The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-05 00:00:00

DR. CHALMERS' LECTURES.

FOURTH LECTURE.'

Thursday at two o'clock Dr. Chalmers delivered his fourth Lecture
at the Hanover_square Rooms. There was a very crowded attendance,
among whom' we noticed several Noble Lords and Members of Parlia.
ment. The Duke of Cambridge was not present.
Dr. CIILLNIERS commenced his Lecture by saying—I feel it necessary
to make a slight recapitulation of my former Lecture. lam anxious to
impress upon you the distinction which exists between two sorts of
what is called the voluntary principle—a distinction almost never ad.
verted to—but which it is of the utmost importance to discriminate be-
tween the one and the other. A man may make a voluntary return
for Christian ministration ; °rile may make an offer, in the shape of a
donation, to set a going or support a Christian ministration other than
his own. The one is as voluntary as the other—he may not have been
more willing to make remuneration of his own share than of another's.

This, it was said was the result of the voluntary principle. Two things
so different in their nature ought to be set apart from each other by
different names. When a congregation, from their own funds or con-
tributions, support their own Minister, we shall put it down to inter-
nal voluntaryism, on the basis that themembers raise the amount among
themselves ; but when the supporters received from those who do not
form members of the congregation, we shall put that down to
external voluntaryism, as coming fl'om people without the con-

gregation. One is voluntaryism ab infra, and the other is vo-
luntaryism ab extra. Now I want to impress upon you that
the internal quadrates in all its parts with the system of free trade
in Christianity; but the external voluntaryism is an offence to the doc.
trine and judgment of free trade and Christianity, and so far from being
in coliffict with a National Establishment, it was the outlet of external
voluntaryism, through the channel of the Government, by the act of
which the various and insufficient operation of that principle is carried
out to the supply of the religious wants of the whole community. As,
for instance, in the Highlandi of Scotland, where the Gaelic is spoken,
with a population of 180,000, internal voluntaryism, during a whole
century, did not raise six congregations in that country; while by the
act of a single night in the House of Commons, there were raised forty
Government Churches for the Gaelic population of the Highlands of
Scotland. I now come to the proper subject of this day's Lecture—of
the circumstances which determined a Government to select one deno.
mination of Christianity over the other for the national religion. It
seems a very clear and advisable axiom, that there can be nothing better
for a nation than when a common sentiment in favour of what is good
and right is shown between the rulers and the people, and when one and
the same principle harmonised and actuated both. An agreement be-
tween these two parties is indispensable to the natural tranquillity of the
State, and there do occur periods in history when this becomes so strong
and sympathetic as to give rise to a sort of moral jubilee, or high and
constitutional rejoicing in the land. When the heart of the Sovereign
brats in unison with the acclamations of the multitude, then the dis-
tinction between the voluntary and established principle is forgotten,
and both are blended In one common offering for the nations' welfare.
Such was the case when the hostile Armada approached the coast of
England; the appeal of the Sovereign was responded to by the willing
services and contributions of all the people of the land; or where a grant
from the Treasury had been made, in grateful remembrance of the ser-
vices of a public benefactor, not only with the public approbation, but
followed up by the contributions of the public in testimony of departed
worth. When famine or pestilence, or some signal calamity, involved
thousands of families, the coffers of the State and the purses of the
people were opened for their relief, and the line of demarcation between
one religion and another was trodden under foot, and which, but for the
controversy of the present day, would never more have been heard of.
This union of the warring elements took place in the time of the capri-
cious despot who first broke the yoke of the Church of Rome; with the
milder sway of his successor; and still more with the imprisonment of
the venerable Fathers of the English Church, who would have laid down
their lives in defence of the pure and sacred faith which they professed.
Look to the rapturous acclamation that took plane upon their liberation;
it is from such ebullitions we catch the transient glimpse of a commu-
nity in its best and happiest mood.—(Cheers.) When all parties, all
classes, and all the wealth and energies of a nation are concentrated in
one common object, all jealousies are forgotten. It has happened,
not unfrequently, in the history of nations, that religion has been the
theme of this generous and widespread exultation, as on the restoration
of the ordinances of the Old Testament; or, in modern times, in the
celebration of the triumph of truth and liberty. In the former in.
stances, the olden period of the Kings of Israel, looking at
the rejoicings that took place upon the re-establishment of the
Church of their forefathers, there was no calculating between the
legal and the voluntary principle in those days; the people, under the
authority of one, rendered their tithes, and under the impulse of the
other they added their free-will offerings. When the King made the
grants from the Treasury, the people at the same time cast, with ex-
tended hand, into the treasury of the Temple. There was no war be-
tween those two principles. In the reign of David, Soloman, and Jeho..
sophat, which were the happiest days of the chosen people, there was
thenain harmonious working of both. Now, I would refer you to the
Book of Exodus as a proof that the voluntarypreceded the legal, as in the
erection of the Tabernacle; but when the legal came out, it did not
supersede the voluntary—that is to say, chiefly external voluntaryism.
If you read in the latter end of the reign of David, you will see that the
last day,
tts t
extension per i od o f
fund for the ereation of the Temple was made up from both, and you will
find them acting harmoniously together in Israel in the time of Soloman
d d Jaeyh, h oath a p
It , t
Jewishof ithe
Church,hi tory
it statedl
would
fair distribution between the legal and the voluntary, that we should
build the Churches, and the State should endow them, and there are cer-
tain arguments that can be advanced in favour of this being the proper
course. I know that some of our friends in Scotland are exceedingly
jealous upon this subject; they suppose that it may countenance the
abolishing of Church-rates. I say, no. As far as the Church is con-
cerned, we are willing to receive assistance from voluntaryism for the
erection of new Churches; but we will not make a single step if there
is to be, contemporaneous with it, the setting aside and putting down
Church-rates. It would be neither more nor less than giving with the one
hand that which was taken by the other. Church-rates, therefore, ought
not tope put down to the account of voluntaryism. lam decidedly on
the same side as William Cobbett, on the question of Church-rates.—(A
laugh.) They are a special property belonging to the whole community
for the purposes of religious instruction, and cannot be accounted a
hardship upon those orders who are liable to pay them. These exam-
ples have all been drawn from the Jewish history—a people whose
Kings lived with them under a pure Theocracy—who had their Pro-
phets acting under credentials which had Heaven's authority, and
who had the books of His law, which ordained a Priesthood, and set
apart a maintenance for themselves and their families. Here then is a
subsistence provided for the clergy—a clear and expressed sanction for
an established religion ; but the question we have now to consider is as
it regards Christian Kings and Christian communities. We are then
to enquire what the circumstances were which under our present dispen-
sation brought on and justified the provision for a national clergy tbr
the preaching of the Gospel to all. So far as it is known to us the facts
of the case were these. For
.centuries 'after the promulgation of the
Gospel, it was not only an unprotected but a persecuted faith. It was,
however, still nurtured and strengthened under persecution, and took
firmer root, like the trees which are craddled in the storm; and it seemed
to have afresh accession of strength from every edict which was fulmi-
nated against it for the purpose of putting it down. Converts became
snore numerous—indeed so numerous that it is even now a matter of
much doubt—indeed it seems to be almost impossible to determine
whether it was the piety or the policy which induced Constantine to
throw the protection of the Imperial shield over Christianity. If it ori-
ginated from the former, then he only did upon his throne
shatwh the
pa rent does in the bosom of his family. Hi: gave to eAire,ire'
and the other to Isis household, a gift consecrated by
himwho is the Universal Giver. He provided them with a
religious education, as the best boon which he could confer. But
he may have become a Christian from policy and not from principle,
for the explanation of his conduct. If so then
I by a very different standard, and if he was not actuated
and this may be the key
he must be tries
proved himself to be at least a wise governor, not be.
the religion of the majority of the people.—
Tle'matssa'oyuld be a policy altogether indefensible, but he was
by
causehrwise,e religion,
becausehe gave in on finding that Christianity induced the people
to become peaceable and contented. This is a very different matter
from his giving way to the wishes of the majority, which may some_
times be done for the weak purpose of keeping in power.—(Loud cheers.)
It is a very different thing to give way for such a purpose, and giving
way in order to put the people under the best moral government that
is to be found, from giving way to a system which it was evident made
a virtuous and well ordered commonwealth.—(Cheers.) If even the
eedumcaaytio have
n, h o
best seen
heathen could say of Christians, " Beheld how they love one another,"
e thatos u
consulted
thete establish_
interests
on
surely that must have been enough to attract the attention of the
Alonarch. If it were found that Christians made the best soldiers and
peaceable,
of his country, and conduced most to the peace and well-ordering of the
commonwealth. The soundness of his policy as a INlonarch cannot be
doubted in such a view of the case ; and I will contend that there was
universal
no blemish in the compliance of the Christian Church with the over-
ot of
Christianstan Constantine
tures that were made to them. You will all recollect the model of an
establishment which I gave you in the case of a Moravian being sent for
India planter, to superintend and Christianize his
by a West 2OO or
300 slaves. That Moravian would indeed be weak if he wished
to know and enquired into the motives of the planter if he
wanted to know whether he acted from a Christian spirit, or merely be-'
would make his
Christianity wou
cause that he knew s slaves more obedient,
and of course
more valuable. Was the Moravian, if he found that the
former was the actuating
principle, to refuse his assistance, then the
200 or 300 slaves would be left to perish in their darkness and sin. It
was no part of the duty of the Church to refuse time proferred help. The
Church, in labouring
urin to snake the most of the subserviency of
the purpose of saving souls, was d •
the monarch for doing and act-
That then, was time first
ine fully in her duty. example of a Go.
vernment making a selection of a faith, to be by them signalised
d Constantine evinced all the greater strength of a religion, an
cha-
ractera ill the act, as in establishing a new religion lie overthrew an old
one. in the adoption of the new worship, an hereditary one hadiko be
overthrown. Time second example that we have in history was at the
reformation, when a change took place in the religions of a number of
countries in Europe—not a change from Paganism to Christianity, but
fr 0,,,, Popery to Protestantism, or from one Christianity to another.
There may have been other reasons besides those that can be alleged in
vindication of this great system resolvable neither into conscience nor
patriotism, as those which actuated the bosom of our own ca-
pricious and tyrannical Henry. We speak not of the reasons that
explain, but only of these that justify the change ; and perhaps the best
historical - example that can be given of them will be found in the Elec-
tor of Saxony, who established a religion under the Protestant faith.
The faith of the monarch justified the part he took in it, and it was the
faith
of his subjects which justified the part they took in it—their ac-
quiescence iescence in the change. Without tracing our way back to the ground
o
the sincerity of James for example in his Catholicism, of Charles in
his Episcopacy,„ on the Elector of Saxony in his Lutheran Protestant-
In' t may he said of him who succeeded, and of them that failed in the
establishment of their own doctrine, that all three, in the attempts they
made, were alike conss' • And this might serve for the vindication
conscientious.
of the [nail even as it might serve for the vindication of five hundred
men, if the power, instead of being concentrated in one indi-
vidual
, were lodged in an assembly, and they gave their col-
, lective , en—ee in favour of the establishment which coincided
with the views of the majority in that assembly. The act of
the Elector of Saxony in setting up a Protestant establishment in his
dominions, may have been at once the act of a sincere Christian, and
sound palm lot. We may now carry our views onward in history—nay
as far down from what has been done by Governments in former ages,
to what is or should be done by Government in the present day; and
at this moment there is no Legislative body in Europe more called upon
to be up and ready on the principles of this great question, than the Par_
Lament of England. There is a loud, an incessant call on them for a
wise and righteous decision. We cannot imagism a heavier misfortune
to our beloved land, than that a measure so pregnant with mighty con.
sequences both to the present and future generations, should be cast up at
random, or blown ever in the whirlwind of party and political movement,
instead of coining forth from the unfettered and calm consideration of
high.minded and intelligent men. By far the greatest, and
what should be time first consideration, is, what is truth ? But, if
not disposed to entertain this ' the next best is the consideration
question, me
of t
a is the most effectual regimen, for training the successive genera-
tions of a country in the virtues of good citizenship, and so as to be
most likely to secure the blessings of a moral and religious population.
On either consideration we should not fear for our own protestantism,
for though the two be different from each otherlin practice, in fulfilment
there is a harmony between them. It is well there should be two
principles altogether right and legitimate, on either of which the ques-
tion of a religious Establishment may be hinged, so that whatever the
incapacity of senators might be to decide on the first of those principles,
that is on the theological truth of any given system, there must remain
the other—the moral and economic—the principle on which to ground
their determinations, that is on the fitness of any system, by the influence
and the lessons of its discipleship to humanize a population, and to im.
part such habits as are best fitted for the comfort and virtue of families.
It is competent for a Legislative Assembly to decide On the former, or to