No. 8. AUGUST, 1843. (TO BE CONTINUED MONTHLY.) VOL. 2. Common Sense, or Every-body's Magazine. EDITORS REV. J. E. N. MOLESWORTH, D. D. REV. W. N. MOLESWORTH. wwwww Fine Sense, and Exalted Sense, are not half so useful as CHURCH HISTORY. (CHAP. II.--continued from page 148, Vol. II.) Affliction worked with the Jewish Nation those good ends, which it often works with individuals. They repented and turned to the Lord their God. He put it into the heart of Cyrus, according to a wonderful prophecy of Isaiah, to give them liberty, and even assistance to build their city and Temple. But the corrupt heart of man prevailed, notwithstanding the miracles of grace which this people had experienced. Through a long period of weakness and turbulence they struggled on till the appointed time, at which prophecy had declared that the great Messiah and Deliverer should come, who should fulfil the law and restore all things. Even the voice of Prophecy ceased with Malachi. But the polity of the Jews remained unaltered, however man's negligence or presumption might from time to time dare to violate it. At no one period did the Almighty repeal the principles which he had laid down, and which are essential to the well being of any society civil or religious, (and indeed more especially to a religious society) that there must be a head from whom must be derived, either directly, or through his officers, all authority to carry on the designs of that society. This principle we shall find recognized in the New Testament, as well as in the Old. We shall find Jesus Himself giving his Apostles that authority and the Apostles conveying it to others, and these last committing the same to faithful men who should teach others also; so on down to this present day. Even Jesus took not upon Himself His ministerial office, but awaited the calling and sending of the Father, and the descent of the Holy Ghost; and the public declaration from Heaven "this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." It is true, indeed, that at the first the Governing power of the Nation did not contribute to the Church, and that the latter had no other support than the voluntary gifts of the brethren. But this was neither a rejection, nor even a condemnation of the principle of National provision for National religious institutions, which had always been adopted where the Nation worshipped the true God. Just as well might it have been argued that the National Establishment of the Church under the Jews was sinful and unlawful, because the Patriarchs, when they were few, and wanderers among the nations, or because the Israelites, when under the Egyptian Tyrants, could not, from the nature of the case, have National Establishments. The simple truth is, that they had not the choice, therefore they could not be said to prefer the one to the other; much less to condemn that which they uniformly practised whensoever they had a choice. The moment they became a Nation, God required their national service; their dutytheir obviously best policy-a National religious establishment. So it was under the Christian dispensation. While the governments under which they lived, were heathen they could not have national establishments, they had not the power, they had no choice- they were obliged to do as the Israelites did in similar circumstances; and when those circumstances were changed, and the government became Christian, and gave them a choice, they in like manner followed the example of the Israelites, and the dictates of reason and piety, in establishing and maintaining National religious institutions. The whole tenor of Church history strongly enforces this lesson-that the maintenance and extension of religion is the duty, and the interest not less of Nations, than of individuals. Those who (contrary to the unanimous testimony of Scripture and History) would maintain that National establishments are unlawful, are bound to produce most positive and express declarations to that effect. They are bound to produce evidence of the positive repeal and prohibition of a principle so consonant with sound reason, so sanctioned by the polity of Divine wisdom, and by universal practice, where it could be acted upon. To argue from the practice of the apostles' times is a mere fraud. It is arguing from the practice of the Church, at a period when it had no choice between adopting and rejecting a national establishment. It shows a weak cause to quote the conduct of the Church under a necessity, which left no choice, against the express ordinances, and universal practice of the same Church, when it had a choice, and invariably chose a national establishment. Nay more it is arguing against the uniform choice of God Himself, and the common sense view of the case; which cannot absolve a religious nation, any more than religious individuals, from the duty of promoting religion. The whole of the Old Testament History, from the moment the Jews became a Nation, is the history of a Nation with a National religious establishment; and such an establishment was contrived, and commended as a National duty by God Himself. The Dissenter is challenged to shew a single passage in the New Testament which condemns or rejects the principle-or a single period in the whole history of the Church from the beginning of the world down to the days of modern dissent, wherein the Church had the power and choice of a National religious establishment and either directly or indirectly condemned it-nay more did not urge it as an object of paramount obligation. EXTRACTS FROM "A REPLY TO THE DISSENTERS," "By a Gentleman of Reading." We give the following extracts as the sentiments of a layman. EXTRACT I.-REASONS FOR NATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS. RELIGIOUS "In the commencement of civil society, when the Legislature first made a provision for religion, it was never dreamed that a parcel of journeyman mechanics, without means and without education, would sally forth from their work and divide the community into sects and parties, and set up institutions of their own, and they provided means for the necessary qualification of a national priesthood, and a general and uniform system of worship. This priesthood, and this uniform system of worship, these modern preachers are now trying to destroy. "Rather than allow of any institution of religion in the country that is not in their own hands, they would sooner see none at all. What is the worship of God to them, when apart from their own interest? "It has been always my opinion, that a system of divine worship established by law, is not only necessary in a religious sense, but that it is also morally and politically best. First, because there is then an absolute certainty of useful and moral instruction in all requisite places, and at all proper and appointed times. Secondly, because the legislature and the priesthood generally decide on inculcating those principles of religion and morality that are best for the interest and happiness of mankind. Thirdly, because a general and uniform system of worship prevents difference of opinion; and that strife, and animosity, and persecution, that are engendered by a multiplicity of religious sects. Fourthly, because a uniform system of religion prevents sectaries from teaching erroneous and pernicious doctrines, to the violation of truth, and the deterioration of the morals of society. Fifthly, because an established priesthood are restricted to numbers, and are subordinate to law and authority, and accountable to both. Sixthly, because they are derived from persons of high moral and domestic respectability, are well qualified, and of superior attainments. Seventhly, because an Established Clergy are less factious, and more politically consistent, and are therefore best for the permanent welfare and stability of the state. Eightly, because the Scriptures, in accordance with the interest and happiness of man, are directly opposed to separation and division, and enjoin a oneness of sentiment; union, and brotherly love, and christian fellowship. "These and many other important reasons, induce me to prefer an Established National Institution of Public Worship to the casual, partial, erroneous, contentious, ignorant, and factious preachings and harangues of an unlimited number of sectaries." EXTRACT II.-ECCLESIASTICAL REVENUES. "In the 'Report of the Commissioners of the Ecclesiastical Revenue Inquiry,' lately published, we have a correct account of the incomes of the whole body of the Clergy; and after perusing that account, what man can lay his hand upon his heart and say they are not grossly calumniated? "The Commissioners say, 'From a scale which we have prepared of the benefices with cure of souls returned to us, it appears that there are two hundred and ninety-four, the incomes of which are respectively under fifty pounds "One thousand six hundred and twenty-one, of fifty pounds, and under one hundred pounds "One thousand five hundred and ninety-one, of one hundred pounds, and under one hundred and fifty pounds— "One thousand three hundred and fifty-five of one hundred and fifty pounds, and under two hundred pounds.' 66 Then, after enumerating some others, they come to the highest, which is, thirty-one of one thousand five hundred pounds, and under two thousand pounds, and eighteen of two thousand pounds and upwards.' "The Commissioners then observe; we have made no deduction from income on account of payment to curates, nor for the reparations of episcopal residences, or of glebe houses and offices; nor on account of payment of rates and taxes for the same, nor has any reduction been made on accouut of arrears due at the time of making the returns, or of any payments not being of a compulsory nature.' |