country. If to this is added such a solution of the religious difficulty, as to render denominational schools-whether Episcopal or Roman Catholic-unnecessary, the goal so often aimed at may yet be reached. THE ACCUSER OF THE BRETHREN. IN the discussions that took place on the Irish Church Bill during the late session of Parliament, some hard things were said of Voluntaryism and Voluntary ministers; and among the members of the Upper House, more especially, who indulged in this strain, Dr. Tait, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has gained an unenviable notoriety. In the course of his speech in opposition to the bill-though he had not the honesty to vote against the second reading-he referred to those who are stripped of all endowments, and become the mere servants and tools of those whom they teach.' In the close of his speech he referred also to those who live by pandering to the pas sions of the people;' and he had the effrontery to inform the House of Lords that there was a spirit in the clergy of the Established Church which those who belong to free churches might envy. Now, there are several reasons why we should notice and severely censure this false accusation of the brethren. 6 In the first place, his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury is regarded by many as the highest ecclesiastical functionary in the country. We say, is regarded as such by many, because, for ourselves, we do not acknowledge his claim to such superiority. In the second place, the Archbishop is a Scotchman-born and educated north of the Tweed-and should have known something of the character and conduct of the ministers belonging to the disestablished churches in Scotland. And, in the third place, we notice this accusation because, in speaking thus, his Grace is only re-echoing what is the silly, contemptible slander of many of the Established clergy of Scotland, as given forth in many of their presbyteries, pulpit harangues, and Conservative organs. Now, there are two ways in which we may vindicate the Dissenting ministers of Scotland from the charge brought against them by this accuser of the brethren. We may take the high ground of asserting that, inasmuch as we acknowledge the divine authority of the voluntary mode of supporting the gospel ministry, we are not careful to answer any of the objections that are urged against it by any supporters of the compulsory principle, which we hold to be unscriptural. He who has laid down the laws for the support and government of his church knows better than Dr. Tait, or any of the prelates of the Church of England, the effect of those laws on the hearts and consciences of his people; and to those who venture to impugn his government we may with confidence say, Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God? Or again, we may take the lower ground of repelling the charge, and showing the weakness of the basis on which it rests; and this latter mode we prefer on the present occasion. In doing this we appeal to the free choice made by these brethren in entering on the ministry. Take, for example, the professors of the United Presbyterian Church. Dr. M Michael, we understand, was a fellow-student of the Archbishop's at the University of Glasgow, and held a most honourable place among his compeers; and what was it but that thing which we call principle, that led him to accept of a call to a Dissenting congregation in Dunfermline, when, in the absence of principle, he might have taken a high place in any one of the Established churches in the country? Dr. John Cairns, it is well known, was a most distinguished student in the University of Edinburgh; and if he had not carried about with him a conscience-if he had not believed in the divine authority of the Voluntary principle, he would not have entered on the ministry in a Secession church at Berwick, when the pulpits and chairs of the Established Church were within his reach. As for Dr. Eadie, whose reputation as a biblical scholar, so far as his published works are concerned, is certainly higher than that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, he must be a man burdened with a voluntary humility, if, in the absence of principle, he preferred an infant charge in Cambridge Street, Glasgow, to the richly-endowed benefices to which he might otherwise have aspired. And as for the oldest of the professors, the Rev. Dr. Harper, who has just entered on his jubilee as minister of a large and respectable congregation, it required a great amount of stern principle to enter on an infant cause in Leith, as he did fifty years ago, while, if inclined to sink his principles, he might have enjoyed the emoluments and status of a minister of the Established Church. And these, and such as these, are the men who are stigmatized as becoming the 'mere servants and tools of those whom they teach, and as pandering to the passions of the people.' But we go further, and appeal to their preaching and conduct. Is the truth as it is in Jesus less faithfully preached by the ministers in Scotland who are supported by the people, than by those who are supported by the State? and is discipline less faithfully administered in Dissenting churches than in the Establishment? Our readers, from their own knowledge, can answer these questions; and, if it is necessary to supplement their knowledge, we can point to parish ministers who repeat ad nauseam this same slanderous charge, and yet they receive into their communion those who are fugitives from the discipline of Dissenting congregations. One of the strongest objections, indeed, to Established churches, on the part of many, is the tendency that the system has to lower the discipline in all the churches; and there is nothing more common than to find delinquents, when dealt with by the sessions of Dissenting congregations, boasting that, rather than submit to discipline, they will go off to the Established Church. To all this we add, that the Archbishop has included in the same condemnation the apostles and their Master, and the ministers of the Episcopal communion in Scotland and America. If we suffer in such company we may take it patiently. And, in a word, we appeal for their vindication to the crisis which so lately has passed over us. Who were the men who, during the past weeks, were found sacrificing their principles for money? Who were the parties who were ready, by votes and speeches, to endow Popery and all other sects in Ireland, in order that a few more thousands might be secured for the Episcopalians? Not the poor Voluntaries, who are stigmatized as pandering to the people, and sacrificing the truth in order to please their hearers, but the Archbishop of Canterbury and his brother prelates, who are held forth as the bulwark of Protestantism. It is no breach of charity to say, that the language of this accuser of the brethren can be accounted for only on the principle, that he judges of other men from what he would do himself if he were in their position. A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. THE Rev. Charles Voysey has been indicted for heresy, inasmuch as he is alleged to deny what are generally considered to be some of the fundamental articles of the Christian faith; and the Archbishop of York has served on him an inhibition, by which he will be prevented from officiating in the diocese of York until the prosecution for heresy against him shall have been decided. In these circumstances we would have expected that none of the clergymen of the Church of England would have taken any steps that were calculated to encourage Mr. Voysey in his heretical opinions; and yet it is stated, on good authority, that Dean Stanley has not only subscribed to the fund for defending Mr. Voysey, but has published a letter vindicating this step. Instead of commenting ourselves on such inconsistent and scandalous conduct, we prefer laying before our readers the following article on the subject from the Church News, an Episcopal organ: 'It comes to this,' says the Church News, that Mr. Voysey, and Mr. Anybodyelse, is to go on teaching the children of the Church of England, at Healaugh and other places, such devout and humble points of faith as the following: that our Lord Jesus Christ is not God; that God never sent any one in particular to "visit" the world; that there is no Trinity; that the name of Jesus should never be introduced into our prayers; that Christ will not come again; that there is no atonement, no resurrection, and no judgment,-in short, that Christianity, as taught in the New Testament, is a fable, rooted in error, and fundamentally at issue with a true belief in God. Now, the events of the last few years have quite cured us of prudery. We are prepared for a good deal of liberality, and to overlook it until, at least, we all come to a better state of things; but this on the part of Dean Stanley is quite too bad. In fact, in a dignitary of the Church of England it is a scandal, and a shameful one too. As we said, it simply comes to this, 432 Are the clergy to be allowed to teach anything out of a Church of England pulpit, no matter what? As far as we can see, Mr. Voysey might teach that there is no God, and Dean Stanley would condone it on the ground of his devout, humble faith in the perfectibility and supremacy of the human principle. We may as well ordain Mr. Bradlaugh to-morrow, and make him Canon of Westminster. We have no doubt that the opportunity of a closer study of that remarkable person's mental inconsistencies would reveal to Dean Stanley much humble faith floriating in secret.' THE CHURCH IN JAMAICA. A Parliamentary return, moved for by Mr. Crum Ewing, has just been published, containing information of the amount paid from imperial and colonial funds for ecclesiastical purposes in each of the West India colonies and British Guiana, with population, church attendance, etc. extracts from this valuable return; but we are glad to learn from the English We have not space this month for any Independent, that action has already been taken in regard to Jamaica. In the beginning of last month an influential deputation, comprising representatives of the leading Nonconformist bodies, and headed by a score of M.P.'s, waited on Earl Granville and Mr. Monsell at the Colonial Office on the subject of the Jamaica Church Establishment, whose lease runs out this year. The object of the deputation was to enter a protest against its renewal, a matter which is now entirely in the hands of the Colonial Office. The business was introduced by Mr. Crum Ewing, M.P., and Dr. Underhill read a paper setting out the statistics of the question. He was followed by Dr. Mullens, the Rev. J. T. Brown, of Northampton, and Mr. Brewin, of the Society of Friends, who have both visited Jamaica, and Sir John Bowring. The main facts insisted upon were, that the population of Jamaica was upwards of 440,000, that the attendants on the services of the Episcopal Church were only 40,000, while at the chapels of other denominations, built and sustained wholly by voluntary contributions, and, to a large extent by the negroes themselves, they were at least three times as numerous. Yet the Episcopal clergy are maintained by colonial taxation, and their support is a charge upon the small and heavily-burdened income of the island to the extent of £26,000 a year. The manifest injustice and impolicy of such an arrangement were insisted upon, and the precedent of the Government policy with regard to the Irish Church was quoted, as applying with the greatest possible force to the circumstances of Jamaica. Earl Granville informed the deputation that he had already called the attention of the Governor to this matter and asked for information. He had told Sir John Grant that the Home Government were anxious that everything possible should be done to improve the moral and religious condition of the population, but that the means used for this purpose must not involve the ascendency of any creed. The representations of the deputation would strengthen the hands of the Government in maintaining this principle. As there is no danger of " endowment" in Jamaica, the answer of the noble Earl may be regarded as satisfactory. There is little doubt that the Jamaica and Irish Establishments will expire together.' concurrent Printed by MURRAY AND GIBB, North-East Thistle Street Lane, and Published by WILLIAM OLIPHANT and Co., 7, South Bridge, Edinburgh, on the 1st of September 1869. H |