The Sun.
London, England, 1839-04-22 00:00:00

CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT.

Dr. Ward!aw delivered hi, fourth lecture on National
Church Establishments on Saturday ; the subject being
the province of the civil rule in matters of religion. A very
illuscry similitude had been started, between the odic: of
the civil ruler in regard to religion, and the duty of the head
of a family. It was said that as it was the duty of a father
to make provision not only for the maintenance and
health of his children, but for their moral and religious
education ; and that the duty of the civil ruler in
relation to this subject was analogous ; and many
domestic Utopias on a large scale had been
sketched, particularly by pencils so imaginative as the
Chalmerian, with all the power of a pleasing sentimen-
talism,—the p!cturings of a benevolent fancy, rendered
more powerful in its delusions by the very s in-our of
mind over which it was triumphing. There could be no
correct analogy drawn between the relations of the civil
ruler and of the parent :—they were essentially diffe-
rent : the one being natural, the other cony: ntional :
the relation between the rulers and their subjects being
founded on voluntary compact,—the subjects either
choosing their rulers, or at least agreeing to the consti-
tutional principles by which those rulers succeeded to
the throne.—(Cheers.) The subjects were not chil-
dren ; they were men and women—(Hear, hear)—upon
whom there was a prior claim, before that of their rulers,
for religious subjection, according to the unrestrained
dictates of their own conscience.—(Cheers.) As to the
analogy professed to be drawn from the Jewish Theo-
cracy, it was altogether visionary, for the civil ruler under
that economyhad not the slightest powor to alter or esta-
blish the most unimportant matter in religion.—( Hear.)
Dr. Chalmers must be aware of the natural aversion of
the human heart to the great principles of Christianity.
—(Hear, hear.) Would he commit the care of the
national health to persons who had never studied me-
dicine ?—( Hear, hear.) Was not the error as absurd,
and infinitely more fatal, in religion ?—(Cheers.) Who
was the first " Defender of the Faith" in our own
country ? That monster of selfishness, lust, and blood,
Henry VIII. Who abjured the Faith, of which he
was entitled the " Defender," and yet transmitted the
complimentary title to his successors ?—(Cheers.) Was
that the man to whom it was right to commit the in-
terests of religion, merely because the faith which he
adopted happened to be right?—(Hear, hear.) Little
cared he, whether the religion were right or wrong.
The religion which he threw off was simply the re-
ligion that thwarted his own lawless desires ; and to
the unrelenting despot, whose interposition, so far as it
could, established Protestantism in this country, Eng-
lishmen were as little indebted as to those who
were instrumental in introducing Christianity into the
world by crucifying the Lord of Glory ?—(Cheers.)
By a merciless persecution he succeeded in subjecting all
the consciences of his subjects to his own, which was
subject to none but himself. Edward's pious, but brief
reign, was quickly followed by the fiery and bloody pros-
cription of Mary, and that in its turn by the haughty
dominion of the Virgin Queen, who, sternly, sensitively
jealous of all that touched upon her prerogative, punished
with cruel severity any infringement upon her ecclesias-
tical or civil supremacy, whether by Papist or by Puri-
tan.—(Cheers.) Dr. Chalmers considered the example
of the Elector of Saxony the best possible instance of a
change from Popery to Protestantism, and said, " the
faith of the Monarch justified his part in the work, and
the faith of his subjects justified their acquiescence in
the change." Ought it not, then, to be inquired whether
the change was for the truth or not ?—( Hear, hear.) It
was not enough to say that the parties were sincere in
effecting the change. Men had been sincere in burning
heretics.—(Hear, hear.) It would seem from Dr.
Chalmers' account of the matter that the acquiescence
of the subjects would not be of any avail unless it coin-
cided with the opinion of the Prince.—(Hear, hear.)
Nor, on the other hand, could the Prince establish the
true faith, unless it agreed with the opinions of his sub-
jects, or, at least, of the great majority of them. But,
suppose (not a very impossible case) that there was a
difference between the faith of the Prince and of his
subjects, there was a rather awkward dilemma—either
the Prince must become a Non-conformist or a hy-
pocrite, or the subjects must become a nation of conscien-
tious rebels, or of submissive dissemblers.—(Cheers.)
Again, the faith of the Monarch might change and not
the faith of the subjects, or the faith of the subjects
might change, and not the faith of the Monarch. In
the former case where was the power of the Ruler ? In
the latter case where was the liberty of the subject ?
(Cheers.) There was a great distinction, let it be re-
collected, between that which was right and that which
was right in the judgment of the Ruler.—(Hear, hear.)
If it was said, " Establish the religion which you know
to be right—there is but one true faith," what became
of the conscience of the Ruler ?—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Iu our own country the Crown might be said
to bring the religion to the Monarch, rather than
the religion of the Crown.—(Hear.) Our Sovereigns
were born .heirs to the British Crown, and there/bee
Protestants and members of' thee-taablislied Church—
Christians, ex officio, though infidels and profligates in
practice.—( Hear.) Without affixing any unjust stigma
to our Legislature, it might be truly said that the pro-
portion of real piety which was to be found in it was
very small indeed.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Dr. Chalmers
spoke of Church Establishments as, " best of all, if
done from the highest consideration—that of religious
duty ; but next best, if done from the consideration of
what is the most effectual mode of training up the suc-
cessive generations of a land, in the virtues of good citi-
zenship, and of diffusing throughout the commonwealth
the blessings of moral and religious education." But
let it be recollected that differences of religions belief
were sometimes so minute as to be but splitting of
hairs ; and it would be all very well if the rulers were
to split hairs for themselves—(Hear, hear)—but they

had no right to deprive their subjects of the liberty of
splitting hairs too.—(Laughter.) Dr. Chalmers, indeed,
said it was no difficult task to discern the distinction
between Protestantism and Popery ; and " that he could
not imagine a more testing evidence of the incompetence
and profligacy of a Legislature, than that they should
be unable to decide the question between the two
reli-
gions." But it was not enough to discriminate between
Protestantism and Popery. Protestantism was a very
comprehensive word—it included every range of doc-
trine, from the most extravagant Calvinism to the most
meagre Socinianism ; and in Church Government, there
were Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, and Independency.
—( Hear, hear.) And let it not be imagined that it was
after all so easy to discriminate between Popery and
Protestantism ; for it must not be too charitably con-
cluded that all statesmen were, or would be influenced
by the sincere solicitude for the discovery of truth.—
(Hear, hear.) Catholic despotism put every restraint
upon the Press, endeavouring to prevent not only the
diffusion of the Bible, but the spread of the literature
of other countries, well knowing that the despot's
crown was only safe on his head ; so long as he suc-
ceeded in keeping his subjects from the liberty
of thought—(Loud cheers)—and that as soon as they
assumed the privilege of thinking for themselves,lthe
tyrant's prerogative was at an end.—(Loud cheers.)
But why expose the true religion to the risks, and the
false religions to the lures, of Church Establishments ?
—(Cheers.) The dread of the prevalence of Popery
was at present extreme, and improbable as it was that a
system founded to such an extent in ignorance and
darkness; should ever become predominant in an age of
spreading inquiry and advancing light, it was in some
respects not impossible, for it was a system very
agreeable to human nature, as placing salvation in exter-
nal observances, substituted penance for penitence, and
enabled men to be pious by proxy. But the voluntaries
had one effectual means for arresting the progress of
error—let Protestants be as earnest in maintaining the
truth as their opponents are in spreading delusions.—
(Cheers.) The circulation of the Bible among those
who were growing up in ignorance and darkness would
make them proof against error and delusion.—( Cheers.)
We are told (continued the Reverend Lecturer) that we

have just reason to apprehend the restoration of Popish
ascendancy, and that we should tremble for the iiherti,:s
of our religion. But we have one radical cure for all such

trembling apprehensions. The very word "ascendancy"
involves in it the possession of political power and eccle-
siastical supremacy and endowment, of which Popery
was deprived at the Reformation, and towards which it
is restlessly aspiring ; the object of that dispensation
exists only so long as the system that links the Church
to the State.—(Loud cheers.) Take away the prize,
and the competition ceases.--(Cheers.) Do away with
the secular allurements of political power, and endow-
ments, and patronage, and wealth, and honour, and do-
minion--leave Popery, in common with all other
systems, to stand or fall by its own resources—annihilate
the ambition of Popery, by destroying its aim—put all
religious parties on a level, allowing each to work out
its own principles by its own energies and resources,
and away with the fears of Popish ascendancy !—( Loud
and long continued cheers.) The union of Church and
State has rendered the idea so habitual of Popery rising
up and ultimately supplanting Protestantism as the do-
minant religion—for this is meant by ' ascendancy'—
that it is difficult to dismiss this kind of morbid
dread.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") But let there be
no dominant religion, let there be a final end to
all distinctions between religious parties, and where
is the Protestant, who would not give such fears to the
winds ?--(Cheers.) We denounce the Protestant who
would not as unworthy of the name, being distrustful of
his principles, and destitute of faith in their efficacy and
final triumph.--(Cheers.) Let Protestantism and
Popery, by all means, have a fair trial.—(Cheers.) In-
stead of setting the Senate of the nation to debate which
of the two should have the sanction of its means of
support, let all such questions be banished 'from Parlia-
mentary discussion—(Cheers)—and, instead of making
it the struggle of one party to retain and the other to
acquire ascendancy, the religious zeal and activity of
each will be left to operate alone.—( Loud and long
continued cheering.) Dr. Chalmers had said " Should
the monstrous proposition even be entertained—not to
tolerate, for that is as it should be—but to endow
Popery ; not to abolish, but to abridge the legal funds
for the support of Protestantism, for the aid of an anti-
scriptural faith—let us hope that there is still enough,
not of fiery zeal, but of calm, resolute, and withal en-
lightened principle in the land to resent the outrage,