exists, for she has expressly provided against it, as is plain from "his Majesty's declaration." "We will, that all further curious search be laid aside, and these disputes shut up in God's promises, as they be generally set forth to us in the holy Scriptures, and the general meaning of the Articles of the Church of England according to them. "And that no man hereafter shall either print or preach, to draw the article aside any way [so as to give it a twist or inclination,] but shall submit to it in the plain full meaning thereof: and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the article, but shall take it in the plain grammatical sense." It is not for us, but for those in authority, to decide who have (by infringing this law,) fomented our present unhappy divisions. Whilst we invoke the royal supremacy against the encroachments of Rome, the same would fall heavily upon many of our clergy, and grind to powder such as plainly disregard the constitutions and canons of our Church; which indeed are not very generally obeyed by our clergy.* Though the declaration already quoted, thus concludes against all departures from these ordinances;" he or they, the offenders shall be liable to our displeasure, and the Church's censures in our commission ecclesiastical, as well as any other: and WE WILL SEE THAT THERE SHALL BE DUE EXECUTION UPON THEM." This sword of the magistrate, once drawn, would not be drawn in vain; but would extend to the schismatics in our own Church, as well as to the Romanists and sectaries outside. But we have now to do with our own communion, the state of our Church, as indicated in the parable of the spire; where we find not only the "twist or inclination" already lamented, but an attempt at rectifying this deviation from uprightness. "In the course of last summer," so our parable symbolizeth, "public alarm had arisen to such a height that the wardens felt it to be their duty to have the spire thoroughly examined by two architects of repute." To what can this refer, except the two trials, in the Court of Arches, and the Privy Council? In these two courts the spire was thoroughly examined; the first declared a decided leaning to Tractarianism, since it took the case as "visible to every eye," in the "plain grammatical sense" of the Prayer-book; whilst the second court, with a comprehensiveness of judgment, turned to a "charitable construction," and declared that the upper part visibly leaned both ways, which is the best method of keeping the balance,-preserving the centre of gravity below and between the two declinations. Thus is manifested the toleration of our Church, in retaining in her communion, those who mutually refute and anathematize each other! How calm and lofty, how majestic is her demeanour, as she thus raises her head above the waves of these contentions, saying in the words of her invisible head," Peace be still!" How ardently should every one of her disquieted sons take refuge in her peaceful bosom, as the asylum amidst this storm of human passions! And whilst some according to our parable, are for a “partial and patch *The above strange admission, we shall hereafter verify, as we enquire-"Who hears the Church?" work restoration" some for a 66 mere repair" of the spire, others for "taking it down, to be entirely rebuilt;" others for "an entire EXTERNAL RESTORATION of the spire, tower and body; others for a new inside as well as outside; advocating a convocation of the clergy, and reconstruction of our glorious constitution in Church and State; we can only lament this unseemly perturbation, and cling to the noble vessel while a plank is left. N. B. In future numbers, as early as convenient, we shall discuss under this department of "Statesmen's Religion," the following questions: 1. Who founded the Church? 2. Who is the Church? IV. SCEPTICS' RELIGION. Under this department, sceptical objections, and systems or principles advocated as hostile to Christianity, are dispassionately considered. FREE THOUGHTS TO FREE-THINKERS. THE advocate of the Bible, has this difficulty in contending with its opponents, namely, that the latter agree in only one thing-the rejection of the Scriptures. There is no system nor book, to which they subscribe; no one stronghold, which must be stormed or left: but the contest is between a well disciplined army, and bush-rangers, who driven from behind this bush, wall, or stump, scramble to another; and never surrender, because they occupy no ground, have no fortress; and skirmish rather than fight. Sometimes they cut off this or that straggling detachment, (some supposed doctrine ;) but do not regularly siege the stronghold-the Bible itself; which never retreats, but waits in patience and courage, inviting the most powerful onset, treating honourably both enemies and captives -who become friends. Our sceptical readers, should we be honoured with such, as we earnestly desire, will recognize in this commencement the true Church militant style; but we trust they will meet with no intentional discourtesy; and discover here no exhibition of enmity, nor mere trial of skill, but honest, honourable and friendly contests for that highest victory-the discovery of truth, the best friend to all parties. It is a great mistake for a man to regard the Bible as the enemy of mankind: it defines, enforces and tends to secure all human rights, all forms of duty and freedom; and offers higher rights than belong to this world. : If the Bible be false, it is a combination of very wise and benevolent mistakes but its chief wounds have been received in the house of its friends, who have too often betrayed it to the misdirected hostility of men, by perverting its principles and forging its authority for human schemes of delusion and oppression. The sceptic who rejects and argues against Christianity, on the ground of these human additions and misrepresentations, falls into a very natural mistake; but on reflection will perceive that IT IS UNFAIR TOWARDS ANY SYSTEM TO REJECT IT IN THEORY, BECAUSE OTHERS HAVE REJECTED IT IN PRACTICE. See for yourselves, what Christianity is; and accept or reject it on its own account. If its principles are unjust, unfair, or impure, then give it up: but if it be honest, truthful, just, ennobling; then let it be true, though all its professors should be liars. It can be to no person's real interest, to believe the Bible, if it be false; and certainly to no one's interest to reject it, if it be true. All the disbelief in the world, is no disproof; and if all men should become infidels, (a very unlikely thing,) it would be no demonstration to vote the Bible out of the world. Truth is truth after all, whatever we think and therefore it is but fair and honest to ourselves, to give it a proper trial, without partiality and without prejudice. If then you find in the world under the name of religion, what you on good grounds regard as wrong; see if the Bible does not condemn it, as much as you do: and if in the Bible (as in the Old Testament,) you meet with examples of great failings; enquire further whether the Bible itself does not reprove them: distinguish honestly between history and precept. If in the Jewish system or history, you find something repugnant to our present views; enquire if it be not an imperfect system both of principles and practices, accommodated to those times, but abolished by Christianity. Judge the Bible like any other book; by reading fairly on to the end, to see its last, fullest, and clearest statements. All this, is only what candour requires, and candour in enquiry after truth, is only doing justice to ourselves. No one can be a fair judge of this controversy, who has not paid some attention to the nature and evidences of Christianity: some advance as arguments against the gospel, those very things which the gospel and many Christians equally condemn: this is beating the air. The unbeliever may no doubt discover much bigotry, warmth and bitterness in defences of religion; but if he be a wise man, he will enquire whether that be a part of religion itself; and if, as he must, he discovers that this conduct is prohibited, he will condemn the advocate, but respect the cause. Nor should it be forgotten, that dogmatism, fierceness, vituperation, wholesale invective, and misrepresentation,are not all on one side;-that some bitter specimens, as well as coarse, could be selected from the infidel press: happily these things belong to neither side, as to the questions at issue; and the sceptic's good sense will not at least object to the Christian command of "meekness" in opposing error; nor to the prohibition, render not evil for evil, railing for railing; nor to the example,"being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: being defamed, we intreat."-(1 Cor. iv. 12, 13.) If any (as unhappily has been the case) have reversed this, and turned persecutors in Christ's name-the answer is, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are you?"-tyrants and lying imposters; to whom Christ will say " depart from me, I never knew you." Whether the principles of reasonable, candid, and dispassionate investigation here laid down, are exemplified in our contemporaries of the Infidel Press, publications openly repudiating Christianity—the impartial reader will have an opportunity of judging in these pages. If these qualities of earnest, high-souled love of truth, apart from accidents and prejudice, might justly be looked for anywhere, it would be in an organ nominally devoted to Free-thinking: especially in the first num ber we might expect that some great leading principles, or methods of enquiry would be unfolded: and that the freedom of thought would be seen in the absence of prejudice. Every honest free-thinker will be ashamed of the specimen here adduced. The leading Article is headed, "a glance at the present state of theology," which indeed is not the Bible; for "theology" is a name for a human science, professedly founded on Revelation. And as theology is thus beside the mark, so the Article itself is beside theology, and deals with another question. The first point noticed in the "state of theology," is "the stirring up of heaven and earth almost, in the endeavour to make converts, by sectarians of every denomination." But this excitement is hopefully regarded as "not necessarily" a sign of vitality and progress: on the contrary, "the noise may be that of disruption, the throes of dissolution." This, instead of being an estimate of opinions, is a party-coloured account of the state of parties: with which the truth of opinions, theological or otherwise, is in no way connected. The sentence we have quoted, is strangely followed by the assertion, that "it is a bad sign for any system of religion when it requires the arm of the law to support its own want of energy, especially if it carps at its decisions when they chance to be adverse to its views." Many a freethinking Christian has learned all this from the Bible; but what has it to do with "the state of theology," or with the efforts of sects to gain converts? And how can a system of religion carp, because its views are opposed? The "views" make up "the system. The writer has here strangely mixed together,―efforts at conversion, Puseyism and StateChurchism, as states of theology, on the ground of which he insinuates against Christianity, which is neither theology, State-Churchism nor Puseyism. And continues to observe, "if the present system of theology be fallacious, its friends can gain nothing by appealing to the State for support." By "the present system of theology," he intends religion in general; otherwise he should have said, the systems, for they are various; and the best repudiate all State policy; whilst the friends of other systems, do gain something by the State, namely rich livings. "The last few years (we are soon after told) have been remarkable for the march of intellect in the theological world," namely in the Catholic Emancipation Bill; which again was a political affair, not theological. This march of theology was followed by "a sop in the pan," in the shape of a grant to Maynooth; but at this point Episcopacy, Methodism, Dissent, in all shapes and forms, let loose the dogs of war. Government is cowed, Catholicism is silent. Then the belligerent sects, not satisfied with mere victory, again attempt to revive against them (ie. the Catholics) as extensive a crusade as the intelligence of the nineteenth century will "tolerate." Surely writers on the state either of parties, theology or religion, should know something of their subject. Nearly every sentence in the above is a mistake: "the dogs of war let loose" on the Catholics, were arguments;-from churchmen against endowing a religion which the State had condemned by endowing Protestantism; and arguments from dissenters against endowing any religion at all: nor was the Government "cowed," or sectarianism "victor" in that strife; since the College of Maynooth was endowed. |