Page images
PDF
EPUB

inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome unto you?"

Now, how is it that state endowments affect this ordinance of Christ, embracing, as it does, the provision which Infinite Wisdom has seen meet to devise for the support of the gospel in our world? They set it aside altogether. What the Saviour has established is, by human law and human authority, abrogated, and, so far as the influence of the system of endowments extends, rendered of none effect. In the eye of every enlightened Christian, must not such a system, which thus directly interferes with the arrangements of the Saviour in regard to his kingdom, be held to be objectionable?

It is common for those who are the advocates of state churches to affirm, that it is the duty of the civil magistrate to apply the resources of the nation to the maintenance of religion, and that he is bound to do this from the obligation which he owes to Christ as "the Ruler of the nations." Whatever the relation may be, however, which civil magistrates sustain to Christ in the character now mentioned, and whatever duties may arise, or be supposed to arise, out of this relation, nothing can be more certain than that Christ never authorised any human power or government to supersede or abolish a positive ordinance in his church which he himself had appointed. What Christ makes the duty of the members of his church, as such, can never be the duty of "the civil magistrate,"—in any other sense at least, than as he himself may be a member of the church of Christ. Even supposing it to be the case, that, in the situation which he occupies, he is under the authority of Christ as "the Ruler of the nations," does Christ require of him to do any thing which shall have the effect of making void his own law? Acting himself" under law to Christ," instead of granting endowments, relieving the members of the church from the duty which they owe to the Saviour, would he not be bound to withhold endowments, from a regard to the authority of Christ? It is sometimes said by certain of the supporters of the system of national church establishments, "that they hold it to be the duty of those who are the members of the church to support the gospel, and that, on this point, they are agreed with the asserters of the voluntary principle." We ask, what is the meaning of this statement? Is it meant that it is the duty of the christian church, as such, and not that of the civil magistrate, fully to maintain gospel ordinances? If so, how is it that we hear it so frequently asserted by the same parties, as a truth of the highest consequence, that it belongs to the government of a country to endow the church of Christ? If what is meant be, that it is the duty of the members of the christian church to support divine ordinances, not because Christ commands it, but because circumstances, for the time, merely render it expedient, then it is clear that an appointment of Christ, as binding as any other upon the conscience, is still set at nought, and no homage whatever in this matter rendered to the authority of the Saviour. In such a case, where, may we ask, is the respect which Christians ought to manifest for "the headship of Christ" in his church? On a point where the authority of Christ has been so directly interposed, it is not easy to see how the rejection, on the part of any church, of his ordinance the wishing to be free from the obligation of duty which he

has imposed, or the allowing of a human law to take the place in his church of that law which he has appointed-can be held as compatible with that supreme and undivided homage which, in all things, is due to Christ as the King of Zion.

66

2. Those who hold the voluntary principle are opposed to state endowments, because they are unjust in themselves, and injurious in their consequences. The provision established by Christ in his church for the support of his gospel is just and equitable; and this is characteristic of all the arrangements of him of whom it is said, “HE shall reign in righteousness-HE loveth righteousness, and hateth iniquity." As much, however, cannot be said of that law, on the part of men, by which, in the case of state churches, the law of Christ has been superseded. In every view it is unjust. What can be more unjust than that all classes in a nation, more especially all sections of the christian church, should be taxed for the support of one favoured class? State churches claim it "as a matter of right" that they receive certain temporal endowments from the state. If it be asked, how is this right derived? The answer is, that is the result of "a legal compact" with the state. All the unjust advantages claimed from time to time on behalf of particular class interests have the same origin. They are all the result of "a legal compact," which, it is said, must not be violated. It is unnecessary to state that things which are "legal" may be, nevertheless, often very unjust; and for any body of men professing to be a church of Christ, to put forward" a claim of right" resting on no other basis than that of an unjust preference of class interests, to the effect, that it belongs to them to exact from their fellow Christians and others in the same community, the means of maintaining, for themselves and those of their party, the ordinances of the gospel, cannot but appear to be very objectionable. Whatever the "claims" may be which this or the other church party may be ready to make, surely no government is warranted to apply the resources of the nation for the aggrandizement of any particular class, or to legislate-if it will assume this power-even on the subject of religion, on the principles of injustice.

But state endowments are as injurious in their consequences, as they are unjust in themselves. They are injurious to all parties: to the churches by whom they are received; to the churches which are unendowed, as well as to the common interests of the nation at large. How is it that endowments operate in the case of those churches on whom they are bestowed? Do they not, as all experience testifies, produce apathy and inefficiency, and lead to a spirit of servility and corruption? In regard to all state churches which ever have existed, or which now exist, in this or in other countries, may it not be said, and said truly, that the tendency of their endowments has been, not to promote, but to extinguish, religion? How, again, do endowments operate in the case of churches which are not established by the state? Do they not act most unfavourably in creating and perpetuating/prejudices against their principles, and in repressing and neutralizing the exertions made by them for the evangelization of the population? The good that is done by unestablished churches, in the diffusion of the gospel, is done in spite of the opposition that is directed against them by those churches that are established. Were the influence arising to

NO. VII. VOL. III.

PP

these, such as it is, from government connexions and secular endow ments, exerted on the side of religion, the difficulties they throw in the way of the operations of other churches, however much they might be regretted, would the more readily be overlooked. But this cannot be affirmed to be the case. Whilst they prevent unendowed churches from doing the good that they would, in bringing religious instruction to bear on all classes in the community, they but too commonly leave those under their influence, generation after generation, to become a prey to ignorance, to self-delusion, and to spiritual death. And, with regard to the effects of endowments on the general interests of a nation, are they not equally injurious? State churches never have been favourable either to the civil or religious liberties of any people; they have ever been the strongholds of corruption; and, through means of the legal machinery which forms part of their organization, have been a constant cause of misery by their tyrannical exactions and oppressions. What a drag, also, have state churches always been on the civil legislation of a country, hindering, by their opposition, the progress of every enlarged and liberal measure fitted to promote the general good. Not to speak of the invidious distinctions which they create, and the endless discussions and contentions to which they are ever giving rise in reference to their peculiar "interests," what jealousies, what strifes, what bitterness of spirit, are they not the means of diffusing throughout the nation? What is the history of state churches, in many instances, but a history of their altercations and contentions with the rest of the community, or with the state itself, in regard to a farther extension of their power, or privileges, or endowments, as the means of their aggrandisement? And if these and such like fruits arise from endowments in the case of state churches, may we not say that, with regard to all parties brought under their influence, their consequences are most injurious?

a

3. Those who hold the voluntary principle are opposed to state endowments of religion, because their tendency is to confound truth with error, and to throw the most formidable obstructions in the way of the universal spread of the gospel. Ecclesiastical establishments, according to the doctrine of churchmen, are intended for the maintenance and extension of "the true religion." Their tendency, however, which is inseparable from the principle on which they are based, is to lead to very different result. Every party, of course, is prepared to maintain that its system is "the true religion;" and what system, it may be asked, is then to be established? It is easy for any party to assume, with an air of infallible certainty, that they are "the true church," and to claim that the government should recognise and establish them in this character; but every other party may do the same; and the question, therefore, remains as before, viz. on the supposition that state churches were lawful and proper,-which, we contend, they are not,which party is to be established?

Whatever may be the intentions of the more ardent abettors of state establishments of religion, the real principle on which all of them have been, and still are supported, is that of expediency. It is on this principle that their more discreet advocates now defend them; and it is on this principle that statesmen and legislators deal with them as institutions of the nation. And what security is there that, deriving their

support from such a principle, the truth of God shall be either maintained or promoted by them? Not to dwell on the circumstance, that nowhere have doctrinal errors, in all their forms, usually to a greater extent prevailed than within the pale of established churches, whose recognised formularies have generally been considered only as "articles of peace,' and not of truth, what is more common, when an exclusive course cannot safely be followed, than for the same government of the same state openly to patronise and endow opposite systems of religion? To meet the exigencies of state policy, this is the course which now more than ever seems about to be pursued in this country. There can be little doubt that the Roman catholic religion, which, from the beginning, has been the established religion of Canada, and which, in the form of annual grants to the college of Maynooth, has for many years been partially endowed in Ireland, is on the eve of being permanently established by the British government. And what can be expected to result from a government thus seeking to establish and to promote error equally with truth, but that it should lead men who are ignorant of divine things to conclude, that there is no difference between the one and the other; thus destroying all distinction between right and wrong, and razing the very foundations both of morality and religion. But, taking a wider view of the subject, is it not the fact, that ninety-nine out of every hundred religious establishments that now exist, or ever have existed, were intended to promote and perpetuate that which is error in opposition to truth? So far as the principle of religious establishments is concerned, does not truth and error rest on the same foundation, not in one country only, or under one government, but throughout the world? How is it that the numberless systems of delusion, of superstition, and of idolatry, which prevail throughout our earth, remain so long in full force, enchaining the minds of millions of our race in darkness, and sinking them down into perdition? They are established; and, being established, the resources of the government, in the nations where they exist, are applied to their support, such means being as effectual for the upholding of errors, congenial to the human understanding, as they are unsuitable for the advancement of divine truth. These systems must give way ere the gospel can be extended throughout our world; and this event, we know, is destined to take place. But, in the mean time, what is it which obstructs the progress of the gospel in those countries now referred to? It is not the false systems themselves merely, but the Roman Catholic, the Mohammedan, and the Heathen "Establishments of religion!" In some countries, our missionaries are persecuted by the government; in others, they are prevented from lifting their voice at all in preaching the gospel, on the ground of their interfering with the established religion! Instructed by such facts, ought it not to be the case, we ask, that, conjointly with our efforts for the universal diffusion of the gospel, we should seek that the great doctrine of religious liberty should be promulgated to the nations as one means, among others, whereby, under the blessing of God," the strongholds of Satan may be overthrown? And how is this to be done, but by urging upon governments to abstain from interference with a province which does not belong to them? When we consider, that for fifteen hundred years, the gospel has been arrested in its progress by the influence of a system

leading to the establishment of countless forms of error in opposition to divine truth, are we not warranted to affirm, that the evils which such a system has entailed, and is now entailing, are altogether incalculable? "Thus saith the Lord, I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, till he come whose right it is!"

- In another paper, we shall consider what are the claims of the voluntary principle on the church of God under the New Testament dispensation.

T.

SHADOWS OF GOOD THINGS TO COME.-No. II.

THE SMITTEN ROCK.

THE history of the children of Israel at Rephidim is a very interesting and instructive portion of their history. The narrative, as given by Moses in the seventeenth chapter of the book of Exodus, is as follows:

"And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, after their journeys according to the commandment of the Lord, and pitched in Rephidim. And there was no water for the people to drink; wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And the Lord said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel, and thy rod wherewith thou smotest the river take in thine band, and go. Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb, and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel." This narrative, considered simply as a portion of literal history-the mere record of a remarkable transaction long since past,-is rich in varied lessons of instruction. We may learn from it, for example, a lesson of watchfulness against murmuring, when brought into straits and difficulties; and also a lesson of dependence upon God's power and goodness even in the greatest extremities. But the Apostle Paul teaches us that the history, while a literal, is also a typical history. Referring to it, he says, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, "They (the children of Israel) did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of the spiritual Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ." In this portion of ancient history, therefore, as in a glass, we may see reflected, on the one hand, the extreme misery of man by nature; and, on the other, the wonderful provision that God has made for his happiness in Christ.

The condition of man by nature in regard to happiness, is a very melancholy and distressing one. There exists-implanted by the Creator in his very constitution-a desire, an eager, intense, burning desire, for happiness. It is a mental thirst, an insatiable craving for enjoyment; and which, unless satisfied, must consume the soul. Sin, indeed, has wrought a most disastrous change in the constitution of man's moral nature, but it has not extinguished the desire of happiness, while it has, however, dried up the springs of its legitimate gratification; nay, it has, on the contrary, aggravated and inflamed the desire. It

« PreviousContinue »