of a legislator or ruler, and provide religious instruction for him. Is this the general drift and bearing of Scripture? By no means.

[ocr errors]

To begin as early as we may, we find the patriarch Abraham living as a kind of shepherd king, and making war, arming three hundred and eighteen men of his own servants, and fighting with four kings. He is called, Gen. xxiii, 6. a mighty prince." And we find that his worship, and his religious rites, whatever they were, were also the religious rites of his people, who undoubtedly were more than a thousand in number. When God directs the rite of circumcision, not Abraham himself only, but all his male servants also were included in the command and in the performance.

Passing on, we come to the Jewish theocracy, which, to all intents and purposes, was a religious establishment, and a most complete one. But Mr. James denies that we have any right to quote this example in favour of modern establishments. His argument is a strange one. He contends that except we are willing to copy the Jewish system in all its parts and circumstances, we have no right to draw the least inference from it in favour of a church established by law. If the analogy,' says Mr. J.be of any force, it

must surely be so in its first and 'most essential principle: and it 'must be so in its whole extent. The authority of the christian civil magistrate must run parallel, and be equally political with that of the Jewish. Not only 'must his sceptre be as long, but his sword must be as sharp and ' as bloody.'

[ocr errors]

But how would Mr. James treat this objection if it were turned against him on another point. He supposes that his favourite dissenting churches are formed upon apostolic models. Were we to ask him, then, what right he had even to think of adopting that model, except he could, like the apostles, take away or restore sight, raise the dead, and send Ananias to his burial;-would he not answer, that these extraordinary powers were

for the extraordinary occasion, and that it was enough for him to adopt those great principles which were for all times, and for all circumstances? What right, then, has he to say, 'You shall draw no inference from the Jewish theocracy in favour of a national establishment, except you have also, as bad the Jews, a warrant to extirpate the Canaanites.' We have no warrant to extirpate the Canaanites; and yet we still maintain that the system established by Jehovah himself amongst the Jews, demonstrates beyond contradiction that there is nothing in a national establishment opposed to the mind or will of God.

But Mr. James does not pursue the Jewish history quite far enough. He speaks only of the period during which Jehovah, by his prophets, such as Moses and Samuel, ruled over the people of Israel. But we must follow the history much further. In the history of David and of Solomon we find the same principle always in operation. It is always a religion provided for the people, by the ruler, under the command of God; and not the people providing a religion for themselves. Proceeding onwards, we find Jehoshaphat taking a fresh step, and one for which we find no express command." In the third year of his reign he sent to his princes to teach in the cities of Judah; and with them he sent Levites and priests. And they taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the Lord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah and taught the people." 2 Chron. xvii. 7-9.

Now had this zeal, and this employment of his regal power been contrary to the will of God, we know from the punishment of Uzziah that Jehoshaphat would have been rebuked for his improper interference. But instead of such a rebuke, what follows in the text: "The fear of the Lord fell upon all

the kingdoms of the land that were round about Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat." In like manner it is recorded of Hezekiah, “ And thus did Hezekiah throughout all Judah, and wrought that which was good and right and truth before the Lord his God. And in every work that he began in the service of the house of God, and in the law, and in the commandments, to seek his God, he did it with all his heart, and prospered." 2 Chron. xxxi. 20, 21.

So likewise did the pious Josiah, who "took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God. And all his days they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their fathers.' 2 Chron. xxxiv. 33. The example of Nehemiah is of an exactly similar description.

When we open the New Testament the circumstances entirely change. It pleased God, for wise reasons, upon the consideration of which we need not now enter, to bring his Son into the world in a low and despised condition, and to retain his church for a long period in a state of poverty and persecution. To look for examples, then, of kings as her nursing fathers, or queens her nursing mothers, during a period of contumely, neglect, and scorn, is obviously out of the question. The rulers of this period did not protect or aid the spread of the gospel; because they did not believe the gospel :—but if this be taken to be a reason why rulers in all ages ought to avoid assisting or furthering the interests of the church, we had better, perhaps, pursue the argument a little further; and prove, from this example, that kings and emperors ought always to be the persecutors of the church. To use Mr. James's own words, If the analogy is of any force, it must surely be so in its first and

[ocr errors]

most essential principle; and it must be so in its whole extent.'

But is it not strange that dissenters, whenever they enter upon an argument touching the scripture doctrine of the responsibility of rulers,-always turn to the New Testament history, and to that alone. The question being, whether a ruler or legislator, having the fear of God before his eyes, may use the power and influence which God has given him in the furtherance and aid of the church, their appeal constantly is, not to the example of David, the man after God's own heart, nor to Solomon, the wisest of men, nor to their pious successors, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, or Josiah; but to Nero and Tiberius, to Claudius and Caligula, and to all the other tyrants and persecutors of pagan Rome. And because, for the wisest reasons, but reasons totally unconnected with this question, it pleased God that during the earlier years of his gospel church a race oftyrants and persecutors should wield the imperial sceptre, therefore, it is now attempted to be argued, but most illogically,-kings and rulers of modern times ought to stand aloof from the church, and to leave her to contend as she may, with all the malice and opposition of the natural mind of man.

The New Testament, however, is not entirely destitute of all allusion to this subject, even though written at a period when to have inculcated the duty of kingly protection to the church would have seemed mere absurdity. Although for three hundred years the scaffold and the stake were stained with the blood of the faithful believer, yet the Apostle John, in his Apocalypse, could look through the gloom of present persecution, and see, in the vista of time, an era coming, in which it might be said, of the new Jerusalem, that the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it." It is idle to talk of this prediction as concerning heaven.

.

[ocr errors]

When this world is left behind, and the disembodied spirit of a dead monarch appears in the world of spirits, what "glory and honour will he be able to " bring into it ?" The prediction is not of heaven; it is evidently a passage exactly parallel with that in Isaiah, in which it is promised to Zion, the new Jerusalem, that "the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee." (Isaiah lx. 10.) And the tenor of both is utterly opposed to the modern fancy of the dissenters, that kings and legislators have nothing to do with, and are even forbidden to touch, any subject connected with religion.

But Mr. James will permit the sovereign to 'patronize religion,' as he calls it, by a good example, and also by his 'private resources.' He may, nay he ought, to serve God in his family; and further, he is at full liberty to subscribe, if he pleases, to the Missionary and Home Missionary Societies.

This, however, is nothing to the point. The question before us concerns his duty as a king. St. John says that the kings of the earth shall bring their honour and glory into the new Jerusalem.

[ocr errors]

Now the "honour and glory" of a king means something more than his privy purse. It is not his private example nor his private resources,' that the Apostle thus describes. It is his regal power, and dignity, and influence. This, St. John says, they shall devote to the service of the church. But Mr. James says that they may not do so. In his view they are actually forbidden thus to act. And this brings us to our second head; namely, to shew,

That there is no one passage of Scripture which forbids the establishment of Christianity by rulers and legislators.

Mr. James says that there is. He tells us that Christ expressed in one short but comprehensive

« AnteriorContinuar »