^imw -"^'-'-^ mm: I 'sm: w Jf i:^ oi Q^ Q^ .^^^ 5;:a. "^:^ AT PRINCETON, N. J. SAMtJEL AGNEW, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. Q4t ■ '*-©\\cQ of employing violent means in religion, implies di- rectly that these things are indifferent in the sight of God, If false doctrine, heresy, and schism are CONDUCT OF CHRISTIANS. 43 to be regarded as such mere peccadilloes as not to be worth punishing or restraining by the arm of the secular power, we cannot with any consistency believe them to be grievous sins, liable to heavy future judgments. According to this principle, therefore, sincerity must be considered as every- thing, and orthodoxy as nothing : Hymenaeus and Philetus, whose blasphemies St. Paul so strongly condemns, will be placed (supposing them to have believed what they taught) on a level with Paul himself; the apostles, generallj-, who went about preaching the word, will be equalized in God's sight with those who thought " they did God ser- vice" by killing them ; and "the truth," in the cause of which Jesus lived and died, will be ac- counted a matter of little or no consequence. I scarcely need remark how utterly at variance such opinions are both with reason and revelation. And as for the other sentiment alluded to, though the conclusion be right to which it leads, it is en- tirely out of place and erroneous. If we are to abstain from the punishment of religious offences out of humanitij, because we should not like to be persecuted ourselves, this principle, if followed up, would lead the civil magistrate to withhold pun- ishment from all offences, of whatever kind. No one likes to undergo penalties or to submit to re- straints of any kind ; but while we admit that all restrictions and punishments which are not called for and authorized by the demands of public expediency are (however slight they may be in 44 CONDUCT OF CHRISTIANS. degree) acts of cruelty and oppression, we must also admit, that all which are thus requisite for the good of the community, and which relate to matters under the civil magistrate's cognizance, are not to be regarded as cruel, however heavy. The only question is, not whether coercion and punishment are evils in themselves or not (which no one, surely, ever doubted), but in what cases and under what circumstances the magistrate is authorized and bound to employ them. The true account of the matter is seldom given ; which is, that though it is no cruelty to inflict, for the public benefit, heavy punishments on " heinous and grievous offenders," and though irreligion and heresy are grievous of- fences, they are not such as fall within the province of the civil magistrate : for them another judge and another tribunal are appointed. But it may be urged, is a man to be suffered with impunity to propagate, on the plea of con- science, doctrines which, forming a part of his re- ligion, may be utterly subversive of all morality and all government ? The case is no imaginary one. The Anabaptists of Munster, under Knip- perdoling, made polygamy and perfect freedom of divorce a part of their system, and set all law and all established governments at defiance. Some others in Germany called themselves Adamites, renounced the use of clothing, and proclaimed a community of goods and of women. Is the teach- ing of these and similar doctrines to be tolerated, even in those who do not themselves act upon CONDUCT OF CHRISTIANS. 45 them, on the ground that heresy and schism are religious offences, and out of the jurisdiction of the magistrate? Certainly not. No one should be permitted by the civil governors, either to be a thief, or to induce others to be so. Since it never could have" been the design of the Almighty that the secular power should be precluded from self- defence, it must follow that those who teach doc- trines subversive of it hnng themselves under its lash ; not, however, as religious, but as civil offend- ers — as aiders and abetters of crime. But, then, the practical ill consequences of any doctrine must be such as are avowed by the parties holding it themselves, not such as are merely alleged, or even proved by their adversaries, to be the natural and consistent result of the doctrines. If this rule be not adhered to, a door would be opened for un- , limited persecution, since it is easy for an adversary to deduce, with some plausibility, the most danger- ous consequences from almost any doctrine, as some infidels have lately done with respect to the Christian religion itself. And the opponent of any set of opinions may not only be sincere in thinking that they lead to practical evil, but his arguments to prove such tendency may be just ; i. e., he may prove that the holder of them must, or may, in con- sistency with his tenets, approve of such and such conduct: yet the other may happen to be so in- consistent (according to his opponent's view) as not to perceive or admit any such consequences ; so that, instead of inculcating or encouraging such 46 CONDUCT OF CHRISTIANS. conduct as is deduced from his principles, he may, perhaps, be a sincere and earnest preacher against it. I would not, indeed, say that in every such case all the dangers of an erroneous system are com- pletely done away ; but it is evident that they must be incalculably diminished. Augustine (commonly designated as a saint) insists upon it, that the here- tics he wrote against could not, with such impious tenets as theirs, practise any moral duties aright ; and he seems to think that the orthodox were con- sequently showing a great leniency in allowing them to possess any property, and even to live. And I need not remind you how often it has been proved, perfectly to the satisfaction, no doubt, of the writers themselves, that Calvinism leads neces- sarily in theory, and may be expected to lead com- monly in practice, to an utter carelessness of life and disregard of all distinctions of virtue and vice : yet we know that there are, and have been, whole nations of professed Calvinists who, in successive generations, have not appeared at all below their neighbours of other persuasions in the general tone of their morals. I will not, indeed, undertake to prove that their doctrine has no dangerous ten- dency ; but it must not be inferred that every Cal- vinist who may plead this doctrine in justification of the crimes he is committing (saying, for in- stance, that he was predestinated to do what he did, and consequently could not help it), was ac- tually led into those crimes as a consequence of the CONDUCT OF CHRISTIANS. 47 doctrine he holds : it is natural to every man to seek an excuse for his misconduct wherever he can find it ; but it is possible that this justification may- be merely an after-thought, and that the very same man might have been guilty of the very same sin even though he had been of a totally different per- suasion. The ill consequences, however, which are ac- knowledged by the professors of any religion as flowing from it render it, so far, justly punishable by the civil authorities ; and all men may fairly be required, under penalties, to abjure, renounce, and protest against any such consequences. Papists, for instance, and any others, may fairly be called on to disavow the right of the pope to depose princes ; or any other tenet which, like that, is di- rectly subversive of civil society, or of the moral conduct which is necessary for its temporal wel- fare. And, among others, I think all men may be justly required to renounce the doctrine that coer- cive measures can justifiably be employed in the service of true religion, and that the civil magis- trate has, as such, any control in respect of the purely spiritual concerns of Christ's kingdom. I would not, again, be understood to deny the right of the civil governor to look to the general conduct of bodies of men of whatever description, and among the rest religious communities. If it appear, for instance, on careful and unprejudiced examination, that papists, or that freemasons, or that the members of some particular literary or 48 CONDUCT OF CHRISTIANS. scientific society, are hostile to the government, even though that hostility should not appear a necessary consequence of their principles and in- stitutions, they may justly, with a view to self- defence, be constrained by the civil power. Thus, while there existed a pretender to the British crown, not only the papists, but the Scotch Epis- copalians, on account of their inclination to Ja- cobitism, became, not unjustly, objects of suspicion to the government ; though the religion professed by the latter of these was, and is, the very same which in England is established by law. But still, as it is not on account of religious, but of political tenets alone that they can justly be subjected to the censure of the magistrate, he who would con- form to the spirit of the Gospel is bound to seize the earliest opportunity of substituting, whenever it can be done with safety, political tests for re- ligious ; of securing the allegiance of the subject and the temporal welfare of society, whenever it is possible, by any other means rather than by such as cannot but be likely to create erroneous ideas and to lead to practical evils. For when any religion is proscribed by secular authority, it must always be difficult to keep clearly before men's mind the important truth, that no offences against God alone are justly cognizable before a civil tribunal; that the enactment of temporal penalties, restrictions, and disabilities for religious delinquencies, considered as such, is persecution, and expressly forbidden by the Author of our faith. CONDUCT OF CHRISTIANS. 49 But in all such cases as I have mentioned, when such occur, we are bound, for the reasons above stated, to look, not to the supposed necessary con- sequences of any doctrine, but to the actual and habitual conduct of those who profess it. I have implied all along that the protection oi any religion by the state (I mean by compulsory means) is as much to be deprecated as its perse- cution. Indeed, there is scarcely any difference between the two, as far as regards the encroach- ment on religious liberty. To punish a man for professing one doctrine, or for not professing another ; to punish him for not conforming to any particular religious community, or to dictate to that community what shall be their faith and ordi- nances, are all alike usurpations of that authority which Christ has delegated to no one. But to this you replied by objecting, " Are, then, the professors of the religion held by the civil rulers not to be protected by them from violence ; from insult and abuse; from calumny, ridicule, and blasphemy ?" Undoubtedly they ought to enjoy this protection, not only of their persons and property, but of their comfort and feelings also. The state is both authorized and bound to pro- hibit and to guard against, by her own appropriate penalties, not only everything that may tend to a breach of the peace, but also everything that un- necessarily interferes with the comfort and mo- lests the feelings of any one. 1 say, unnecessarily, because it may be painful, indeed, to a man's feel- E 50 CONDUCT OF CHRISTIANS. ings to have his opinions controverted, and to be obliged to encounter opponents; but, then, free discussion is necessary for the attainment and maintenance of truth. Not so with ridicule and insult : to forbid these can be no violation of reli- gious liberty, since no man can be bound in con- science to employ such weapons ; they have mani- festly no tendency to advance the cause of truth ; they are, therefore, analogous to the slaughter of women and children, and other non-belligerents, which is regarded by all civilized nations as a violation of the laws of war ; these being unneces- sary cruelties, since they have no direct tendency to bring the war to a conclusion. But it is evident that all this reasoning applies with equal force to the case of persons of every religious persuasion, whether Christians of various sects, or Jews, or Mohammedans. All of these, though they must be prepared, indeed, to encounter fair argument, should be protected not only from persecution, but from insult, libel, and mockery, as occasioning a useless interruption of public or of domestic peace and comfort ; and this being an offence against society, may justly be prohibited and punished by human laws. Nor would it, again, be any encroachment on the spiritual kingdom of Christ if the legislature should think fit to require, as a qualification for certain offices, some kind of knowledge of religion as a part of the education of a well-informed man, Europeans in our East Indian settlements are re- CONDUCT OF CHRISTIANS. 51 . quired, as I am informed, to possess some ac- quaintance with the Koran, and with the sacred books of the Hindoos, as a quaUfication for certain situations under government ; now if it should ever be thought desirable by the legislature of any state that a corresponding qualification should be exacted of those who are to take a share in the government, or to administer justice in a country where Christianity is professed and publicly taught ; if they should be required, I mean, to give proof of some degree of knowledge of what the Christian religion is, such an enactment would be no viola- tion of religious liberty, no usurpation of spiritual authority ; because it cannot be against a man's conscience to acquire such knowledge, provided he is not called upon to make diuy profession of faith; to assent to or abjure any doctrine, or to declare any opinion on the subject. To require that would be a very diflferent thing. To exact of a member of parliament or a justice of the peace to subscribe to the thirty-nine articles, for instance, or to any one of them, would be a departure from the spirit of the gospel ; but to require him to learn them all by heart, or ten times as much more, however useless and politically absurd such a regulation might be considered, would be no offence to the most tender conscience of a papist or a Presbyterian, any more than it is matter of scruple to a good Christian in India to make him- self acquainted with the doctrines of the Shaster and the Koran, Avhich arc professed by the people 52 CONDUCT OF CHRISTIANS. he has to govern. Such a requisition would, in fact, have no more to do with conscience than if it were thought fit to require a diploma from the universities, or an education at the Inns of Court, as a qualification for office. I believe, also, that in our East Indian dominions the rule is estab- lished which I have just adverted to, viz., the pro- hibition of all open insult and mockery directed against the Mohammedan and the pagan worship. The regulation originated, it is likely, in motives of expediency, that the natives might not be exas- perated to rebellion; but it is no less just than politic, whether its justness was or was not con- sidered by the framers of it. On the same principle, I think that, in a country where Christianity prevails, a man is fairly ame- nable to the laws for openly working on Sundays, and for profane swearing. These are, in such a country, public nuisances and misdemeanours, since they otfend and scandalize the feelings of those who see them : and they must be allowed to be every way uncalled for. No man can think himself bound in conscience to curse and swear; and though he may hold it lawful to labour on the Lord's day, he cannot doubt that it is lawful to ab- stain. Nor can he complain of the hardship in a temporal point of view ; of a restriction common to all his neighbours ; and which, therefore, can give them no advantage, in the way of business, over himself. Besides which, if a man were per- mitted, and thought fit, publicly to labour in his CONDUCT OP CHRISTIANS. 53 calling on the Lord's day, it cannot be doubted that he would require those in his employ to do the same ; so that the restriction is not only no vi- olation of conscience, but is even rather a protec- tion to it. But I have added, oj^enly and publicly, because it is the publicity alone ihat gives the scandal, and thereby constitutes the nuisance. If any one chose to shut himself up in a private room, and there secretly to employ himself in secular oc- cupations all through the Sunday, he would be guilty of no offence that can justly come under the cognizance of the civil magistrate. These, then, which I have now mentioned, are not properly exceptions to the rule, that, under the gospel dispensation, the secular power has no right to interfere in religious matters, but rather expla- nations of the assertion. The state is bound to protect the persons and properly, and to provide for the temporal peace and welfire of its subjects; but for religious offences men can justly be tried and punished by God alone, or by those who have received a commission from him, which no secular magistrates ever did receive, except under the the- ocracy of the Israelites. How much Christians of various ages and coun- tries have departed, both in theory and practice, from this principle, I have already briefly and gen- erally hinted. To enumerate in detail all the in- stances of such departure would be a tedious and a painful, and, to one at all versed in history, a needless task. To whatever church we turn our £ 2 54 CONDUCT OF CHRISTIANS. attention, with a view to the point I have been considering, w^e find, whether we look to its past history or its present situation, that in all, or nearly- all, Christians have enacted and approved, if not such laws as imply downright sanguinary persecu- tion, yet religious restriction and coercion of some kind or other ; the enforcement of rules, and inflic- tion of civil penalties, not for the temporal peace and comfort of society, but for the benefit of the soul of the individual, and for the glory of God and advancement of true rehgion. I shall, in a future letter, examine with this view some circumstances relative to the church of which you are a member; as I consider that not only «ome things have been practised in it which are at variance with the purely spiritual character of Christ's kingdom, but also some others have been thought such which are not, and have on that ground been exposed to a censure which they do not merit. The line has seldom been accurately drawn, and on just principles ; but, to an attentive and candid reasoner, I do not conceive the task to be so difficult as some might imagine. It will be necessary, however, for this purpose, to inquire first into the character and extent of the authority rightfully claimed by the Christian church ; after which I shall proceed to give an outline of the observations 1 made to you on the alliance of church and state, and on religious es- tablishments. AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 55 LETTER III. on the authority of the church. My dear — - — , While Jesus Christ not only claimed no tem- poral sovereignty, but firmly refused to accept it when pressed upon him, he nevertheless asserted his regal dignity : he told Pilate that he was a king, though he assured him that his kingdom was not of this world. And he delegated authority in this his spiritual empire, not to kings or other civil magistrates, but to apostles, as destitute as himself of all secular power, and as far from claiming any. " As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you :" *' I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me : I have given unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven : whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose- soever sins ye retain, they are retained : whatso- ever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven : and lo ! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." I scarcely need remark to you that these expres- sions imply, not merely a delegation of authority, but also that it was delegated, not to the apostles alone, as individuals (since they, as individuals, 56 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. were mortal, and Christ, therefore, could not always be with them), but also to their successors, the bishops and pastors of the church, whom they, doubtless under the direction of the Holy Spirit, ordained to fill those offices, and who have con- tinued in unbroken succession down to the present day. Nor can it be necessary to reply at length to the empty cavil, that the force of this uninter- rupted succession is destroyed by the series having passed through the Romish church, whose manifold abuses, and whose usurpation of secular power, obliged Protestants to separate from her commu- nion ; or rather to make such a reform as induced the Romish church to withdraw from theirs. It is evident that the misconduct of their predecessors cannot divest them of their right to ordain succes- sors in that authority which -was really theirs. If a former king of Great Britain have advanced a groundless claim to the crown of France, this can- not invalidate the right of his descendants, who have renounced that claim, to inherit their own proper dominions. The power of the church, the community which Christ established, and which comprehends all indi- vidual Christians, as well as their spiritual gover- nors appointed by him, has manifestly no less a claim to be acknowledged of Divine origin than that of the Jewish theocracy ; nor has, consequently, any less title to reverence. The superstitions, however, of the Romish hierarchy were so palpa- ble and monstrous as to produce a reaction in the AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 57 sentiments of Protestants, who have always beea disposed to regard with jealousy all exercise of a power which had been so shockingly abused, and, in some instances, even to set it at naught alto- gether. Such is human nature, that we are always liable to fall from one extreme into another, and to condemn the use of that whose mischievous abuse we have experienced. But " the church" (that is, the Catholic or universal church) certainly is not, as some seem to regard it, merely a collec- tive name for all who happen to agree in certain opinions, like the names of " Cartesian" and " New- tonian ;" but is a society, or body-corporate (if I may use such an expression), of Divine institution, compared by St. Paul to a natural body, and of which all individual Christians are members, having a certain relation to each other and to Christ, their Head. There are manifestly two ways in which the governors of the church may exceed their com- mission, though the distinction is one which is generally overlooked. Their power being both restricted to its own proper province (viz., spirit- ual), and limited even within that province, it is evident that to transgress the appointed boundary in either way is to assume an authority which does not belong to them. Christians have not (considered as Christians) any secular power; their governors, that is, their spiritual governors, bishops and ministers, have no right, as such, to interfere in civil transactions, nor to employ coer- 58 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. cive means of any kind. But it is plain that the church may abstain from all encroachments of this kind ; may refrain from all usurpation of secular authority, and yet may be guilty of an usurpation of the other kind, by " teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," by imposing new condi- tions of salvation, by inculcating as indispensable articles of faith such dogmas as are not warranted by Scripture. The former of these offences may be properly designated as an encroachment on the state, being an assumption of that temporal juris- diction which belongs to the civil magistrate: the latter is a direct encroachment on the authority of Christ himself, who has revealed to man, in the Holy Scriptures, the truths which he requires us to believe as a condition of salvation. This latter offence may be compared to that of a subordinate magistrate who encroaches on the royal preroga- tive, by subjecting those under his control to unau- thorized enactments of his own : but if he take upon him to assume power over those not placed under his control, or to violate a foreign territory, his offence corresponds with the former kind of usurpation — the interference of the spiritual ruler with secular affairs. What, then, it may be asked, are the limits of the spiritual authority with which Christ has in- trusted the vicegerents of his kingdom ? If you were to answer according to the doctrines of your own church, I should, if I rightly understand her meaning, fully coincide with you. The church AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 59 (according to the articles) has power to ordain, alter, and abrogate rites and ceremonies, as she may think nnost conducive to good order, decency, and edification ; and she has authority in matters of faith, though not such as to permit her to im- pose articles of belief not warranted by Scripture, nor to interpret one passage of it so as to contra- dict another. To allow the church this latter power would be to supersede the Scriptures, by teaching men to look to her, and not to them, to know what God has revealed. To deny her the other power would be to supersede the use of the church altogether, since, if those things which are in the Scriptures left at large, such as the mode, for instance, of celebrating the Lord's Supper, the times and places of joint religious worship, &c.; if these, I say, unspecified points, which must be determined by some one, are not to be determined by the church in each country respectively, the very purpose for which Jesus Christ instituted this society is defeated, since, if she has any authority at all (which he expressly gave her), and has none in matters determined in Scripture, she must have it in things wwdetermined in Scripture. And it should be remembered that the lowest interpreta- tion (and I think the right one) which can, with any shadow of reason, be put on the expressions of the " keys," and " the remission and retainment of sins," is, that spiritual governors may, at their dis- cretion, admit men within the pale of the visible church, exclude offenders from it, and restore them on submission. 60 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. The distinction drawn between " power to or- dain rites and ceremonies," and '* authority in mat- ters of faiih," seems to me perfectly reasonable, supposing, I mean, that I interpret the article cor- rectly. In matters of discipline, the positive in- stitutions of the church make things right and wrong which were left undetermined in Scripture; such as the observance of religious festivals, forms of public worship, administration of the sacra- ments, and things of that nature. And to disregard the authority of the church in matters of this de- scription (I mean, of course, in such cases where there is nothing ordained that is against Scripture) ; to consider things which were originally indifferent as indifferent, after the church has enacted reg- ulations respecting them, is an offence against Christ himself, the Head of that body ; not so great an offence, I allow, as direct rebellion against his own immediate commands, but as truly an offence. For Christians should remember that they cannot obey, in many instances, even the express com- mands of Scripture, unless they comply either with some kind of ecclesiastical discipline, or with some unauthorized devices of their own instead. Our Saviour expressly commands the celebration of the holy communion, and St. Paul, the assembling of Christians for the purpose of prayer and religious exhortation. Now these things must be done in some time, place, and form, if the commands are to be obeyed at all ; and if each follows his own fancy in these points, there will be *' divisions AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 61 among Christians," *' they will come together, not for the better, but for the worse," like the disorderly Corinthians, of whom every one had a Psalm, had an exhortation, had an interpretation, &c., which led to confusion and discord, all which are ex- pressly forbidden in Scripture itself. It seems im- possible, therefore, for an unprejudiced mind to doubt that Christians are bound to " obey them that have rule over them, and esteem them very highly for their work's sake," and that Christ established a spiritual society, with spiritual officers over it, for the express purpose, among others, of regulating things of this nature, which must be regulated in some way or other ; from which it follows, inevita- bly, that such regulations of the church have the sanction of his authority ; that " whatsoever they shall hind or loose on earth," that is, whatever or- dinances and decrees of this kind they establish or abrogate, " shall be bound or loosed in heaven ;" that is, such their decisions will be ratified and con- firmed by him, their Master, in heaven. And, accordingly, although it be in itself morally indif- ferent, for instance, whether the communicants receive the Lord's Supper standing, kneeling, or (as the apostles did at the institution of it) lying down, or in any other posture ; yet in eacn branch of the Church of Christ that posture ought to be used, as a point of reverent obedience to him, which is there prescribed by his ministers. It is not even expressly declared in Scripture that this sacrament should be administered by the priest or 62 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. spiritual elder ; but it is evident, that for the sake of that decency and good order which are dis- tinctly enjoined by St. Paul, some persons must preside at the celebration ; and ordained ministers seeming to have the fairest claim to be selected for this office, the church has, accordingly, in all ages, 1 believe, assigned it to them, which appointment, therefore, ought to be regarded as one of the things which are " bound in heaven," which have their sanction and ratification from Christ himself. The authority of the church in matters of faith is a point of great nicety, and in which it is impos- sible to draw the line so accurately. It is evident that the decision of the church does not in this, as in the other case, make anything right or wrong; she can only declare, from the Scriptures, what are the Christian doctrines and duties, and declare this by a fallible judgment. But there can be no doubt that this society was instituted, in part, for the pur- pose of preserving and teaching the true faith, in subserviency to the Word of God. The church, both pastors and their flock, being but fallible, may err in their deductions from it, and no man ought to assent, on human authority, to any doctrine or practice which he may be convinced is thus erro- neous, supposing, always, that he have attentively considered the question, and allowed due weight to the numbers, the learning, or the sound sense of those who may think differently from him. But there can be no doubt, in any candid mind, that the ministers, and other such members of the AUTHORITY OF THE CHT3RCH. 63 church as have power and opportunity, were de- signed by their Founder to have the office of teach- ing the Christian religion in a regular and syste- matic form to their children and others who may need instruction. There are some very just re- marks to this purpose, in a little work on Christian Tradition, which I saw at your house, by a Dr. Hawkins, if I recollect rightly, of Oxford, in which the author remarks, that the New Testament Scriptures are evidently not calculated, nor could have been intended, to convey to learners the ele- ments of the Christian faith, all the books of which it consists having been written for the use of Chris- tian converts ; and that, therefore, it must have been the intention of Jesus Christ that the church he established should have the office of drawing out and setting in order, with a view to instruction, the truths of the Gospel, referring to the inspired writers for the p?'oofs of everything advanced ; the error of the Romanists consisting in their claim of authority for their tradition, independent of Scrip- ture, and, in many instances, superior to it. But though the spiritual rulers and other mem- bers of the church can claim no infallibility, but are bound to make a constant appeal to the Bible, and to rectify every error they may detect, they must be also bound to do their utmost to maintain, in its purity, what they are convinced, to the best of their judgment, is Gospel-truth ; to " hold fast the faith once delivered to the saints." Fallible though they must be, after all, they must not only use their 64 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. best endeavours to ascertain the right sense of Scripture, and to instruct men in sound doctrines, but they must also preserve those sound doctrines, and enforce corresponding practice within the church, by excluding from the society all such as are incorrigibly faulty in either point. This is not merely authorized, but expressly commanded in Scripture. St. Paul charges his churches to "re- ject, after the first and second admonition, a man that is a heretic ;" to " mark those that cause di- visions among them, and avoid them ;" not to as- sociate with such as "walk disorderly ;" to with- draw from the society of any one who disobeys his (Paul's) injunctions, " that he may be ashamed ;" and if any "one that is called a brother (that is, a Christian) be a notorious evil liver, with such a one not even to eat." Indeed, Christians would commit a worse offence than the heretic himself (supposing him sincere in his error) if, while con- vinced of the falsity and danger of his doctrines, they yet lent him their countenance, and left him opportunity of infecting others. The very notion is absurd, of a society whose members disagree as to the fundamental principles on which it rests,and the objects it proposes. It would be like an as- semblage of mariners in a ship, who could not agree as to the direction in which it should be steered. Nor, again, can any society subsist, at least to any beneficial purpose, unless its members comply with the regulations essential to the attain- ment of its proposed objects. The church, ac- AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 65 cordingly, is bound, as, indeed, St. Paul enjoins, to enforce on her members the observance of her rules, whether founded on the principles of natural morality or on positive ordinance. And as this enforcement must not be by violent means, the last resort of the church, when admonition and cen- sure fail, her " ratio ultima" must be exclusion fronni the society ; in other words, excommunication. This term sounds harshly, partly from its associa- tion with the abuses of the Romish church, and partly from the secular penalties which in many Protestant states have been superadded ; but these are no part of excommunication, which means simple rejection from the society, which it would be most unreasonable for one to complain of who wilfully and pertinaciously infringed the regulations of that society. The celebration, for instance, of the Lord's Supper, is one of the ordinances estab- lished by the Author of our religion, and made binding by him on all his subjects. The particular church to which you belong has prescribed a de- cent and solemn form for this celebration, and re- quires every one of her members to attend on it (unless there be a reasonable cause to the con- trary) " at least three times in the year, whereof Easter be one." Now any one who will neglect to comply with this regulation, and who, on being ad- monished by the minister, will yet, without any reasonable excuse, persist in absenting himself, is a wilful and deliberate violator of an essential law of the kingdom of which he is a subject, and this, F 2 66 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. equally, whether his noncompliance proceed from disbelief of the universal obligation to obey that command of Christ, or from determination to per- sist in a life of sin, or from any other cause. Such a person, therefore, has forfeited all right to retain his place in that community : its officers are clearly bound to expel him. Will this be called an undue assumption, or a harsh employment of authority ? I would be glad to know whether there is any other voluntary society, literary or scientific, any club, that does not do the same. There is not even an association for purposes of amusement or conviv- iality which has not its regulations and standing orders, and which does not exclude from the list of its members those who pertinaciously refuse compliance with them, or which is ever censured for so doing, however frivolous the regulations themselves may be thought. And the reasonable- ness of this is obvious : it is that those who choose to become, or to continue members of any such club or institution, should make up their minds either to conform to the regulations to which they have thus freely subjected themselves, or else to withdraw. So, also, in the case of Christian ecclesiastical dis- cipline, it is absolutely essential to its character that it be voluntary; that no one should be sub- jected to it except by his own choice. The Chris- tian church has no secular power ; no right of ab- solute coercion ; she has, indeed, no Divine authority whatever, except over her own members, as long as AUTIIOKITY OF THE CHURCH. 67 they continue to be such by their own choice, and claim rights appertaining to them as such. To compel any one to become, or to continue a mem- ber, would evidently be to extend the church's au- thority to those exempt from it ; authority of a sec- ular character. The aliens from Christ's king- dom, and the rebels against his dominion, are to be judged by himself alone ; the authority he delegated to the pastors of his flock extends only to those who choose to remain within the fold. In the sight of God, indeed, every one who has once been made a member of the church must ever remain a sub- ject, though he may be an unworthy and rebellious subject of the kingdom of lieaven, since no one can, by his own act and deed, throw off rightful allegi- ance; but it is in God's sight alone that he is thus to be regarded : the visible church on earth are no longer to regard him as one of their members. *' If he refuse to hear the church, let him be unto you as a heathen man and a publican." 1 believe that the disregard of this distinction has led to much confusion in the judgments and error in the conduct of both Roman Catholics and Protestants. Because every Christian is necessa- rily, and can never cease to be, a member of Christ's church (which before God and his own conscience certainly is the case), and because her purely spiritual denunciations cannot restrain or recall one who resolves to disregard them, hence the secular power has been called in, and coercive means employed, to enforce the mandates of the 68 AUTHORITY OF THE CHLRCH. church on a refractory or apostate member, towards whom her admonitions have become powerless, but who, nevertheless, still is a member. And it is on this ground, if J recollect right, that some of the Romanists, while they disclaim the right of perse- cuting pagans or Jews, insist on that right with respect to heretics ; contending that the one are aliens, but the other rebellious subjects, and con- sequently punishable by forcible means. And it is true, they are rebellious subjects in the sight of God, but the authority of the church on earth over them ceases on their expulsion from it ; she is charged expressly by her Founder to regard such in the light of heathen men ; that is, aliens, with whom they have no religious connexion. In short, the authority delegated by Christ to the officers of his kingdom must extend over such only as they can restrain or correct by the means he has per- mitted them to use ; now these means, since they are exclusively spiritual (all forcible methods being expressly forbidden), can have no influence on any one who, '' refusing to hear the church," is excluded from her communion; it follows, therefore, inevi- tably, that such a one ceases from that time to be under her jurisdiction (though, of course, he con- tinues responsible to his Master), till he voluntarily return and make submission. In this respect there is a coincidence between the Jewish church and the Christian, since the former also claimed no jurisdiction over mankind at large ; neither having, nor pretending to (as I AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 69 formerly remarked to you), any commission to put down idolatry in other nations, and compel them to observe the law of Moses. No idols, indeed, were to be permitted in the very land itself, which was altogether holy to the Lord ; but even within that territory hired servants and other strangers were permitted to dwell, not only without being required to conform to all the Mosaic institutions, but without being even permitted to celebrate, for instance, the Passover, unless, at their own desire, they were initialed into the church of Israel. Wherein, then, consisted, it may be said, the dif- ference, in respect to this point, between the two churches? Evidently in this: that every indi- vidual of that nation, all the children of Israel, were necessarily members of that united church and state ; they had no more liberty to leave it than the subject of any other secular government has to re- nounce his obedience to it. It was a temporal kingdom, and therefore its regulations were very suitably enforced by temporal penalties, and, in the last resort, by death. The Christian church, on the contrary, is not confined to one nation, but all men are invited, though no one can be, by coercive means, compelled to join it. Every one, indeed, is bound to do so, who hears the invitation, at his own peril, and is also bound to walk worthy of his vo- cation ; but the penalties under which he is so bound are not such as man is impowered to in- flict ; they are those of the next world. Persuasion and remonstrance — the " meekness 70 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. of instruction" — are the engines by which the gos- pel " fishers ofnnen" are to seek for converts, and to retain those of whom they have possession. I need hardly stop to refute the absurd justification of violent nneasures which some papists have drawn from a literal interpretation of the expression, "compel them to come in;" which is a natural, and, indeed, usual way of speaking of an earnest and pressing invitation. In fact, the very word I have just used might with as good reason be inter- preted literally as implying the use of force ; and thence it might be inferred, that if any one was said to have pressed his friend to stay and dine with him, this mu>t signify that he employed a press-gang to detain him by bodily force. Such an interpreter, too, must think himself bound to believe that violent means were used towards Jesus by his two disciples, who, after the resurrection, when "he made as if he would have gone farther" (Luke xxiv., 28), are said by the Evangelist to have " con- strained him" to abide with them. But though the Christian church has no author- ity to compel men to come in (as no society not possessing secular power can have), she has au- thority, as every free society must have, to compel them to stay out. And she evidently has a right to inflict on her offending members any kind of pun- ishment she may think fit, they having always the option of undergoing it or leaving the society. The primitive church seems to have been sufli- ciently severe with those whose apostacy, immo- AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 71 rality, or heresy had given offence, being naturally desirous, as placed in the midst of foes and slander- ers, not only to adhere to the principles of the so- ciety, but also to refute the calumnies of "those that were without." We read, accordingly, of long and painful penances imposed on the more grievous offenders, and of their gradual readmit- tance after passing through, several distinct stages of humiliation. First, they were only allowed to stand at the door of their place of worship; then to be admitted within it as " prostrate," lying pros- trate during the service; next, as permitted to stand up, but in a distinct place ; and, lastly, after being admitted to an equality, in other points, with the rest of the congregations, as being still ex- cluded from the communion of the Lord's Supper till a further period had elapsed. The bishop had the right of modifying and remitting these pen- ances, according to the degree of penitence in the offenders ; but we may suppose that one who knew that he put his life in jeopardy by accepting the episcopal office v/as not likely to be remiss or. over lenient in these matters. If any chose, as it was likely many would, to remain excluded rather than submit to such penance, there was no remedy : " If the unbelieving depart, let him de- part." But afterward, when the civil magistrates were Christian, a remedy seemed to present itself. Considering that it was desirable (as it certainly is) that every such offender should make submis- sion, and seek to be reconciled to the church, and 72 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. forgetting (what is equally true) that this is de- sirable only when such submission is unforced, the secular authorities endcfivoured, literally, to *' compel them to come in," and denounced tem- poral penalties against spiritual offenders, to back the censures of the church by the civil sword, thus striking at the root of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, and incurring his rebuke, " Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of," no less than those disciples who proposed to chastise by fire from heaven the impiety of the Samaritan village. For in any point that affects the present question, let any one draw a distinction between the two cases who can. The language of the church, in primi- tive times, was, what it ought to be always, and what that of all voluntary societies is, "join our society, or not, as you please ; leave it when you please : but if you choose to belong to it, you must practise and submit to all that it appoints." In an evil hour did the church first employ the " arm of flesh" to enforce her decrees. Every church which does so, in the same degree in which she does it is transgressing the fundamental law of a kingdom which is not of this world ; and she never fails to weaken her own proper spiritual au- thority in the same degree. Deservedly is she crippled, like David clad in the false protection of Saul's armour, which, instead of defending him, served only to impede his motions. Let her cast it off, and go forth, like him, in the name of the AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 73 Lord, and with a sling and a stone she will quell the gigantic force of the uncircumcised ! I have said that the church is crippled rather than protected by this unfitting aid. Her own legitimate authority is impaired by calling in the help of the secular power. In the case, for in- stance, which I have been just now speaking of, that of excommunication, the civil penalties and disabilities annexed to it prevent you from inflict- ing it when you ought. The sentence involves a man's civil rights, over which it is the duty of the state to watch. He has, therefore, a right to ap- peal to the temporal power to try the justice of his sentence, and you are liable to have it reversed by an extraneous authority. But suppose it confirmed,' it is an odious and unpopular thing for the govern- ors of the church to interfere with the rights of the citizen. I mention this, not as being really the main objection, but as being, in practice, the one which I believe the most frequently operates to prevent the passage of such a sentence. The real objection is, that since it involves a temporal pen- alty, it is essentially unjust : it is not merely con- sidered as persecution, but it actually is such. And thus it is, that in a multitude of cases you become actually hound, as a duty to your great Master, to excommunicate, and not to excommunicate the very same individual. Suppose him a grievous offender, as a heretic and breeder of divisions in the church, you are clearly bound by St. Paul's in- junction, if he continue in the offence " after the G 74 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. first and second admonition, to reject him ;" yet, again, since in so doing you subject him to the temporal penalties annexed, with your consent by the civil power, to excommunication, it is equally plain that you are bound, by the prohibition of all persecution — that is, all employment of coercion in religious matters — to abstain from pronouncing that sentence. And the same takes place in a multitude of other instances ; so that it is matter of absolute demonstration that the church cannot possibly, when thus aided by the secular power, enjoy and exercise the authority which Christ has given her, according to his intentions. It is not the state, but the church, not the tem- poral, but the spiritual governors, that are to be blamed for these ill consequences. Ignorance of the character of Christ's kingdom is surely more excusable in a civil magistrate than in an ecclesi- astical ruler. If these last do not refuse and pro- test against — much more if they invite — the inter- ference of the other in spiritual concerns, they are responsible for the results of such interference. And one of these results, which is inevitable and obvious, is, that you thus resign the independent authority of the church. By borrowing the power of another, you give up part of your own : having called in the aid of the secular arm, you have fully authorized the state to walch over and con- trol your administration of that discipline which is backed by her authority. The civil power has given you, as it were, the protection of a garrison AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 75 of her own soldiers, commanded, of course, by her own officers, who owe allegiance to her: what sort of independence, think you, does a city enjoy which has the advantage of such a foreign garri- son ? The church, in short, is thus placed in the condition of the horse in the fable, who, for the sake of chastising his enemy the stag, called in to his assistance a man, whom he sullered to mount on his back, and who found him ever after a very useful slave. The civil power, in like manner, when once called in as an ally, may be expected to keep its seat, and, after having helped to put down heretics and schismatics, to employ the church for its own purposes. The only exception to this rule is the converse case ; that of the church prevailing over the state, by contriving to encroach on the secular power to a greater degree than the secular power does on her, till in time she is able to assume a complete temporal dominion. Thus it is that that adulter- ous church, the Babylonish harlot, seated herself " on the back of the beast" and succeeded in estab- lishing that monstrous and impious anomaly, a secular hierarchy — a kind of false theocracy — the empire of the popish see. But this case differs, in fact, but very little from the other, as far as the present case is concerned : when the ecclesiasti- cal and civil powers are intermixed, and their several provinces confusedly blended together; when mutual interference and encroachment have taken place, it signifies comparatively little which 76 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. of the two parties gains, on the whole, an ascend- ency over the other: the principles of Christ's spiritual kingdom are equally violated by the usur- pations of the church or of the state on each other's dominions; nor can any particular church expect that he " will be with them always," and bestow his full blessing on their transactions, as long as they, on their part, are not completely "with him ;" as long as they do not fully comply with his injunctions, by trusting to him alone whose "kingdom is not from hence." The church may, indeed, as I have said, de- mand protection for her members by the civil power, not only from persecution, but from insults and libels ; but, then, this is demanded for them, not as orthodox Christians, but as peaceable citi- zens, a Mohammedan or a pagan having an equal right to it. And the state may require, in return* not only of Christians, but of all her subjects, both that they would obey her laws, and also that they would abstain from inculcating disobedience to her and resistance to the " powers that be." Every assumption, by either community, of any- thing beyond this, is an encroachment on the rights of the other. It may be said, however, and has been said, that though the two societies are distinct, and are naturally and originally independent of each oiher, so that neither of them has any natural ?nght of control in the affairs of the other, they are yet competent, like any other two societies, to form ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 77 an alliance, and to concede each to the other some part of its own rights in exchange for sonne of those belonging to the other party. This opinion I will consider in my next letter. LETTER IV. on the allliance of church and state. My dear , I REMARKED in my last letter that two inde- pendent or sovereign communities may be com- petent to form an alliance for their mutual benefit, by agreeing to impart to each other, reciprocally, some portion of their respective rights. Thus, two independent states, for instance, though neither of them has originally any claim on the territory of th J other, may agree, the one, we will suppose, to allow the other a right of way through her do- minions, and the other, in return, the use of her shores to the mariners of the first, for drawing up their small craft, landing their goods, and drying their nets. And if one of these contracting parlies should think fit, in exchange for defence against an enemy, or support during a famine, to resign to the other her independent sovereignty, and to be enrolled thenceforth as a province of it, no one g2 78 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. could dispute the lawfulness and validity of the contract. The question now before us is, whether the church and the state be communities which may allowably form such an alliance. The question as to the expediency of such alliance must present itself in the second place to those who decide the former question in the affirmative; if that be decided in the negative, the question of expediency is superseded. Bishop Warburton is allowed, I believe, to be the most powerful advocate for the alliance of church and state. Dr. Paley (who, however, is favourable to an established religion) is uncon- vinced by his arguments, though he does not en- ter into any particular examination of them, but merely contends generally, that all attempts "to make the church an engine, or even an ally of the state," are at variance with its fundamental principles. As I am about to enter the lists against so able a champion as Warburton, it may be proper to point out, in the first instance, the strong coin- cidence which exists between our opinions with respect to most of the principles I have already laid down, though they have led us, in the point now under consideration, to opposite conclusions. Indeed, I have actually borrowed from himself many, and may appear to have borrowed more, of the very arguments which seem to me to weigh against his theory. In the first book of his *' Al- ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 79 liance" he remarks (p. 50, 51), "In after ages, when the Roman emperors became Christian, agreeably to the zeal of new converts, they made the civil institutes religious, by introducing laws against sin ; in which, as they were told by their teachers, they were not only authorized, but di- rected, by the examples and precepts of that Scrip- ture which they professed to believe. This greatly contributed to confound the distinction between a church and state. Howev^er, this false judgment did not owe its birth to the Christian religion, where this distinction is so marked out and en- forced as not easily to be mistaken, but to the Jewish, in which those societies were consolidated and, as it were, incorporated. For there they saw, in a civil policy instituted by God himself, and, therefore, to be esteemed most perfect, and, of course, worthy the imitation of all magistrates who professed themselves the servants of that God ; they saw, I say, sins and crimes equally within the magistrate's jurisdiction. They did not reflect that Ma^ jurisdiction was the necessary consequence of a theocracy, a form of government different in kind from all human policies what- ever." In p. 62 he says, "Religion thus com- posing a society, we are now to consider what kind of society it is. First, then, it must needs be sovereign, and independent on the civil." And p. 65, *' this independent religious society hath not, in and of itself, any coercive power of the civil kind ; its inherent jurisdiction being, in its nature 80 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. and use, entirely different fronn that of the state." P. r>7, "As the immediate end of religious society is purity of worship ; and as a necessary means of preserving that purity is uniformity of worship, which cannot be maintained but by expelling from the community all who refuse to comply with what is publicly established, therefore this power of expulsion in every religious society is most fit and useful. But we go farther, and say, that every kind of society, whatever be its end or means, must necessarily, as it is a society, have this power of expulsion ; it is a power inseparable from the very being of society, which can subsist only in the conformity of the will of each natural member to the will of that artificial body which society produces; this being violated, as it must be unless all contraveners be expelled, the society dissolves, and falls back again into nothing." P. 68, "iV/o?'e coercive power than this is both unfit and unjust to be exercised by a religious society." Thus much may suffice to show that I have neither the arrogance to disregard the opinions of so illustrious a writer, nor the misfortune to differ from him altogether. To examine in detail every part of the Inge- nious work in question would require a considera- ble volume ; nor is it at all necessary for my pur- pose to do so; since, in fact, a very great pro- portion of his arguments tend, as I shall presently show, to establish my own conclusion. They have the effect of knitting and compacting together ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 81 the several parts of his system so firmly, that if any part of it be demolished, the whole must fall together. He proves so satisfactorily what con- sequences flow from the alliance of church and state, that if even any one of these consequences can be shown to be destructive of the character of Christ's kingdom, the lawfulness of the alliance itself is overthrown by a " reductio ad ahsurdum,^^ It may be advisable, however, to suggest some further considerations (though without professing to exhaust the subject) beyond what is in strictness necessary to prove the point in question, and to point out some ill consequences not contemplated by Warburton, but which have actually resulted, and must alvi^ays be expected to result, from the system he is defending. Before I proceed further, however, it may be as well to premise one remark (though, in so doing, I anticipate part of what will presently be said), which may be necessary to obtain a hearing for my arguments ; not from you^ indeed, or from any one else who is ready to follow the right, wherever it may lead ; but from some of those to whom you may think fit to communicate what I have said. I be- lieve that a great part of those who accede to Warburton's theory are influenced by the consid- eration that the rejection of it implies the rejection of an established religion ; and that the Church of England, if she resign his principles, must forth- with resign all her property also, together with all right of ever holding any. This, indeed, is more 82 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. than insinuated all along by Warburton himself; but Paley, who protests against the notion of an alliance^ does not admit this consequence. I do not, indeed, entirely coincide in opinion with cither of these great men ; but my principles, as will be shown in the next letter, are not at variance with the existence of a religious establishment, in a cer- tain sense, and in a sense which admits the retain- ment by the church of all her property. But to return : Warburton, it should be observed, in the first place, understood well the character of the Jewish theocracy, as being not an alliance of church and state, but an amalgamation of the two into one institution. He perceived, and has clearly pointed out, that the very notion of an alliance be- tween tlie two communities implies the disiinct character of the two, and the original and natural independency of each on the other. But he con- tends that they, as two independent communities, may and do lawfully form a compact for the mu- tual interchange of their respective rights. Now this, he must admit, holds good in such cases only where the rights which the one party (whether in- dividual or community) resigns are uo\. in defeasible rights, and are such as the other can lawfully ex- ercise. The word " indefeasible" is frequently used by slovenly writers or speakers in a sense which does not belong to it, or without any distinct meaning at all ; but to you I need scarcely remark, that an *' indefeasible right" signifies one of which the party cannot divest himself; which is his to ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 83 keep, but not his to part with. Such are the mu- tual rights, for instance, of married persons: a man cannot lawfully dispose of his wife, although she be hiSy to another person ; nor renounce his claim and abandon her. And the same rule holds good in many other instances. On the other hand, a man's right to his estate, though maintainable against all other men, is defeasible ; that is, he is at full liberty to sell it or give it away. Now 1 contend that the rights which the church resigns by an alliance with the civil power are in- defeasible ; and that those which she receives fronn it in exchange are such as she cannot lawfully ex- ercise. Alliance implies mutual control : now all control of the church in secular affairs, and of the secular power in things relating to religion, are de- cidedly at variance with the character of Christ's spiritual kingdom. For it should be remembered that he not only set up no claim to temporal power, but he also refused steadily to accept it when offered to him. He withdrew from those who would have "taken him by force to make him a king." And he not only asserted no right to juris- diction of a secular nature, but he refused to be judge in an appeal which was freely brought before him. And when the Roman governor, desirous, as it should seem, to acknowledge him as a tem- poral prince, with a view to his own advancement, by one whose supernatural powers he must have known (for how else can we account for the anxiety of so unprincipled a man to save him ?) when Pi- 84 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. late, I say, eagerly pressed him with the question, "Art thou a king?" he disclaimed any other than a "kingdom not of this world ;" and which, conse- quently, precluded all exercise of force by his ser- vants in the cause of their King. Now, can any man of candour and sound judg- ment really think it compatible with ihe notion of such a kingdom, that the supreme ecclesiastical ruler — the governor, not merely of Christians as individual citizens, and in respect to temporalities, but of the Christian church, as a spiritual commu- nity — should be (not accidentally and occasionally, but) necessarily, constantly, and ex-officio, the civil magistrate? Yet this is, as Warburton has, I think, satisfactorily proved, a necessary conse- quence of an alliance of church and state. It is a case in which, as he observes, one of the two com- munities must resign its independence, and submit to be governed by the supreme head of the other. He docs not, indeed, {»ffer any proof that this one must necessarily be the state ; nor can I perceive but that his requsitions might be equally well com- plied with by making the ecclesiastical head (as at Rome) supreme over the state ; by giving, for in- stance, the bishops the nomination of the king and of the members of parliament, as well as by giving these the nomination of bishops, and a control over their proceedings. I am considering, you will ob- serve, which party has the better right to claim su- premacy over the other (in which respect I think they are both equal), not which is the more likely ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 85 to obtain it, in which there is a manifest inequality. When the earthen pot and the iron pot, in the fable, are floating side by side down the stream, it is easy to foresee which will be broken when they are driven together. This, however, does not affect the present ques- tion ; since in either case, equally, the supreme ec- clesiastical ruler must necessarily be a civil ruler at the same time : and it is this that destroys the character of a kingdom not of this world. I say *' necessarily," because the accidental union, in the same individual, of offices pertaining to different communities, does not imply a transfer of rights from the one community to the other. That an individual Christian, whether layman or minister, should chance to be, for instance, a justice of the peace, implies no alliance or mutual interference between the two societies^ any more than the Lin- naean Society could be said to be invested with political power if its president and some of its other members should chance to have a seat in par- liament. That the state should impart to the church a coercive power which does not naturally belong to her, and that the governors of the church should have no authority to " administer, transact, or de- cree anything without the approbation and allow- ance of her supreme head, the magistrate," are con- sequences alike deducible, according to Warburton, from the " alliance." Now there is a presumption on the very face of the matter, that Jesus Christ, H Ob ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. to whom " all power was delivered, in heaven and in earth," would have intrusted his disciples with coercive authority had he intended them to exer- cise it ; and, again, that he or his apostles would have intrusted ecclesiastical authority to the civil magistrates, or, at least, would have impowered the governors of the church to resign into secular hands the supreme control of the church intrusted to their care, had it been his will that this should take place. We need not even look for (though I think we should find it) an express prohibition of such interference : the burden of proof is on the other side ; the advocates for an " alliance" are bound to show an express permission ; since what- ever authority the spiritual governors claim must be, not as lords paramount and owners of the church, but as Christ's delegates, responsible to him for their trust. If the king appointed any one governor of a fort, what would he say to him if he should sur- render the keys of it to another, for the sake of some supposed benefit to his master ? Would he not say that he had no right to do this till he had received express permission from himself? And with respect to the grant of coercive power to the governors of the church, it is plain that it must be exercised over persons and in cases in respect of which the state either had a right itself to exer- cise such power, or had it not; that where the magistrate has this right, it belongs to him, not to ecclesiastical officers, to exercise it ; where he has not the right, he cannot surely confer on another ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 87 what he does not himself possess. It seems evi- dent, therefore, that consequences subversive of Christ's spiritual kingdom must follow from the " alliance" contended for : each of the contracting parties will be endowed by the other with powers of such a character as not to be exercised by them without contravening the designs of the church's heavenly Head ; powers which will, on both sides, be placed in the most unfitting hands. St. Paul's direction to the Corinthians is, that their secular causes should be referred to the arbitration of such among the brethren as were the least eminent for knowledge and judgment in spiritual matters (1 Cor. vi., 4) ; " If ye have judgments in things 'per- taining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church^ Such a one, he seems to think, might very well be '* a wise man" in secular affairs, and '* able to judge between his brethren." It is not necessary, indeed, that Christians should always conform literally to this direction ; but it is undeniable that a civil magistrate, and a very good one, too, may be, and often is, one whose studies and habits occasion him to be but a moderate theo- logian, and as slenderly qualified as any other, the least esteemed of the members of the church, to give judgment in questions of doctrine or discipline. Yet the church must, according to Warburton, submit in everything to his supreme control, neither ordaining or excommunicating any one (which last he allows to be a right essentially inherent in every society), nor making any regulation, nor, in short, 88 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. doing anything, but " by his permission and with his approbation." What would have been the as- tonishment and indignation of St. Paul had he been informed that the elders whom he had appointed over the church at Corinth had agreed to submit all their transactions to the absolute control of the persons who had been, according to his directions, singled out as the most unfit for such control ; those •* least esteemed in the church !" And what, after all, are the proposed advantages to the church which are to compensate for the ad- mission of this monstrous alliance? Warburton mentions three, as all that can be in any way con- sidered as motives to induce the church to accept the proffered union : 1st, "Protection by the state from violence ;" 2dly, The '' propagation of the established religion by force ;" and, 3dly, " Wealth and honours bestowed by the state on the spiritual rulers." Of these, as he justly observes, the second is unjust, and the third impertinent ; for, with re- spect to this last, we are to consider (according to his most judicious distinction) not what may have been the actual motives that have influenced church- men, but what is to be regarded as a legitimate mo- tive for the church itself, regarded as a spiritual community, having no other proposed objects than the immediate one of purity of worship, and the ultimate one of salvation of souls : to which objects, wealth and honours conferred on churchmen do not conduce. The only legitimate motive, there- fore, according to him, which could influence the ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 89 church to accept the alliance, is the desire of *' ob- taining protection from violence ;" and this, as he himself admits, the state was already hound in jus- tice to afford. Now can that be ^fair and reason- able alliance in which one of the contracting parties surrenders to the other part of his just rights, in- cluding his independence, as the price of receiving what was already his due ? Is it not more like the bargain which the profligate governor Felix thought to conclude, who " hoped that money would have been given him to set free" an innocent man ? But some will be likely to say, in their hearts at least, " Do we not, in fact, receive a quid pro quo ? Are not the rights and advantages we actually re- ceive from the state an equivalent for what we give up? And are these temporal advantages to be resigned as a matter of indifference ?" Look to the example of your Master: he had an offer made him of an exchange of a similar kind ; and that offer and his rejection of it are, I am inclined to think, types relating to his church, shadowing forth both the temptations which would be placed in her way, and the resistance of them which she was bound to offer. Satan showed him all the king' doms of the world, and the glory of them, and said, " All these are mine, and unto whomsoever I will I give them ; all these things, therefore, will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." To which Jesus replied, *' Get thee behind me, Satan ! for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." h2 90 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. By the Romish church this offer has clearly been accepted. " Connive at and sanction all the suc- cessively arising superstitions, and all the vices of men, v^^hich are the adoration I require ; and in re- turn I will make them give you temporal honour, and wealth, and dominion ; you shall be seated on the throne of the seven hills, and shall mount the many-headed beast, on condition that you admin- ister to all nations the cup of filthiness of fornica- tion (that is, of departure from the true worship), which is, in fact, the worship of me." Such is the offer that has been made to her who calls herself the Catholic church, and which she has embraced. It was, in truth, Satan who first proposed an alli- ance between the Christian church and the state, by offering temporal advantages in exchange for giving up some of the " things that be God's," and which we ought to "render unto God," for not '* serving him only" whom only we ought to serve. The next, I am inclined to think, who proposed to himself this scheme, and endeavoured to bring it about, was Judas Iscariot, whose design does not appear to have been the destruction of his Master, but (as West, if I recollect, has shown) his tem- poral exaltation, by putting him into a situation where he would have no choice left but to submit to death, or to rescue himself b'y such a display of miraculous powers (of which the traitor could not be ignorant, having himself exercised them) as would induce both Jews and Romans to " take him by force, and make him a king," The former part ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 91 of the alternative he never dreamed would be chosen ; whence it w^as, probably, that he came to the knowledge of what he had been doing, and was conscience-stricken, as soon as he saw that Jesus was condemned, i. e., cJiose to submit. His hope had been, probably, to be both pardoned and re- warded under the temporal dominion of the Mes- siah ; the " alliance of church and state," which he would have mainly contributed, though by pre- sumptuous disobedience, to bring about. The Protestant churches are, indeed, widely dif- ferent from the Romish in the points I have been speaking of. It is their boast that they are so ; but I fear that the very circumstance of the just- ness, to a certain degree, of the boast, has in some points misled them ; that the example of the Romish church may have done them harm, from the very circumstance (paradoxical as this may sound) that they have not followed it. The enormities of an- other's conduct may tend, though we abhor them, to lower our own standard, by making us too easily satisfied with ourselves, if we are but much better than they. And thus the monstrous usurpations of the Romish hierarchy, condemned and avoided as they are by the reformed, may yet have somewhat debased their ideas respecting the purely spiritual kingdom of Heaven, and may have caused them to acquiesce in, or even entirely to overlook, smaller corruptions relative to ecclesiastical discipline — minor departures of Christ's spouse from her de- voted allegiance to him ; even as the outrageous 92 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. debaucheries of a Messalina may serve to keep in countenance some less scandalous adulteress. Whether the church encroach on the state or the state on the church, or both ; and whether this encroachment be carried to the utmost excess or not, the principles of Christ's kingdom are infringed alike in each case, though not in all to the same de- gree. And I scarcely need observe to you, that how seldom soever coercion may be actually em- ployed and punishment inflicted, this can make no difference as to the present question. He who has no right to inflict punishment has no right to threaten it. I will oifer but one more observation on the system of an author with whom I regret to differ ; and to the greater part of whose arguments, in this very treatise, I cordially assent, as not only unan- swerable, but also strongly confirmative (for the reasons already given) of my own views on the subject. The motives which he assigns to the civil power for seeking the alliance are, I think, as little to the purpose as those of the church for accepting that alliance. They are, 1st, a desire of " preserving the existence and the purity of religion ; 2dly, of improving its usefulness, and applying its influence in the best manner ; and, 3dly, of preventing the mischiefs which in its natural independent state it might occasion to society ;" mischiefs which I will hereafter show there is no reason whatever, under such circumstances, to apprehend. ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 93 That such motives may have actually influenced civil governors is highly probable ; but that, as our author was well aware, is not the question ; he is, like myself, considering, not what is likely to take place, but what ought to take place. Now, as for the preservation of our religion in its purity, that the interference of the civil magistrate is not re- quired for that object, any one may at once con- vince himself by looking at the primitive ages of the church, and comparing them with the state of things after the empire was become Christian, and the secular authorities took a part in ecclesiastical concerns. Warburton's argument, which is some- what subtle, turns upon this : that truth and po- litical expediency coincide ; and that, consequently, the civil magistrate will be led, with a view to his own proper object, to maintain religious truth. This may be true in every case where the rulers of the state are quite perfect, both in head and heart ; and it is equally true, that whenever they are not so ; whenever they are under the influence of love of glory, covetousness of absolute power, false views of political economy, or any other human vice or error, since their views of expediency will thus receive a bias, they will be exactly in the same degree favourable to a corrupt religion. Doctrines leading to fanatical and bloodthirsty bigotry will suit the views of one political leader (such as the chiefs of the French " League" and of the English commonwealth) ; those which inculcate slavish sub- mission will be " expedient" to another ; nor can 94 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. there be any conceivable corruption of religion which may not seem " useful" (that is, conducive to the object pursued) to some civil ruler or other. In all such cases, then, secular interference will evidently do unmixed harm ; and when the inter- ference is exercised in favour of a pure religion, it will, to say the least, do more harm than good; since it will make this religion appear to be a state contrivance ; protected, if not instituted, for the sake of its utility, not of its truth ; and its profes- sors will be much more liable to be regarded as merely professors, complying, in their outward acts, with the commands of men, not, in their hearts, with those of God. As for the second of the advantages proposed, that of applying the influence of religion to the service of the state, the object ultimately sought after, that of really securing the permanency and furthering the prosperity of the government, will not (as I hope to show presently) be so eflTectually secured as by the opposite procedure ; though the immediate object, that of keeping the church, her ministers, and her discipline, at the disposal of the civil magistrate, is, I admit, very likely to be ob- tained: but it is an object which I cannot charac- terise otherwise than as a profane degradation of our holy religion into a tool of those in power for the time being. It is Warburton's own remark, that even a tyrant may thus gain veneration and obedience. And he adds, shortly after, that " there are peculiar conjunctures when the influence of re- ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 96 ligion is more than ordinarily serviceable to the state, which the magistrate cannot so well improve to the public advantage unless he have the church under his direction, to prescribe such public exer- cises of religion as the exigences of the state re- quire." In plain English, he may prescribe " Te Deums" and fasts whenever it suits his purposes ; engage Christian ministers to preach down his po- litical opponents ; obtain acquiescence in his meas- ures, just or unjust, on pain of damnation; and hurl against his enemies the terrors of the next world in addition to those of the sword. Belshaz- zar's profanation of the sacred vessels of the Tem- ple at an idolatrous feast was nothing to this ! One would think the good bishop had forgotten on which side he was writing. If any one be convinced, by such an argument, of anything but the danger to Christ's religion, by placing it thus under the con- trol of the civil governor, I can devise no process of reasoning that is likely to undeceive him. With regard to the last point, the mischiefs to the state likely to be occasioned by the church in its natural independent condition, it is to be re- marked, that his arguments, which certainly do appear, at first sight, to have considerable weight, will, according to his view, prove too much. They go to establish a conclusion which he strongly disclaims, viz., that it is the duty of the civil power utterly to put down by force all but th^ established religion. For he dwells much on the power and influence which the ministers and 96 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. leaders of a church have over it in its independent condition, and of tlie danger (a danger which he apprehends on false grounds, and in the wrong place) that they should, under that cover, " hatch and carry on designs against the peace of society.'* Now I have already observed, in a former letter, that the state has a natural right to punish all seditious doctrines ; all inculcation of principles avowedly inconsistent with the good order of society. But this will not satisfy him, unless all this influence of the ministers of religion be thrown into the hands of the civil power, by placing them directly under its control ; and he quotes, in favour of this opinion, the words of that unhappy prince, who, in all probability (as I will presently show), owed to it the loss of his crown and his life : " Touching the government of the church by bishops, the common jealousie hath been, that I am earnest and resolute to maintain it, not so much out of piety as policy and reason of state. Wherein so far, indeed, reason of state doth induce me to approve that government above any other, as I find it impossible for a prince to preserve the state in quiet, unless he hath such an influence upon churchmen, and they such a dependance on him, as may best restraine the seditious exorbi- tances of minister's tongues, who, with the keys of heaven, have so far the keys of the peoples' hearts, as they prevail much by their oratory to let in or shut out both peace and loyalty." Now the magistrate, by " admitting and excluding to ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 97 the exercise of their function such ministers as he thinks fit," has certainly a great control over the members of that church which he so governs; but what influence will this give him over dissenters? Their ministers v^'ill have all that independent influence over their flocks from which he dreads such danger to the state. But why should it be expected that this influence should be exerted in hostility to the existing government ? I see no reason to apprehend this, as long as the church is left in its original independent condition ; but a» soon as the civil magistrate identifies himself with the church, to which dissenters are necessarily opposed, by making himself the head of their adversaries, he himself makes them his enemies. The alliance of church and state necessarily drives the enemies of the church ^o be enemies of the state likewise ; and thus occasions the very evil from which it professes to secure us. This is no imaginary case. Experience has shown that the religion of the Presbyterians is not neces- sarily hostile to the British constitution ; but the blow which it aimed at the Church of England in the reign of Charles \. necessarily joassec? through the sides of the regal power, because the regal power stood before it as an ally. Being the natural enemies of the church, they were made enemies of the state, and it is possible they might not have resorted to violent means had the church possessed no coercive power, but might have been content to employ arguments, when arguments I 98 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. alone were opposed to them. At any rate, they would have had no excuse for so acting; but when the church is endued with coercive power she loses her privilege, and must expect that coercive power will be employed against her. " Put up thy sword into its sheath ; for all they that lake the sword shall perish by the sword" If, therefore, the magistrate would eflfectually preclude, instead of increasing, the danger in ques- tion, he must do his work thoroughly ; he must not only prohibit, but completely extirpate, by a vig- orous persecution, all religions except the one es- tablished. Half measures generally defeat both of the objects they aim at. " Dismiss your prisoners without ransom," said the old Samnite to Pontius, the general who had captured a Roman army ; *' if this does not please you, kill them all: take away either their will or their power to hurt you ;" instead of this, he made them pass under the yoke, and dismissed them ardent and implaca- ble foes. Some reasons against the "alliance" itself I have offered ; for reasons against the measures which in sound policy are inseparable from it — penal laws against dissenters — you cannot be bet- ter referred to any one than to its advocate, War- burton himself. I will only add, respecting this point, that, inde- pendent of the impolicy f universally, of an alliance, unaccompanied with the prohibition of dissent, such alliance must also be accounted null and void, ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 99 if a toleration, which did not exist from the first, were, by the state, subsequently granted. If, when the king became supreme ecclesiastical governor of the church, he, at the same time, enforced penal laws against papists and dissenters, and declared his resolution to allow of no departure from the re- ligion he established, that must be understood as one of the conditions of the implied contract (and it is only an implied contract that is contended for) ; the church must be supposed to have resigned her independency with an understanding that the civil sword should be employed (as it was) to en- force conformity. The magistrate, therefore, has no right to relax these laws (however inexpedient, and however unjust) without, at the same time, re- signing his supremacy, and placing the church in her natural independent condition ; and if she then choose to accede to afresh compact, all is fair ; but otherwise, to retain what you have got by a com- pact, and yet plead scruples of conscience against fulfilling its conditions ; to withdraw the coercive requisition of conformity, and yet to hold the su- preme control which was submitted to on that con- sideration, is to act like a profligate elector, who keeps the bribe he had received, but pleads that his tender conscience will not allow him to vote as he had engaged. Let him return the money, and then vote according to his conscience. Even Ju- das, when he came to a sense of his iniquity, and was anxious, if possible, to recall it, did not go empty-handed to the high-priests to say, " I have 100 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. sinned," but he " brought again the thirty pieces of silver" It may be said, however, by sonne, that though it be allowed that the alliance is not altogether justifiable, still no evils have, in fact, ever resulted from it that are at all comparable with those which would have been incurred had the church met with opposition, or even with mere neglect, from the state. I much doubt the truth of this assertion, if by '' evils*' is to be understood, not merely tem- poral sufferings or privations of individuals, but evils to the church, as a church ; such as corrup- tion of faith, decay of piety, &c. But, be this as it may, whatever evils take place without your sanction, immediate or remote, you are at least not responsible for ; whereas, every one is respon- sible for such as he has helped to introduce. If the magistrate thought fit, of his own pleasure and by his own authority, to persecute the orthodox faith, and to violate, in any way, the sanctity of the church, he alone must bear the blame, fall the suf- fering where it will. Let Christ be implored to defend and rescue, in his good time, his own inher- itance, when he shall judge that his servants have been sufficiently tried. But if the church herself allows and impowers the magistrate to interfere, she must be responsible for all the evil conse- quences that may follow ; nay, more than that, for all that do not follow, if they be such as by her own act and deed she has exposed herself to. If the trees give the woodman a handle to his axe, ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 101 they have, in fact, permitted the destruction not only of such as he fells, but of those also which, at his own pleasure, he has left standing. If spir- itual rulers leave, for instance, the liturgy to the discretion of the civil magistrate, ihey not only give their sanction to all that he chooses it shall contain, but virtually to all that he might insert. Should he put into it the ravings of Swedenborg, I do not see on what grounds they could complain that he had exceeded the discretion with which they had intrusted him. And they are even mor- ally responsible for errors of judgment in him, with regard to the affairs of the church. If, indeed, they decree anything amiss, yet, according to the best of their judgment, they will stand acquitted before God for their error; but not so if anything amiss be done by the civil magistrate, to whom they have, without permission from their Master, transferred the power with which they had been intrusted. If a pilot to whom the conduct of a ship is committed, through mere error of judgment steers it on a shoal, he is not morally answerable for the wreck ; but if he puts the rudder into the hands of a common mariner, who, by an error in judgment, wrecks the ship, then the pilot is respon- sible ; and, more than this, he will have been guilty of a dereliction of duty, even though the vessel should chance to escape ; according to the vulgar but expressive phrase, "it is no thanks to him." Let all endeavours be used, indeed, to make every individual member of the state a member, and a I 2 102 ALLIANCE OP CHURCH AND STATE. worthy member, of the church likewise. Such an alhance, if it is to be so called, of church and state, has no warmer advocate than myself; but whether this be brought about or no, let the two corporate bodies, even though composed of the same materials, be kept distinct and independent. Let Christ's kingdom be in this world, but not of it. As for the evils, then, which might have arisen for want of the "alliance" in countries where it has taken place, though no one can do more than conjecture what they might have been, it is certain that no one would have been answerable for them, except the authors of them. That evils have arisen from the " alliance^' (independent of its not being in itself an allowable thing) is, I think, but too evident ; and also that for those, and likewise for all such as mai/ arise — for possible as well as actual evils — those are responsible who further or consent to such an alliance. Some of these evils, which are in their own nature inevitable consequences of the system, I have already hinted at. One of the chief I hold to be the impression made on weak minds (such as those of the generality) that religion, which they see to be made a state-engine, is, in fact, a state con- trivance ; an improvement on the Mumbo-jumbo of the negroes ; a thing devised, or kept up, merely for the sake of keeping the refractory in order ; and which is not believed even by those who pro- fess for it the most profound veneration. The appeal to the authority of wise and well-informed ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 103 men who hold certain opinions is an evidence which could not surely have been intended to be excluded in the case of the Christian religion. In astronomy there are very few capable of demonstrating the motion of the earth ; but it is nevertheless believed, and not absurdly, by the mass of the people, on the ground that they know it has been proved by evi- dence satisfactory to the greatest astronomers. Nor are the multitude at all more capable of study- ing the Scriptures in their original tongues, and sifting the whole of the evidence relating to their authenticity and right interpretation : but if they know that these things have been examined by learned men, who ho.ve been convinced by satisfac- tory arguments that those books were written by such and such persons, and that the sense of the Greek and Hebrew words is so and so, this is surely no absurd ground of conviction to the un- learned. Now the force of this appeal to authority is impaired exactly in proportion as a suspicion of hypocrisy arises ; and it will arise in proportion as freedom of discussion is prevented or discoun- tenanced, and religious profession made a point of secular obligation. A man's conformity to a reli- gion which is *' part of the law of the land*' gives no assurance whatever that he is convinced of its Divine origin ; nay, he can hardly even be called hypocritical, even though he disbelieve it. The law requires him to say nothing against Christi- anity ; and he obeys the law. A man whom you charged with hypocrisy for complying, in a Ro- 104 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. man Catholic country, with all the forms of that church, though he did not believe in what she teaches, would answer, that a profession compul- sory upon all alike implies nothing; and that he might as well call you hypocritical for complying with the established rule of courtesy which requires you to sign yourself his obedient humble servant. Do but observe, therefore, how constantly the " arm of flesh" weakens the spiritual cause it is called in to aid. It is like a " wall daubed with untempered mortar," built as a support to an edifice of better materials, and which, when beaten down by the "winds and floods," drags with it the rest of the structure. By-lhe-way, I never clearly understood the right meaning of the maxim so often repeated from high authority, that " Christianity is part of the law of the land." What form of Christianity is meant ? Some will say, none in particular, but Christianity in general. This is a most undefined law; for who can explain (I am sure I cannot) what is that general Christianity which contains nothing peculiar to any sect or church? This I know ; that 1 might blaspheme almost any doctrine I pleased, slill keeping on my side, in each case, some who call themselves Christians. I think you have a sect called Free-thinking Christians, who leave the Divine mission of Jesus among their doubtful points. The Christian religion, as estab- lishedby law, is that of the Church of England. Is, then, a man legally punishable who impugns any of her doctrines ? ALLIANCE OF CHUROH AND STATE. 105 You will observe, however, that in disallowing the interference of the civil power in religious con- cerns, I do not mean (as has been before observed) that the same person may not, if it so happens, hold office both in the church and in the state; just as a professor at the university may be a member of parliament; though not, as such. Nor do I at all object to the appointment of lay elders to take a share in the government of the church : for that society does not consist of ministers alone ; nor need all its officers necessarily have the same of- fices. But let not the secular magistrate have hy^ virtue of that his office any control over the spiritual society ; nor the ecclesiastical ruler, lay or clerical, have, as such, any secular power. For then Christ's kingdom becomes one that is of this world. Thus much concerning the character of an alli- ance between church and state generally. Yoa ask me in what respects, and to what degree, this alliance can be said to exist in England. It is a question which I cannot take upon me conn- pletely to decide ; and if you will consult on the subject several different well-informed members of your church, I believe they will give you several different accounts of it. Every one knows that the King of Great Brit- ain, as such, is head of the English church ; and that he has the title of " Defender of the Faith :" whether this last be anything more than an empty title, and what extent of jurisdiction is implied by the former, all are not agreed. In the Thirty- 106 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. nine Articles, the expression *'head of the church" does not appear; but he is said to have the right of governing all "estates of nnen" within his dominions. Now if by his suprennacy over ecclesiastical as well as civil persons and causes be meant merely that he is king of all in their capacity of citizens, whether ministers, lay-elders, or persons unconnected with the government of the church ; that he is impowered and bound to govern and protect their persons and property, "whether that be church property, or oihcr indiffer- ently ; if this, I say, be the whole meaning of the article, then his majesty might be as well entitled head of the Jewish church within the limits of these realms, and defender of their faith ; since, as chief magistrate, he is authorized and bound, in conjunction with the rest of the legislature, to de- fend from violence and insult the persons and the properly of Jews. It must be owned that the reference which the article makes to the example of the " godly princes recorded in Scripture" does seem to im- ply a spiritual government, such as that of the kings of Israel, who, though they could not offici- ate as priests, were endued with coercive power in matters pertaining to religion; which, indeed, is implied by the nature of a theocracy, and which must be an usurpation except under a theocracy. But some may understand by these " godly prin- ces" such heathen kings as Cyrus and Darius, under whose auspices the temple was rebuilt and ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 107 the sacred vessels restored. This is certainly not the nnost obvious interpretation ; but may, never- theless, be the true one. In a case of such nnani- fest ambiguity I cannot pretend to decide. But it may be more to the purpose to inquire what spiritual authority the King of Great Britain actually exercises. Does he not virtually ordain bishops ? And is not ordination a spiritual func- tion ? I am not speaking of the appointment to a particular see of one who is already a bishop, that is no exercise of spiritual authority, any more than the institution to a particular benefice of one already a minister ; but of the determination who shall he a bishop. If the patron of a benefice had power to present a layman, and to compel the bishop to ordain him priest, this would surely be a virtual ordination by the patron ; and the case I am considering is parallel to that ; unless it be said that whoever is fit to be a priest is neces- sarily fit to be a bishop: in which case the very notion of ordination would be nugatory ; since you might as well talk o{ ordaining a man lecturer or prebendary. It may be said, that the chapter, a clerical body, are the electors of a bishop, and the bishops his ordainers ; and I grant that this makes his ordination real and valid : but does not the compulsion under which this is done imply an interference of the civil magistrate in spirituals? And is not this an encroachment on the kingdom which is not of this world ? Jf the pope had power to determine who should and who should 108 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. not be admitted to holy orders within these realms, would not the pope be the spiritual gov- ernor of the churches there existing? There is something, I think, strained and fanciful in the ap- plication of the term simony to the sale of bene- fices, since it is not a spiritual o^ce, but a temporal endowment that is sold. But there is something that does remind one of Simon Magus, in saying, " I will give the church secular power and wealth, on condition that you will let me, indirectly, if you will, but in effect, ordain bishops ; if you will let me say to whomsoever I will, not immediately indeed, but by compelling another to say it, 'Re- ceive the Holy Ghost for the office of a bishop/ " " He offered them money, saying. Give me also this power, that on whomsoever 1 lay my hands he may receive the Holy Ghost." " Thy money perish with thee ! Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter." But it may be said, the chapter or the bishops may refuse to listen to the royal recommendation. True, and I hope they will, if ever the king should recommend an improper person : but they are punishable for it hij law. They have no legal power to refuse. A Protestant in Spain may defy the pope, if he is willing to be burnt for it. Nero allowed the Christians the option of obeying him in religious matters, or of suffering punishment; because this is an option which no one can take away. And it is to be remembered, that (as has been formerly remarked) the threat of punishment ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 109 is the same encroachment as its infliction, if its not being inflicted is merely because the threat has prevented its being incurred. But, then, these bishops having a seat in the house of peers, the church by this means acquires a share in the civil government ; that is, one usur- pation is compensated by another : the control of the civil magistrate in spiritual aflTairs is balanced by a control of the spiritual society in temporal ; and the character of Christ's kingdom is thus doubly violated by this additional step towards making it a kingdom of this world. " Give thy child that we may eat him to-day, and we will eat my child to-morrow," 2 Kings, vi. And the complaint also of the woman who had consented to this nefarious proposal is not foreign to the present case ; " She hath hid her child ;" for after all, to what does this boasted guardianship of the church amount, which is to be the salve for every hurt ? When you meet with any friend to the church who is satisfied with it, do you make a corresponding proposal for securing the civil lib- erties of the people : " let us, to avoid the trouble and expense of elections, abolish the House of Commons altogether ; and, by way of having the people duly represented and their rights secured, let the government, i. e., the king and House of Lords, nominate twenty commoners, to sit for life in that house, with unequal salaries annexed to their seats ; the government filling up the vacancies occasioned by deaths, and having power to ad- K 110 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. vance each of these representatives from a lower to a higher salary." If any one raised an outcry against such an inadequate protection of the inter- ests of the people, remind him that such, precisely, is the protection afforded to the church by the seats held by bishops in the upper house. They are insignificant in number ; they have no veto in ecclesiastical questions \ they are appointed by the civil magistrate ; and though not removable at pleasure, are translatable from an inferior see to a better. But what I most except against is — the very circumstance dwelt on as an advantage — that they have a vote in all secular matters also, in common with the rest of the peers. I scarcely need notice the petty quibble, that they sit in the house, not as bishops, but as barons ; since their being bishops makes them barons, it comes to the same thing. Only observe, that my objection is, not to any one's admission to holy orders, or to any ecclesiastical office, who may chance to have a seat in either house, but to the necessary and constant conjunction of the two ; his sitting as an ecclesiastical officer ; for this it is that blends and interlocks the two societies together in the man- ner which some so much admire, and multiplies the bands of that alliance which is as unjustifiable in its principle as pernicious in its eflfects. And pray observe this most absurd inconsist- ency : a clergyman must not sit in the House of Commons, even though selected by the freemen of any place as a fit representative, and though he ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. Ill may chance to have no spiritual cure, or none which occupies much of his time (I need not re- mind you how this law originated) : on the other hand, a bishop must have a seat in the upper house, whether well or ill fitted for parliamentary busi- ness ; though he cannot but have a spiritual cure, that of his diocess, which cannot but be enough to occupy fully his time and thoughts. One of the effects resulting from this system is the imposition of articles and liturgy by secular au- thority. I am, as you know, a warm admirer, gen- erally speaking, of both ; but it degrades their sacred character that they should stand upon the foundation of acts of parliament ; that the spiritual rulers cannot alter them when they may need it ; and that the secular power can, whether they need it or not. And, accordingly, it is almost a prover- bial reproach, that yours is " a parliamentary re- ligion ;" that you worship the Almighty as the act directs ; and that yoij are bound to seek for salva- tion " according to the law in that case made and provided" by king, lords, and commons, under the directions of the ministers of state ; of persons who may be eminently well fitted for their civil offices, and who may, indeed, chance to be not only exemplary Christians, but sound divines, but who certainly are not appointed to their respective oflH- ces with any sort of view to their spiritual func- tions ; who cannot even pretend that any sort of qualification for the good regulation of the church is implied by their holding such stations as they do. 112 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. Can this possibly be agreeable to the designs and institutions of Christ and his apostles ? If any one will seriously answer in the affirmative, he is be- yond my powers of argumentation. I shall not be suspected by you, I trust, of being one of those shallow reasoners who seem to think that your religion is made false from having been true ; your liturgy changed from good to bad by the mere circumstance of having secular power to enforce them : but should any one urge that if your religion is true and your worship pure, they are so only hy accident ; being established and maintained by those in power, not for the sake of truth (even supposing them competent judges), but of utility, i. e., as a convenient tool to further their political objects ; and should it be added that the ministers of state, and the others who have, in fact, the su- preme direction of these matters, may, as likely as not, be persons " least esteemed in the church" — least competent (even with the best intentions) to decide questions relating to religion, of ail the members of the Christian community ; should all this, I say, be alleged against you, I know not what you could reply. Even the truths of physical science may be re- ceived with disgust and may be treated with scorn when promulgated by authority. When Julius Caesar had reformed the Roman calendar (after his usurpation), Cicero, we are told, when, at a party, some one remarked that the constellation Lyra ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 113 would rise next day, replied, " Nempe ex edicto ;" as we should say, " by act of parliament." The state- prayers and state-festivals, in particu- lar, which are enjoined by civil authority, besides that they lie open to the same general objection which applies to every case of secular compulsion in religious matters, may also be especially ob- jected to on the score of bad policy and also of bad taste. Good Christians are loyal persons (I mean, conscientious supporters of regular government, whether under a king or president, according to the constitution of their country), but compulsion precludes them from showing their loyalty in that natural way which would be the most impressive to the people. It may be said of piety and loyalty, as of mercy, that " its quality is not strained." Prayers which must be repeated under a temporal penalty give no proof of either, and are degrading at once to those who utter and to those who en- force them ; since it is plain that whatever these persons may in fact be, a tyrant might compel to the observance of such forms, and a slave would be obliged to comply. Whatever festival is ob- served or form of prayer used in compliance with the commands of the civil magistrate, it is plain that the same thing either would be done by an in- dependent church, or would not : if it is what the church would do of her own accord, under the di- rection of her own spiritual governors, would not this have a much better effect ? And if it be what the church would in that case not do, can there be k2 114 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. any good gained by obtaining di forced compliance ? Is it not also bad taste, as well as bad policy, in a king, to compel men under a penalty to pray, or at least repeat prayers, in his behalf? Surely it places both parties in an unfavourable point of view, to exact that as matter of necessity which would be so gladly and so heartily done without. Surely you have not such a king or such clergy that they would not pray for him without constraint. Add, too, that many things are likely to strike one as absurd, from the mere circumstance of their being not left to the regulation of the church /rom time to time, but '' established by an ordinance for ever :" the regular appointed prayers, for instance, for the long life of the king, stand in strange con- trast, methinks, with the setting aside for a solemn thanksgiving (as you are sure, in the regular course of things, must be done) the day of his death, i. e,, the day on which his successor will begin to reign. It might be suspected, not without a show of reason, that if King William, instead of safely land- ing his forces on the 5th of November, had been on that day drowned in a storm, you would have been at this time solemnly celebrating that event, and repeating a form of thanksgiving to Almighty God for having a second time, as on that day, over- thrown, in a miraculous manner, a wicked and treasonable attempt on the royal house of Stuart. This, I say, might have been suspected, even had the church been in all such cases left to her own discretion ; but the suspicion amounts almost to a ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 115 certainty, when it is considered that all these things are dictated by those in power for the time being. You will readily comprehend, without a detailed discussion, how strongly I disapprove of many of those other parts of the system which tend not only to make the clergy the mere tools of the civil governor, but to degrade them even beyond what is needed with a view to the ends proposed. I al- lude, among others, to the regulations respecting registers of baptisms, marriages, and burials, and all the petty vexations of reading briefs, proclama- tions against swearing, and other things of that kind. Everything is enforced by penalties, and many obsolete acts are still in force, which never produce any other effect than the occasional benefit of an informer, by the levying of the penalty. These last have been compared, I think, by one of your prelates, to those insects which, when in all other respects lifeless, still retain the power oi sting- ing. If briefs and proclamations are better than sermons, or needful to be superadded, let them be read in the market-place by the town-crier, whose mode of elocution would be best suited to the elo- quence of their style. I never heard one of your clergy read a brief (which I believe no one of them ever would read but to escape a fine) without pitying him for the degradation of being forced to recite such trash in the house of God, and at the same time made the organ of a sort of job, which goes to enrich, with a large proportion of what is professedly collected for the indigent Lazarus, some 116 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. Dives who fares sumptuously every day, and whom the hope of fees causes to be a zealous promoter of this kind of charity, " This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and hare the hag, and kept what was put therein." Why, again, should the laws compel your clergy to keep, in a certain manner, those registers which were designed for secular purposes ? Why should the administration of a Christian sacrament be con- nected with the ascertainment of a man's age and parentage ? unless it be purposely to secularize the clergy and the church as far as possible. The clerk of the nearest magistrate, or the church- wardens, or any one appointed for that purpose, would be competent to do all those things, and would be more fittingly so employed. But the English government seems to have a delight and a pride in not only making the clergy do as much as possible in return for the protection they enjoy, but in enforcing their services in the most harsh and mortifying way. Like the ancient Persian soldiers, they are brought into the field, hvo i^tTriyoi, under the lash of perpetual penalties, which serve to keep your ministers in a state of degradation, as well as of dependance on the state, which I defy you to parallel in any other Christian church that ever ex- isted. They are exposed to insult and oppression from the subject as well as the secular ruler ; for if any farmer have a mind to " spite the parson" for not suffering himself to be cheated, is it not no- torious that he immediately looks out for, and finds, ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 117 some penalty that he may levy ? And all this is owing to your boasted alliance with the state, which gives you a share, forsooth, in the civil govern- ment, about as real as the arch of the rainbov/ has in supporting the skies 1 They will not give the church any such power as to make her a formidable rival ; only enough semblance of it to make her a party concerned in the contract ; enough to pro- fane and desecrate Christ's spiritual kingdom, that they may have the better plea for at once govern- ing in her name, and injuring and affronting her. She is clad, as in mockery, in the scarlet robe, with a reed for a sceptre; and is saluted with mock veneration, and treated with indignity, as well as sentenced to the lash. I well know, indeed, that there is no promise to Christians of exemption from temporal sufferings and indignities, and that it is their glory to bear them patiently ; but this is only when they have not brought these things on themselves, by making over to a secular governor the guidance of the church ; by " rendering unto Cassar the things that be God's ;" otherwise, they not only deserve neither praise nor pity, but even incur just censure, on ac- count of the evils they have helped to introduce. *' If, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye take it patiently, what thank have ye V* But, with respect to the laws relating to mar- riages, another important consideration presents itself. Marriage consists (in our view) of two things ; a civil contract, which makes the offspring 118 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. legitimate in the eye of the law, and involves tem- poral obligations ; and a vow before God. With respect to the first, it ought to be competent to per- sons of all persuasions to form the civil contract without any violence to their religious principles, however erroneous, and without any interference with religious rites whatever. Oliver Cromwell was right for once in causing this civil contract to be made before the civil magistrate. Neither Jews, nor Turks, nor Christians can object to this, if they choose to live under the laws of this land ; the magistrate, therefore, ought to certify and re- gister the due contraction of this engagement. But as for the religious rite, that should be left to the religious community to which each person belongs. I cannot but think, that in the case, for instance, of the Unitarians, there is both a species of persecu- tion and profanation committed. I need not tell you that I abhor the faith of the Unitarians ; so I do that of the infidel Jews and Mohammedans ; but I think that none of these should be compelled, in order to contract a marriage, to be witnesses and partakers of a ceremony which their conscience condemns ; and it is, under these circumstances, a degradation of the minister, and a profanation of the ceremony, that it should take place. But I would not have the priests, or whatever they may be called, of these religionists, intrusted with the solemnization of a legal contract : let that be done, 171 all cases^ by the civil magistrate ; and whatever religious rites each religious community thought fit ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 119 to superadd, let them be the concern of that com- munity. Whether the Scotch law is in this respect perfect, which does not require the intervention of a magistrate for the civil contract, I need not now inquire ; it is manifestly much preferable to the English in not blending together the civil contract with the religious. And the Scotch law, you will observe, does not at all preclude any religious com- munity from passing its spiritual censure on such as do not comply with the solemn forms enjoined by that community. But many of the English clergy seem to think, with Paley, that the solemni- zation of a marriage by a justice of peace (though vi'iihoui forbidding any previous or subsequent re- ligious ceremony, which the conscience of the par- ties might dictate) was calculated to degrade the clergy. They stickle for their exclusive right of solemnizing marriage between those who think the ceremony blasphemous, and who blaspheme the doctrines implied in it ! One has scarcely patience with men who thus perversely glory in degradation. They remind me, in many points, of the dog in the fable, who mistook the clog round his neck for a badge of honourable distinction. Altogether, indeed, I cannot but say, if I must speak out, that there is another fable respecting a dog, of which the conditionof your church strongly reminds me. Your American brethren, for in- stance, and some others, might say to you, as the lean and hungry wolf did to the well-fed mastiff— ** You are fat and sleek, indeed, while I am gaunt 120 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. and half famished ; but what means that mark round your neck?" You must do this, under a penalty ; and you must not do that, under a penalty ; you must comply with the rubric ; and yet, at the same time, you must not comply with the rubric. You are bound by the regulations of the church, all of which are sanctioned by law, to exclude certain descriptions of persons from the communion ; yet, again, you may be prosecuted by them if you dare to do so : you are bound to excommunicate all obsti- nate noncommunicants, as, in fact, every society is to exclude those who will not comply with its reg- ulations ; yet you dare not to do this, and, indeed, ought not ; since the civil penalties annexed would make this a species of religious persecution. Any chapel for religious worship may be built and li- censed, unless it be for the Church of England; this is because you are under government protection ; is not, then, the government bound (not merely to do that something which is so much boasted of in the way of building churches, but) to do everj/thing that is needed, to supply the want which it forbids any one else to supply ? In short, you are fettered, and crippled, and dis- abled in every joint by your alliance with a body of a different character, which could not, even with the best intentions, fail to weaken instead of aiding you ; but which, in fact, aims chiefly at making a tool of you. But some of you seem so habituated to this dependance of the church on the state, and so fond of it, as to have even solicited interference ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. 121 in a case which could not concern the civil com- munity, and which the secular magistrate was like- ly to care about as little as Gallio. An English bishop did not dare to ordain an American to officiate in a country not under British dominion without asking and obtaining permission of his government ; which had just as much to do with the business as the government of Abyssinia ! Think not that I mean to hold up your church to the exulting scorn and censure of sectaries, as if it must necessarily cease to be a church because these abuses exist ; I think your church ought not to be under secular control, and that its spiritual rulers are to blame for submitting without remon- strance to such control ; but since they choose thus voluntarily to submit, all that they do is their own act and deed : the spiritual power that they have and exercise is derived from Christ and his apos- tles; and, therefore, wherever there is no direct contravention of the Divine commands, their acts are valid, even where their motives are censura- ble ; fieri non dehuit ; factum valet If a king of Great Britain, for instance, should be induced, by improper motives, to appoint some particular per- son a lord lieutenant or justice of the peace, he would himself, indeed, be blameable for so doing ; but the appointment would, nevertheless, be legal and valid. And, as for any ordinance or practice of your church which may be itself tinged with error, if such error should be accounted necessarily suffi- L 122 ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. cient to unchurch you, it is plain that none but a church which assumed to be infallible could pre- tend to call itself a Christian church at all. But for all the abuses which may exist in your church, the dissenters (besides their own peculiar faults) are at least as responsible as any of your- selves ; since, as soon as they perceived anything to object to, instead of remonstrating and trying to effect a reform, they at once withdrew, as if glad of any pretence to effect a schism. They, in fact, proceeded at once to an excommunication of you ; and, therefore, even supposing that they could have justly charged you with heresy, they would have acted in direct contravention of St. Paul's direc- tions in " rejecting you without a first and second admonition.^'' If I perceived that the government of my country was submitting to an undue control of a foreign power, I would at least endeavour, long and earnestly, to induce the members of the administration to assert their independence. Small would be the patriotism of that man who should, in such a case, immediately renounce his alle- giance, abjure his country, and raise the standard of rebellion. Still less do I coincide with them in condemning a religious establishment altogether, or in charging your clergy (a charge which, unfortunately, is sanctioned by Warburton and others) with being the hired servants of the state, kept in pay by the government. This assertion, though maintained in common by the enemies and by some of the ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS, ETC. 123 friends ofyour church, you are justified in distinctly denying, and may satisfactorily prove to be totally unfounded. My views of this subject, however, I will lay be- fore you in my next letter. LETTER V. ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS AND TOLERATION, My dear You well know what admiration I feel for the excellent constitution of civil government under which you live. I do not think it faultless, which no human institution is, nor that it has no such faults as it would be possible to mend ; but, even without any " revision and correction" in succes- sive editions of it, such are its advantages, as strongly to impress the mind of every one who is well acquainted with it, except some of those who live under it, and in whom ** familiarity has bred contempt" for the blessings they have always been accustomed to enjoy. I should therefore, of course, be backward to advise the removal of any support that really tends to give stability to so excellent a form of government ; though still even that would be an imperious duty on any servant of Christ who might be convinced that it was impossible other- 134 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS wise to comply with his commands. This, how- ever, is so far from being the case, that the kind of alliance which I so much deprecate, I can distinctly prove to be disadvantageous to the state as well as to the church ; and, consequently, that an alter- ation of the system would be beneficial to both parties. Again, I consider it as so important a thing that the clergy should not be dependant on the bounty of their flocks, which could not but give an undue advantage to such preachers as would be more studious to conform their doctrines to the inclinations of their hearers, than the character of their hearers to the doctrines of the gospel, that I would not wilhngly suggest the adoption of a system under which, as Paley rightly observes, *' preaching would become a kind of begging." And yet, if it were impossible otherwise to preserve inviolate the fundamental principles of Christ's spiritual kingdom, I would prefer the other as the less evil of the two. I would hardly hope, indeed, that the state would be persuaded voluntarily to relinquish a powerful support ; nor that the clergy would be induced, generally, even by the most decisive arguments, to believe that they were called upon to resign their revenues ; but still 1 would consider myself bound to clear my own conscience by following the truth wherever it might lead me, though without expectation of find- ing many companions. But, in fact, none of these consequences would AND TOLERATION. 125 follow from anything I would propose. The cler- gy, though they ought not to be the hired ser- vants of the civil magistrate, may justly retain their revenues ; and the state, though it has no right of interference in spiritual concerns, not only is justly entitled to support from the ministers of religion, and from all other Christians, but would, under the system 1 am recommending, obtain it much more efTectually. If, indeed, I really thought the spiritual govern- ors of the church in yours, or in any other coun- try, had absolutely betrayed, for a pecuniary con- sideration, the trust solemnly committed to them, and were receiving from the magistrate a com- pensation in the shape of wages for their surren- der of the independence and purity of Christ's kingdom, I should have nothing to advise them but forthwith to " cast down the thirty pieces of silver," the covenanted price of their treachery. But the fact, in the case of the Church of Eng- land at least, is far otherwise. Both Warburton, indeed, and Paley, speak of the maintenance pro- vided for the clergy by the state, of the justness of a compulsory payment for their support, of a tax levied expressly for that object, and of the best modes of raising such a tax, and of distributing the produce of it, &c., as if all such discussions neces- sarily appertained to the subject now before us ; but, in truth, they are irrelevant, and may be waved altogether. It is, to say the least, a gross misrepresentation to affirm that government levies l2 126 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS a tax in the shape of tithes, and pays the clergy with the proceeds. It is a mere play upon words, to call tithes and other church revenues a tax, or to speak of any one paying them. They are neither a tax nor a payment, in the sense of the words which these writers have in view. A man who has an estate left to him, burdened with cer- tain legacies, may be said, in one sense, to pay them, since the money passes through his hands, and the legatees look to him for it ; but he does not pay in the same sense in which he pays his labourers their wages, because the legacy money 1*5 710^; nor ever was, his. And in one sense you may, if you will, call these legacies a tax levied by the government, inasmuch as the laws of the land enforce the payment of it ; but in a very dif- ferent sense from that in which any other tax is so called, viz., a portion withdrawn, at the com- mand of the state, for the public exigences, from that which was before the private property of the individual. It is easy to see to which description the chief part of the church revenues belongs. Those who occupy glebe-lands pay the clergy exactly in the same sense of the word, and in the same manner, as the occupiers of any other land pay their landlords, whether bodies corporate, such as hospitals and colleges, or individuals. Nor is the case of tithes anything materially dis- tinct from that of other property. Some are held by laymen, some by incumbents of livings, some by bodies corporate ; but, in all cases, he who is AND TOLERATION. 127 called the owner of the land has manifestly no more claim to the nine tenths of the produce than the tithe-holder has to his one tenth. It is most unreasonable, therefore, that the tithe-payer should complain of being obliged to surrender what never belonged to him ; even the desire to retain it is as manifest a breach of the tenth commandment as to covet an adjoining farm. How the Church of England came into pos- session of that property which her officers now hold is an inquiry which may serve to amuse you and others who delight in antiquarian researches ; but it is not relevant to the present question. The actual right of the church to her property is founded (like that of individuals to theirs) in pos- session. There are many landholders whose titles would not bear looking into, if they were made to rest on a justification of every step by which they had been originally acquired and subsequently transmitted. The right of the 'church must at least be allowed to stand on the same footing with that of colleges, hospitals, town corporations, &c., to their respective possessions. Nay, there are several other religious communities which, vir- tually, enjoy similar advantages, though their wealth be not so great. There have been persons of various religious persuasions, both Christians and Jews, who have given or bequeathed prop- erty, for the use, directly or indirectly, of their respective societies. There are Methodist chap- els, colleges for the education of Independents, 128 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS Anabaptists, and others, and several like endow- ments, which enjoy, in common with every other species of property, the protection of the state. So that, if this is to be held to constitute an estab- lished religion, you have more religions established than most persons are aware of. What I mean is, that, let the revenues of hospitals, schools, (fee, and of the Church of England, have originated how they may, none of them can be properly called a portion of the revenues of the state, raised by taxes on the subject's property, and appropri- ated by the existing government (as in the case of the army and navy) to the payment of certain persons in the service of that government. I freely acknowledge, however, that the state has a right to take away the property of all, or any, of these corporations (indemnifying, of course, the individuals actually enjoying the revenues), whenever the manifest inutility or hurtfulness of the institutions riders their abolition important to the public welfare. For if we do not allow this right; if we consider wills so sacred, that no en- dowment is to be on any account transferred from the purpose originally designed to another, we are, in fact, making the earth the property, not of the living, but of the dead ; we authorize one genera- tion to appropriate for ever, to purposes which may chance to be insignificant or pernicious, any part, or even the whole, of the territory of the country, to the entire exclusion of their successors. It is a well-known maxim, accordingly, of English juris- AND TOLERATION. 129 prudence, and one founded in justice (though, un- fortunately, not extended to Scotland), that "the law abhors perpetuities:" such appropriations being in certain instances tolerated, with an understand- ing that no endowments shall claim to be permitted to continue, which is either a manifest waste of money on an object entirely useless, or which plainly interferes with the public good. At the same time it should be most steadily kept in mind that the right to disendow is one which should not be exercised but on the most mature deliberation, and with the most trembling caution ; and that the burden of proof should always be cofisidered as resting on those who propose alienation of property. For unless such proposals be looked upon with a jealous eye, the temptation is so great, that the most hasty and indiscriminate spoliations might be ex- pected to ensue. And this, not only when some Henry the Eighth arose, who shamelessly pillaged for his own immediate profit, whenever he could find or make a shadow of a plea, but also under the government of men much more scrupulous than he ; but who might yet be delighted with the thought of setting up new institutions of their own devising, and of providing ample funds by the abolition of old ones ; eager to rear an edifice to their own fame, and ready to pull down any other building to supply materials. Add to which, that the patronage which would thus be thrown into the hands of those in power for the time being would 130 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS present, to many minds, a temptation even more alluring than that of private emolument. I think, therefore, that although when ^ny fresh appropriation of part of the national wealth is pro- posed, proof may fairly be demanded that the de- signed application of it would be the most benefi- cial to the public that could be devised ; in the case of existing institutions, on the contrary, this ought not, generally at least, to be insisted on ; but that, if the funds appear to be neither uselessly nor hurtfully employed, this should be (except in some very extraordinary cases) held a sufficient reason for letting things remain as they are, without rig- orously requiring it to be shown that the funds could not possibly be tetter bestowed. For to re- quire thisj though, in theory, it sounds plausible, ■would, in practice, as long as rulers are fallible men, and liable to passion and prejudice, lead speedily to the dissipation of all endowments. On one pre- tence or another, they would be diverted by suc- cessive administrations from this purpose to that, till they became a mere perquisite to those in power. And no one would ever give or bequeath any property to any such institutions as I am speak- ing of, when he knew that there was no chance of having his designs fulfilled, unless they should seem not only beneficial, but the most beneficial, not to one only, but to every successive administration ; and, what is more, should be acknowledged as such by those whose private interest or ambition would lead them to advocate some scheme of their own. AND TOLERATION. 131 The principles, accordingly, which have been laid down, are what the British government has, in its general practice, adhered to. It has preserved in- violate the property of hospitals, colleges, &c., whenever the institutions appeared to be not detri- mental, and, on the whole, useful, without think- ing it necessary to inquire, in each case, whether the funds could possibly have been mor& usefully employed ; as that practice must ultimately make an opening for unlimited spoliation. The univer- sities of Oxford and Cambridge, for instance ; of Edinburgh and Aberdeen ; and of each of the sev- eral colleges, can hardly be, every one of them, on the best conceivable plan, since they differ so much from one another : the Hulsean lectureship and the Bampton lectureship cannot be each of them a model of perfection in its rules ; much less can Methodist chapels and Baptist chapels ; acade- mies for the education of men in the principles of various descriptions of sectaries, and others for the inculcation of the principles of the Church of England, be, all and each of them, considered as the best possible appropriation of money ; but it is conceivable that each may be, on the whole, rather advantageous than hurtful to the community; and on that ground I presume it is that the legisla- •> ture, very wisely, extends its protection to all, and places corporations, in such cases, on the same footing, in respect of their property, with private individuals. There seems no reason, therefore, why the property of the Church of England, which 132 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS cannot be said to be a part of the public revenue of the state, in any sense except that in which the property of any college or hospital might be so des- ignated, should not be protected in the same man- ner, and on the same conditions, as the property of any other body corporate whatever. Now though the civil magistrate is the supreme secular governor of every subject, including, for instance, the members of the universities, yet he is content (as he ought to be) with the civil control of them, and the regulation of such matters as im- mediately concern the state. The king and par- liament do not pretend to dictate the practice and sanction the prescriptions in hospitals, nor to make statutes for the universities, nor to prescribe the course of lectures to be delivered by professors ; but leave medical and academical men to settle matters which fall within their own respective provinces. Would it not be preposterous for the state to claim the universities as allieSy and on that ground to draw up and impose, by its own author- ity, a set of mathematical or anatomical articles ; or to interfere with the course of lectures delivered ? And is there anything inconsistent in the protec- tion afforded to the property of such bodies, with- out the exercise of any such interference ? Warburton's position, therefore, that the provi- sion of a legal maintenance for the clergy is ne- cessarily connected with such an alliance of church and state as he advocates, and "must begin and end with it," is utterly untenable, as being either AND TOLERATION. 133 founded on a manifestly false assumption, if you understand him in one sense, or, if in another sense, irrelevant and foreign from the question. If he means by the *' provision of a legal mainte- nance'* the payment of the clergy out of the taxes levied by the state, as the army and navy are paid, his inference may be true, but is nothing to the purpose, since the clergy are not so paid ; if he means by this " provision" merely the legal pro- tection of church property^ the non-alienation of those revenues of which she is in actual possession, then it is utterly false that this requires, or implies, or is in any w^ay necessarily connected with, any interference of the civil magistrate in affairs that are not of a secular character — with any alliance between the two communities ; as is evident from the case of those other institutions above alluded to, with which no such interference is found to be necessary or judged to be reasonable. And as such a possession of property by a church does not necessarily require, and conse- quently does not authorize, any spiritual supremacy or jurisdiction in the civil magistrate, so neither is it at all incompatible with the character of Christ's kingdom. A religious establishment, in this sense, even accompanied by lay-patronage, is by no means subversive of the designs of our Saviour and his apostles ; but, on the contrary, highly con- ducive to them. For supposing Christianity first introduced into some country where it was gladly received, the civil governors of which should have 134 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS determined to stand aloof, in their public capacity, and to leave things to take their own course ; in such a state of things, laymen might, and in many instances prabably would, provide not only for the present, but also for the permanent maintenance of religious ministers, by building and endowing places of worship, and houses for the residence of teachers, each man in his own neighbourhood ; leaving the church whose doctrines he embraced to ordain ministers, and reserving to himself and his heirs merely the right of selecting from among these any minister he might most approve. This patronage would be no more an encroachment on the spiritual rights of the church of Christ than the patronage (for virtually it is such, as far as the preset. t question is concerned) which any one ex- ercises who contributes, in like manner, a smaller sum of money towards the maintenance of any re- ligious teacher whose ministry he approves ; who relieves the wants, for instance, as the Philippians and others did, of Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas. And to such maintenance St. Paul teaches us that Christian ministers are fairly entitled ; but he no- where teaches that the ministers are always to be maintained solely by the voluntary contributions of their Jlocks for the time being. If, for instance, a sum raised for the relief of the immediate wants of St. Paul had proved more than adequate for that purpose, and he had thought it advisable, with the consent, or at the desire of the contributors, to pur- chase, with the overplus, a small piece of ground AND TOLERATION. 135 (supposing the civil government had been willing to extend legal protection to such property), on the revenue of which he might himself subsist during his life, and which afterward might be appropri- ated to the support of any regularly ordained elder whom the church at Philippi might prefer, this could have been no more an infringement of Christ's kingdom than his employment of the money for his own immediate wants. And if such a piece of land had been let or sold, burdened with a rent-charge, to some farmer, who was required to pay over a certain portion of the produce to such elder, it would have been most unreasonable for him to complain that he was contributing by compulsion, and not as a free gift ; since, in truth, he would not have been paying anything that ever was his, nor, consequently, anything that he could have a right to bestow as a gift. Now nothing more than this is necessarily im- plied by a religious establishment, with lay patron- age. And such an establishment is virtually en- joyed in Britain by many sectaries, who hold (in the name of trustees) academies, meeting-houses, and other endowments, bestowed by persons of those persuasions. It may be objected, however, that if the church asserts her independence, denies the spiritual su- premacy of the magistrate, and renounces the alli- ance now subsisting with the state, she cannot claim to retain that property, the possession of which was, if not granted, at least guaranteed to her, at a 136 ON RELIGIOrS ESTABLISHMENTS time when that alliance existed, and that supreme acy was admitted ; since the continuance of these, it may be urged, must be regarded as the un- derstood conditions of the contract by virtue of which she holds her revenues. In short, she may be represented as in the condition of the mouse in Horace's fable, which was obliged to submit to starvation in order to creep through the chink by w^hich alone it could regain liberty : " Macra cavum repetes arctum quem macra subisti." And I trust your clergy would be ready to ex- claim with the poet, " Hac ego si compellar imagine, cuncta resignoy But I will show, I trust, most satisfactorily, that the objection does not apply ; and this for three reasons, any one of which might alone be con- sidered a sufficient reply. First, the magistrate's supremacy ought not to be regarded as having been admitted on the condition of protection of property, but on another condition, which is not fulfilled; so that his claim to that supremacy is, in truth, nullified by a failure on his side. Secondly, even were this not so, the church ought, in equity , to be allowed to retain her property on the same terms with universities, hospitals, and other such public bodies, without being subjected (even with her own original consent) to any harder conditions than the rest. Lastly, and, above all, independent of the foregoing considerations, the state is not AND TOLERATION. IS^i justified, either in prudence or in equity, in insist- ing on the claim of spiritual supremacy as o. benefit to the civil government, because she would not only be no loser, but a very great gainer by relinquishing it. With respect to the first point, I have already shown, in my last letter, that the supremacy of the civil magistrate was admitted on the understood condition that he should prohibit and punish all deviations from the established religion. Doubt- less this compulsory system is both unjust and impolitic ; so also is the subjection of the church to the state ; but the question is not concerning the propriety of the stipulations, but concerning the fact of their existence. Now, not only is it evident that this exercise of coercive power against dissent did exist when the " supremacy" was first allowed, and very long after, but I think no can- did inquirer can doubt that, in the minds of all parties, these two things were considered as the equivalents for each other, and corresponding con- ditions. It is plain, even from the nature of the case abstractedly, that the fair equivalent for mere protection of property is the employment of that property harmlessly, and, on the whole, bene- ficially ; and that the equivalent for giving the civil governor spiritual control over the church and supremacy in religious affairs is, that he, on his part, should allow of no other religion, but should henceforth consider an offence against the church as an offence against the state. And that m2 138 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS this was, in fact, the understanding of all parties, seems evident, not only from the existence of penal laws against dissenters, and from the gen- eral tone in which King James declared that he " would admit of no departure from the articles or the liturgy in any degree," but also from one of the articles themselves ; that which, while it asserts the king's supremacy, explains the term as signifying his " authority to restrain, by the civil sword, the stubborn and evil-doers :" now, since no one could ever have disputed his authority to punish civil offences, this explanation would be nugatory and impertinent, if, under the term " evil- doers," schismatics and other religious offenders were not meant to be included ; not to mention that his authority is at the same time declared to be the same as that of " all godly princes men- tioned in Scripture," of whom the far greater part — the kings of Israel — were, we know, authorized to punish offences of this description. It is manifest, therefore, that the coercive en- forcement of conformity is the natural, and was the understood equivalent for the control exercised by the secular power over the church ; and that all claim to the latter is rendered null by the dis- continuance of the former. But even were this not the case ; were the con- dition on the one side to be considered binding, when the corresponding condition on the other is not fulfilled, still it would be, as I have said, a hard and iniquitous condition that the church AND TOLERATION. 139 should not be allowed to retain her property on the same terms with other bodies corporate, nor to enjoy, in common with them, the protection of her rights, without paying a price for it which is exacted from none of them. With respect to the last point, I have already shown, in a former letter, that the supposed ad- vantage to the state derived from the subjection of the church is altogether unreal ; and that the very object proposed might be even much more effectually obtained without it. Consequently, that cannot reasonably be claimed and insisted on as a benefit which is in reality a detriment. Let any one point out (which it would be diffi- cult for any to do better than Warburton has) what advantages to the state are to be expected from its control over the church, and he will plainly see that there is no one of them — no legitimate one at least — which would not even be better secured by the emancipation of the church. As for the pres- ervation of Christ's religion in its purity, I have already remarked that that object will be the bet- ter attained the less the civil magistrate interferes in religious concerns ; there is no reason why he should be the best judge in such matters ; and if he were, the temporal power, which is the instru- ment he w^orks with, is the one most unfit to be employed in such a case ; and it is, indeed, clearly unjustifiable in the government of a kingdom not of this world. The other proposed advantages are, that the influence of religion may be turned ta 140 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS the service of the state, and that the evils v^rhic; might accrue from the church in its natural inde- pendent condition may be avoided. Novvr, let any statesman but reflect how earnestly and repeatedly Christians are enjoined to submit, for conscience' sake, to every ordinance of man, and to pray for even pagan rulers ; and then let him consider whether a civil governor is not cast- ing discredit either on himself or on the religion whose support he seeks in proclaiming his distrust of the readiness of Christian ministers to teach those lessons of obedience to the existing govern- ment, which any but the most detestable tyrant might naturally expect from them ; in employing those compulsory means of securing their alle- giance, which such a tyrant might employ just as easily as a good prince, and which none but a ty- rant need resort to. Why should the ministers of the gospel, even supposing them ill imbued with the spirit of the gospel, preach rebellion ? Men who possess property have a stake in the country ; and are, therefore, from mere interested motives, seldom the advocates of revolution, which, they must know, generally leads to a wreck of property. And it should be remembered, also, that that which the clergy possess is, great part of it, disposed of by state patronage. Would not the inculcation of the duty of submission to the laws and quiet be- haviour come with a better grace (as well as pray- ers for the king and parliament) from the mouths of men who, though still subjects, and still, more or AND TOLERATION. 141 less, interested in the stability of the government, were yet left to themselves in respect of religious concerns, and acknowledged no supremacy of the civil magistrate, except in civil matters, and in as far as they were, individually, subjects of the state ? They might still be suspected, indeed, in many in- stances, of hunting for preferment. So they are now ; sometimes with reason, and sometimes with- out. But whatever change did take place would he for the better, in respect of their influence with the people. The unfavourable suspicions against them would be mitigated at least, if not removed. They could not, at least, be accused of teaching a parliamentary religion ; of having articles and lit- urgy imposed on them by secular authority ; of being ordained by bishops, themselves ordained by command of the civil power ; in short, of being in no degree free-agents. Their influence, therefore, would be increased ; and that increased influence would be as much directed as now towards the support of legitimate government. But the error which statesmen have committed consists in this ; that they estimated highly, and justly, the impor- tance of religious influence in making men good subjects, and eagerly coveted to secure the advan- tage of such influence in their own favour, without considering that it rests on opinion ; and that, con- sequently, the means they adopted to obtain it ma- terially diminished its weight. The church, when made a subject-ally of the state, cannot give it the same support as when independent ; because it is 142 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS her independence that gives her dignity^ and pro- cures for her veneration ; and it is on these that her power over men's minds must depend. But there is another error which has helped to strengthen the former, and has contributed, with it, to lead to the same result. The statesman looks to the dissenters, and observing the disaffection of many of them, exclaims, " See what the church would be if left in her original independent condi- tion ! See what an organ of sedition the pulpit may be made, and is made, when not under the control of the civil power !" This fallacy, gross as it is, seems to have misled the great Warburton. But can any reasoning be more fallacious than to infer a natural and necessary tendency in the Christian religion to produce disaffection, from the hostility shown by sectaries to a government which arrays itself on the side of their opponents ? and to conclude that, if the magistrate would leave all de- nominations of Christians entirely to themselves, he would experience from all, or from any of them, that unfriendly feeling which he provokes in one party by placing himself at the head of another ? Dissenters, it is true, are tolerated; and doubtless would, of the two, choose rather to be tolerated than persecuted ; but they are indignant at the very name of " toleration." Being naturally and necessarily opposed to the Church of England, they feel that they must be objects of jealousy to him who is the head of that church ; and they feel, con- sequently, a corresponding jealousy towards him. AND TOLERATION. 143 It is not because he is supposed to be, as an indi- vidual j of a different persuasion from them ; but that as a magistrate he is, ex officio, the ecclesias- tical governor of their opponents. He is made a part of the system to which they are adverse ; and their religious principles are thus called into play- in hostility to the government. And thus it is that the liability of the pulpit to become the organ of sedition is produced ; because the preacher who assails your fafth feels that he is virtually opposing the " defender of that faith :" in attacking the church, he cannot but be conscious that he is in some sense encountering its supreme governor. One who can attribute the hostility thus generated, not to the circumstances which so plainly tend to produce it, but to the genius of the Christian reli- gion itself, when left uncontrolled, and who can persuade himself that the same would have been the case had the state never identified itself with the church, nor interfered in its concerns, must be beyond the reach of instruction even from ex- perience ; otherwise I might appeal to the exam- ple, alluded to in a former letter, of the Presbyte- rians of Great Britain, who have always been hos- tile or friendly to the government, according as it was or was not identified with the church which they opposed ; or to the case of the United States ; to the government of which all varieties of sects are alike well-affected, because it does not make it- self the head of any one of them, nor interfere at all in spiritual concerns ; but is content to exercise 144 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS civil control over every individual, of whatever persuasion. Now I have adverted to the case of the Ameri- cans, I will remark, by the way, that though 1 would not pretend to hold them up as a model to others in what regards religion, yet I do think they are perfectly right in considering the govern- ment itself as of no religion at all. This very determination has, I know, occasioned an outcry against them from some who do not understand " what manner of spirit they are of ;" as if it im- plied that they were a nation of atheists. But it does not at all follow, that because the state, as a hodyj is of no religion, therefore the individuals who compose it, whether governors or subjects, are of no religion. For, in truth, the state (as Warburton has well remarked) is not properly a subject of religion. The Jewish nation was, indeed, constituted such by express Divine appointment ; public worship and sacrifice, by and on behalf of the state, was ordained ; and national blessings or calamities were among the chief sanctions of the Mosaic law. But with Christianity the case is far otherwise. It was designed for individual believers, as individuals, and as united in a spiritual community, the church ; political bodies it does not recognise. They may be composed of the very same individuals, but they cannot be, as political bodies, subjects of the Christian religion. Of that religion the object is the salvation of souls ; and it forbids all temporal means of coercion ; the AND TOLERATION. l46 magistrate is authorized and bound to employ coercion in his own proper province; which is, hot the salvation of souls, but the preservation of peace and temporal prosperity. He may be a very zealous Christian, and will doubtless be the better magistrate for being such ; but his zeal would be, to say the least, " a zeal not according to knowledge," if he infringed the principles of the gospel by endeavouring to make Christ's an earth- ly kingdom, and employing temporal power in his cause. The censure so hastily passed on the American government might just as well be applied to any agricultural society ; none of which, that I ever heard of, is of any religion, as a body, though all its members may be good Christians. But be- cause Christianity is useful to the state, as it cer- tainly is, shallow reasoners are thus led to forget that the state itself is not a subject of that religion, nor can lawfully interfere in its concerns ; and that while Christ, in "making himself a king, speaketh" nothing " against Csesar," he requires us to "render unto Csesar and unto God" the things that belong to each. The only way in which the members of the government can allow- ably give effect, in their public capacity, to the con- viction they may feel of the usefulness of any re- ligion, is by securing (or, if they think fit, increas- ing) the endowments appropriated to it, and by defending its professors (in common, however, N 146 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS with those of any other religion) from mob-perse- cution, insult, and libel. ,, The conclusion, then, which both reason and experience must dictate to any man of candour and sense is, that if all subjection of the church to the state were at an end, except the subjection of each individual Christian, in his capacity of citizen^ to the civil government ; if the secular power renounced all supremacy and all interfe- rence in religious concerns, and merely secured, to all descriptions of persons, the property they now possess, so long as it should appear to be, on the whole, not mischievously nor uselessly em- ployed ; that if this, I say, were done, the loyalty of the ministers of the Church of England would remain undiminished ; their influence, and power to inculcate such principles on the people, would be much increased ; and the disloyalty which may exist in any sects of dissenters would be dimin- ished, and would gradually die away. The state, consequently, would be no loser, but a very GREAT GAINER, in rcspcct of the objects proposed by the now subsisting alliance, were the terms of that alliance completely changed, and all claim of supremacy dropped. I have also shown, that even if that were a political benefit which has just been proved to be detrimental to the government, it still would not be equitable to require and insist on from the church harder terms than those required from other bodies, as the condition of enjoying mere AND TOLERATION. 147 security of property, even were such conditions part of the original compact ; but this, also, I have shown is not the case ; since the supremacy of the civil power must be considered as having been the understood equivalent for the employment of coer- cion to enforce conformity ; a condition which is no longer fulfilled. The connexion, then, such as it now subsists, between the state and the church, which some, both statesmen and churchmen, from confused or partial and imperfect views of the subject, are so anxious to maintain, is not only in principle unjus- tifiable, but is, in every point, inexpedient for both parties ; each of whom would obtain the very objects proposed (and others besides) much more easily and eflfectually if the system were altered. And the advantage of a fixed and established maintenance for the clergy (certainly a most im- portant one) is in no respect dependant on, or necessarily connected with, that unscriptural and absurd amalgamation of spiritual things with tem- poral which I have been deprecating. The state derives far less efficient support from those within the church, and incurs far greater danger from those without, than if its interference with religion were at an end ; and the church, on the other hand, is crippled and paralyzed in all its move- ments by the unfitting and injurious aid which is aflforded by the secular power. Were expediency, real expediency, made a plea for profaning Christ's spiritual kingdom, it ought not to be admitted ; 148 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABIilSHMENTS but, in this case, right views even of expediency alone dictate an opposite course ; so that the error is no longer excusable. A few words, before I conclude, on the subject of toleration. I have said that the dissenters are indignant at the name of " toleration ;" and I can- not but think it would be better laid aside. Jt would never, I think, have been employed, in ref- erence to the procedure of any community, had any distinct meaning been attached to the word. Toleration implies two things ; disapprobation, and abstinence from the infliction of any piunishment, or exercise of any act of hostility. \i is, therefore, a branch of Christian charity, to be practised by individuals. They ought to make allowance for the faults or errors of their neighbours ; to prac- tise mildness, gentleness, forbearance, towards such as in their own conscience they believe to be wrong ; to abstain from severity of censure and unkind treatment towards those whose doctrine or prac- tice their own private judgment condemns. To speak, then, of any community being tolerant, in this the obvious and proper sense of the word, is unmeaning. A community, for instance a church or a state, is no really existent person ; but is con- sidered as such only in respect of its institutions and public acts. Independent of these, it has no conscience, no judgment, no approbation or disap- probation^ no opinion or belief. When a state is said to "judge" such and such a kind of conduct or principle to be faulty, this or that act to be an AND TOLERATION. 149 offence, the meaning is, that it has laws against them, denouncing penalties, either positive or nega- tive ; either fine, imprisonment, &c., or privations and disabilities. For the state never speaks but in its laws, and the law never speaks but to command or forbid, and that under a penalty. Now the state, or any other community, cannot be said to tolerate that against which it has a law ; and anything against which it has no law it can- not be. said to disapprove, whatever may be the private opinion of the individuals who administer its affairs. The two points, then, which go to make up the idea of toleration (viz.. disapprobation, and abstinence from punishment) in the case of a community can never be combined ; whatever, as a body, it disapproves, it prohibits and punishes ; whatever it permits, it does not, as a body, disap- prove. If nonconformity be, in the eye of the state, an offence, it ought to he punished ; if wo pun- ishment is denounced against it by the state, that is the same thing as to declare that, in the eye of the law, it is no offence. In like manner, if the church condemn any doctrine or practice, it must, of course, prohibit it, under an ecclesiastical pen- alty ; whatever it does not prohibit, is no heresy or offence in the eye of the church, whatever may be the private opinion of this or that individual member. For instance," whether angels are em- ployed in ministering to Christians on earth or not," is a question on which only one opinion can be true ; but if neither is made an article of faith^ n2 150 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS neither is condemned by liie church, as a commu- nity, nor can, therefore, be a matter of toleration. And as the state has no right to consider any re- ligious opinion as a crime in itself, it has nothing whatever to do with religious toleration. It is true that a community may err by multi- plying enactments unnecessarily, respecting unim-r portant matters ; or by visiting light offences with heavy penalties ; or it may keep clear of this error ; and in this sense it may be said to be of an " intolerant" spirit, on the contrary. But thi^ is a misuse of terms, which serves no purpose but to confuse men's notions. It would be, for in- stance, an impertinent innovation in language to say that various modes of dress are tolerated by the government of Great Britain ; meaning that, while, at one time, in Russia, a particular fashion was prescribed by the emperor, to which all were compelled to conform, in England, on the contrary, every one is free to dress as he pleases ; or to speak of the tolerance of your laws with respect to petty larceny ; because that offence is not pun- ished so severely as burglary. Dissenters, then, might complain of want of tol- eration, in a certain sense, by the Church of Eng- land (though it would be more properly called needless scrupulosity), if she excluded them from her communion on account of trifling points of doc- trine or discipline. In truth, that is precisely the complaint which she may fairly make against them ; most of them having, in the first instance. AND TOLERATION, , 1§1 withdrawn from her communion, of their own ao- cord, on the most frivolous grounds, and without even waiting to complain or remonstrate. But to speak of their toleration by the state is intrinsically absurd ; it implies that the same thing is at once a political offence and no political offence. It is not, however, a mere inaccuracy of language that I am objecting to ; the word toleration, by car- rying with it a notion of censure and disapproba- tion, tends unnecessarily to exasperate the feelings of dissenters ; and, together with the civil magis- trate's supremacy in the Church of England, con- tributes to make them feel themselves a proscribed party, who owe the government no kindly feeling. It is, in short, of a piece with the folly of the Sam- nite general, who made his prisoners pass under the yoke^ and then dismissed them, irritated, but not disabled. You suggested to me, I remember, that if the Church of England were no longer recognised as a part of the political constitution of the state, the sectaries might come forward to assert a claim to a share of her revenues ; urging that the ministers of one persuasion have as good a right to tithes as another, when no one is the religion of the state. Very likely they might do this ; they can hardly be more jealous of the property of your church than they are already. But there are only two points to be considered : whether there would be zxij justice in their claim, and whether they would have power to carry it into effect. I think neither. 15S ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS If the revenues of the church were, what they are not, a payment by the state out of the public reve- nues, it would be most unreasonable to demand that the state should withdraw part of that payment from those who now receive it, on the ground that they would no longer recognise the supremacy of the civil power, and bestow it on others who equally refuse to admit this supremacy. If a man with- holds the wages of a servant who refuses to work for him, he will surely either keep them to himself, or pay them to another who will work for him ; but, in reality, there is no payment in the question. I know the dissenters are apt to cast into the teeth of your clergy that they byq paid for their preach- ing ; though, in reality, they are the only ministers of religion in England who are not. All dissent- ing teachers are dependant on contributions put into the plate ; on the letting of pews in chapels ; or, in some way or other, on the wages their con- gregations choose to pay them. On the contrary, that which is paid to the clergy of the Church of England is not paid, in the same sense of the word, any more than a legacy is paid by an executor, whose property it is not, nor ever was. And the Church of England has the same equitable title to what she now possesses, as colleges, hospitals, and other such institutions have to their respective possessions. The projected London University might as well claim a share of the revenues of Ox- ford and Cambridge, and of the Scotch and Irish universities (of none of which the civil magistrate AND TOLERATION. 153 is the academical, but only the civil ruler), as the dissenters could of the property actually in posses- sion of the church. A9 for any portion p^f the na- tional wealth which might hereafter be set apart for religious purposes, by all means let any sect come forward and urge its claims, and support the m fey such arguments as it thinks best. But that is quite ^ cji|iereiit question. ' ' ' ' •■ * ' ' ■ n&if , yap Toi 5d)ffov(Tt yipns — OvSs Ti TTO) Ufi^v SrNHIA Kiifitva raWif 'AXXa — To, SiSaarai' Aaovs ovK enioiKS IIAAIAAOrA rSvT iirayiipeiv. As for the power of the sectaries to make good such an unreasonable demand, it is to be hoped that the government of Britain will never want either the will or the strength to protect one part of her subjects from being plundered by another. She might answer, and I trust would answer, to such claimants, ^' You have seminaries, chapels, minis- ter's houses, and other such property for the ben- efit of your own religious communities, to which the Church of England lays no claim: why should you claim her property ? It is true, your posses- sions are very small in comparison of hers ; so are your numbers ; but they are also, we allow, much less in proportion to your numbers. What then ? If mere inequality of wealth is to be admitted as a ground for a redistribution, there is an end of so- ciety. Any one of you who possesses anything, must on that principle admit the claim of any poor man, who may urge that his neighbour has more 164 ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS, ETC. than enough for a subsistence, and that he himself would be glad of a share ; by which rule, a gen- eral pillage of the rich by the poor must ensue. Covet not, then, what belongs to another, but seek by honest means to provide supplies for your own wants." Nothing could be more just than such a reply ; and none, I conceive, would be more likely to be given; for the British government has always shown a laudable caution in meddling with the rights of her subjects, whether individuals or cor- porations, to their actual property. And when legislators once come to perceive clearly that the state would be a gainer by the emancipation of the church, I think they will be ready to concede it without making the sacrifice of her revenues the price of it ; since they are well aware, that when once a precedent is given, the fashion of spoliation is of all infections the most apt to spread. Of the consequences, however, which may be expected to ensue from the adoption of such meas- ures as I have been recommending, I will take a more detailed view in another letter. EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. 155 LETTER VI. CONSEQUENCES OF THE EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. My dear , The principal effect I should look for from the adoption of such nfieasures as I have been recom- mending is, the blessing of our great Master upon your endeavours to further the proper objects of his heavenly kingdom. He has promised that ** the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ;" and that he " vs^ill be v^^ith it always, even unto the end of the world ;" and each particular branch of his church ought to rely on that his promise, so far, and so far only, as they comply with his in- junctions and conform to the spirit of his gospel. I am not one of those, however, who look for miraculous interferences ; but I conceive that God has so appointed things, that a diligent compliance with his will, as it is the condition, shall be also the natural means, through the ordinary course of his providence, of obtaining that success which is its promised reward. If, indeed, we were in any case unable to perceive in what manner a con- formity to the Divine laws could tend to bring about the ends proposed, it would yet evidently argue a culpable want of faith to hesitate, for that 156 CONSEQUENCES OP THE reason, in obeying them ; but in the present in- stance it is possible to understand, in great meas- ure, the natural tendency of a system of conduct carefully modelled upon the precepts of the gospel, to promote those objects for the sake of which the church was instituted, viz., the immediate one, of purity of worship ; and the ultimate one, the sal- vation of souls. I have already given several hints of this in the preceding letters; and I will make it clear, I trust, in almost every point, that the Supreme Controller of human affairs has so admirably conformed his system to the nature of man, that the most exact and implicit observance of the spirit of his directions will be ever the most effectual way of accomplishing the designs pro- posed ; even where man, trusting to his own judg- ment, would have thought far otherwise ; and that all departures from such principles, and adoption of such means for maintaining and promoting true religion, as the most ingenious human policy can devise, never fail to defeat the end in view. And from this consideration, by-the-way, may be in- ferred the Divine origin of our religion ; at least, which comes to the same, that it is a system con- trived by some intellectual power surpassing that of the wisest legislators ; for otherwise it would have prescribed means for the attainment of its proposed objects, such as political ingenuity would dictate ; if, therefore, we find, on the contrary, sbch a mode of procedure enjoined by its Founder and his apostles as human ingenuity would con- EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. 157 sider not the wisest and most effectual ; if we find skilful men in all ages departing more or less from the principles of the gospel in their endeavours to further the cause of Christianity, either from over- looking those principles or distrusting their effi- cacy ; if we find that in proportion as they have done so they have failed of their object ; and if we find, on reconsidering the matter, under the guidance of experience, that there is every reason to expect better success from a closer conformity to the principles that had been abandoned ; if, I say, we find all this to be the case, we cannot re- fuse our admiration to the superhuman wisdom of the Founder of our faith ; and we may urge against the infidel, without fear of refutation, that had Jesus been a mere human pretender, he would have directed the adoption either of such a system as human wisdom would suggest, or else of such a one as would fail of the objects proposed ; in- stead of which he has prescribed rules, of which, even when suggested, scarcely any one ever has understood the expediency ; and which men, when trusting to their own judgment, have always de- parted from ; and which yet appear, upon trial, to be the only ones that prove effectual. This is an argument which appears to me nearly decisive. For suppose but the case of a master- builder, a physician, or other artist, dictating such a mode of procedure to those under him as appears to them quite inadequate and unsuitable to the pro- posed object ; and most of them, accordingly, disre- o 158 CONSEQUENCES OP THE gard his directions, and try their own way ; they suc- ceed very ill ; and then, on reconsidering the mat- ter ; reflecting on the causes of their failure ; and oUserving the better success of those workmen who had adhered more implicitly to the method pointed out to them, they are at length convinced that this, and this alone, will secure the proposed object ; will they not then have, on the best grounds, the fullest conviction that the master knew, much bet- ter than any of them, how to accomplish his pur- pose? And would they not, I may add, unless strangely stupid and perverse, place the most un- doubting confidence in him for the future, even in other cases where they might not perceive the wis- dom of his designs? How detrimental to the cause of true religion have proved many of the measures adopted with a view to promote it — measures devised by self- sufl[icient man, and at variance with the principles of the gospel — I have, in several instances, pointed out ; and in so doing I have adverted incidentally to some of the advantages to be looked for, on the principles of mere human calculation, from a quite opposite course. But it may be worth while to sum up, and present to your consideration, in a more connected manner, some of the principal of those benefits. It must be remembered, however, if we would come to a right conclusion on this point, what the objects are that the sincere followers of Christ ought chiefly to aim at, viz., not the mere increase of the number of nominal Christians — the EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. 159 augmentation of the crop by an admixture of tares, or the loading the " net cast into the sea" by aug- menting the multitude of the worthless fishes that are to be thrown away — but the increase of the numbers, and of the moral excellence, of sincere Christians; the ''coming of Christ's kingdom" in the hearts of men, and the doing of " his will on earth as in heaven." In this way it is that the church may be in reality gaining ground, when, at the first glance, it might appear to be falling back. The first and principal advantage, then, which, through the Divine blessing, I should expect to ac- crue to your church from a closer adherence to the principles of the gospel, is an increased purity in the faith, the worship, and the conduct of her mem- bers. No longer paralyzed by unfitting aid from the " arm of flesh," she would be enabled, without incur- ring the guilt and the odium of persecution, to en- force primitive discipline ; and, in the last resort, to expel, as all other religious societies do that are not dependant on the stale, those who were obstinately disobedient or incorrigible. This restoration of ancient discipline your church (in the Commina- tion-service) speaks of as "much to be desired;" and Warburton also lays it down as an indubitable principle, that every society must have the right of excommunicating a member who will not comply with its regulations. It is a pity that those who drew up that Commination-service never considered what it is that prevents the wished- for restoration of discipline ; viz., that it is the secular support^ by 160 CONSEQUENCES OF THE which it was meant to be enforced, but which, in reality, has brought it to nothing ; since any enact- ment which would bring a man within the reach of temporal penalties for religious offences would be both odious and unchristian. Again, reforms and alterations, the improvement of what is good, and the correction of what is faulty, which must always be needed, from time to time, in any institution conducted by fallible men, might be introduced, as they were needed, without difficulty and without risk. I am far from wishing for anything like a " radical reform" of your church, a complete change of her system, or even any approach to it ; but were she even infallible, which is not pretended, alterations must be required, from time to time, to meet the changes which take place in different periods of society ; since that which is the best conceivable institution when enacted cannot possibly always continue so. Indeed, I think the great error of all radical reform- ers consists in this ; that they expect their reform, when once made, will last for ever, and prove an eternal barrier, not needing repair, against the abuses excluded ; and yet it is plain this never could be the case, even were their schemes as perfect as they themselves suppose, while men continue to be fallible and frail, unless revision and correction from time to time took place. " Things change for the worse," says Bacon, " of themselves ; if, then, they be not, by design and counsel, changed for the bet- ter, what end will there be of the evil V There is EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. 161 on record a good reply to a papist by a Protestant, from which Protestants themselves might learn more than they do ; when asked» " Where was your religion before the time of Luther ?" he asked in return, "Did you wash your face this morning?" ** Yes." " Then where was your face before it was washed ?" This ought not to be regarded as a mere witty repartee, but a just description of the case ; and it would have been well had it always been re- membered, that our faces do not require merly to be washed once for all^ but every day. Under such a system as I would recommend, you might rectify or improve whatever might need it, without any more difficulty or hazard to the rev- enues of the church than the universities, for in- stance, incur when they alter, from time to time, their statutes; as I believe the university of Cam- bridge has done lately, and that of Oxford some years ago, in what regards the course of academical studies, and the terms to be kept preparatory to de- grees, without any jealousy excited in the members of the administration, or risk of the college-endow- ments, and without any idea being entertained that government had anything to do with the matter. You, on the contrary, are even in a greater strait than the Church of Rome ; whose pretence to in- fallibility only compels them to maintain, in theory, that each of their institutions was perfect at the time when it was established ; whereas you have to maintain, in practice^ the unerring rectitude of your own, not only originally, but for ever ; they o2 162 CONSEQUENCES OF THE may say, "this is no longer expedient ;" but your institutions are like the *' law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not," even after two or three centuries ; for you cannot alter anything without the co-operation of the civil power, and with it you are too wise to take any such steps ; lest, when once called in, it should do more than you would wish. You are well aware that those who are " set to judge in things pertaining to this world" may as likely as not be " those who are least esteemed in the church ;" persons not neces- sarily better qualified to decide upon your con- cerns than many a parish minister is to be a min- ister of state ; persons who, perhaps, have little in- terest or knowledge about anything belonging to the church, except its properly. And you well know that it is dangerous to make any of your in- stitutions matter of public legislative discussion between two parties, most of whom usually agree in regarding the clergy as hired servants of the state, no less than military officers ; and who only disagree as to the question, whether others may not be found to do the work cheaper, that they may seize upon the overplus. Of course you will not understand me to mean that any one is necessarily the worse moral man, or the worse Christian, or the worse theologian, for being a politician ; but neither is he necessarily the better. If any one doubts the possibility of finding in eminent states- men the grossest ignorance of the doctrines and in- stitutions of the Church of England, let him read EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. 163 the speeches in parliament on the Catholic ques- tion. I am by no means disposed to expect that any institution conducted by fallible men will ever at- tain perfection ; but as long as you are continually labouring to approach towards it, and keep the means in your hands of rectifying abuses as they arise, and of introducing such improvements as are called for, it is to be hoped that your endeavours after Christian excellence will be graciously ac- cepted : not so with those who are content to put it out of their own power to apply any remedy, where it may be called for, in the affairs of a soci- ety committed by its Founder to their care, and not to that of the temporal authorities. But here I must remark that there is a most important distinction relative to the present head, which should never be lost sight of in our discus- sions reljiting to it ; the distinction, I mean, be- tween the two questions, what institutions are on each point the best ; and, what is the authority by which they should be established. An error in re- spect of the thing enacted, and in respect of the power which enacts it, are each to be avoided indeed ; but they are errors of two very different kinds, and should not be confounded together. If, for instance, any free and independent church, sup- pose the American Episcopalian, have any error in doctrine or in discipline sanctioned by her regular spiritual authorities, that is one kind of fault; if, again, congress or parliament should enforce even 164 CONSEQUENCES OP THE true doctrines and wise regulations, that would be another kind of fault ; and it is this last which con- stitutes the encroachment on Christ's kingdom. This distinction, so generally overlooked in the present case, is, in political affairs, clearly perceived. If an injudicious law were to pass both houses of parliament in Britain, and receive the royal assent, though this law ought indeed to be altered or ab- rogated, yet till then it would be in all respects valid, and the enactment of it would not be a vio- lation of the constitution ; but, on the other hand, if the wisest enactment rested only on the authority of a royal proclamation^ the attempt to enforce it as a law would be strenuously and justly resisted, as unconstitutional. And equally unconstitutional, with reference to the constitution of Christ's spirit- ual kingdom, are all enactments relative to doctrine and discipline ; in short, to spiritual concerns em- anating from secular authority. With regard to these, therefore, we ought not to entertain the ques- tion relative to their propriety or impropriety, only in the case of those which rest on independent spir- itual authority. It is evident, that for bishops to have, as such, and by virtue of their office, a seat in the House of Lords, is inconsistent with the principles which I have been pointing out ; and this, which many would reckon among the sacrifices called for by the adoption of the system I would recommend, I should reckon among its advantages ; since, be- sides its intrinsic unlawfulness, as making Christ's EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. 165 kingdom a secular one, it answers no purpose so effectually as that of giving a sanction to that state interference which it is insufficient effectually to control. Something might be said, perhaps, on views of worldly expediency, if the bishops had a veto on all questions affecting the church ; but as it is, their power is, in furthering the interests of the church, inconsiderable ; in giving a colour to any encroachments on it, but too great. Indeed, the situation of most of those, both temporal and spir- itual officers, who have spiritual control over your church under the existing system of alliance, fre- quently reminds me of Lord Bacon's remark on witches, in respect of their supposed compact with evil spirits, that it gives them abundant power to do mischief, but none at all to do good. Many a man who has it in his power to connive at, and support, and increase abuses, if he attempts to remedy them finds his hands tied : to hold up the doctrines, and discipline, and authority of your church to con- tempt, is in the power of many; but who is able, if disposed, effectually to support them? If, however, any peer of parliament thought fit to take holy orders, and the officers of the church to ordain him minister or bishop, this would be no encroachment on the rights of Christ's kingdom, which does not recognise any temporal distinc- tions; in it "there is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free;" and, consequently, birth, wealth, temporal office, or any other tem- poral distinction, cannot, in themselves, have virtue 166 CONSEQUENCES OF THE either to admit any one to the exercise of any spiritual function, or to exclude him from it. And it is equally, in itself^ allowable for the king to create any minister or bishop a peer, if he thinks fit ; and so it is, in itself, nothing unlawful for any electors to choose a clergyman as their represent- ative. I have already noticed the preposterous anomaly o{ excluding from the House of Commons every clergyman, though he may have no cure, or a very small one, and at the same time putting a bishop, who must have enough to occupy his lime necessarily^ in possession of a seat in the House of Peers. Whether it would be in any case com- patible with the duties of a clergyman to sit, sup- posing him otherwise entitled, in either house, is a question which the church ought to decide ; it is her concern. In the legislature it is most unjust either to appoint or exclude any one, as a clergy- man ; they having, in reason and equity, no more concern with his ordination than with his degree in arts. But when any one's ecclesiastical dignity gives him civil power, or, vice versdy his civil office gives him ecclesiastical, this is, so far, making Christ's kingdom a kingdom of this world. The church, as a church, i. e., as a spiritual com- munity, has no concern with secular government ; nor ought even to be represented in parliament. It has property indeed ; and that being a tempo- rality, may very properly be represented ; but not through the means of bishops, or of any Christian officers, as such. It is thus that the universities EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. 167 are, very suitably, represented in parliannent ; not as places of learning, but as corporations possess- ing property ; and accordingly it is enacted, not that the professors, or the rector or chancellor, should, in those capacities, have seats in the house, but that all the students, or whatever they may be who have a share in the joint-property, should elect whom they think fit to represent that prop- erty. They may elect as menaber one of the pro- fessors, if they think him a fit person ; but it would be absurd to make the Greek or the Latin profes- sor (especially if appointed by the crown), by vir- tue of his office, the representative ; since the most learned man, and the best qualified to deliver lec- tures, may happen not to be the best qualified for a place in the legislature. There is nothing improper, therefore, in allow- ing holders of livings, whether lay or clerical, to be accounted freeholders, since they vote in right of the property they possess ; their stake in the country, whether they are lay impropriators or ofliiciating ministers ; not by virtue of ordination* The mode, however, in which they vote, scattered thinly as they are through the country, reduces their influence to little or nothing ; and as tithes and glebe (under which I include all such lands as, having been church property, are tithe-free) con- stitute a description of properly in many respects distinct, it would, perhaps, be more fair that it should be distinctly represented. If, instead of members being returned by the universities, each 168 CONSEQUENCES OF THE graduate in any of them were entitled to vote as a freeholder in the county of which he was a na- tive or a resident, or in which his university holds property, the unwersity interests would be but ill represented ; and the influence which those bodies have, and ought to have, would be frittered away. I think, therefore, that the fairest representation of church property would be, for the holders of it, clerical and lay, to elect in each diocess, or other appointed district, one or two representatives of the church property within that district. I recollect a suggestion in an essay on the tithe system,* which struck me as very judicious ; that these holders of ecclesiastical property in each dis- trict should be impowered also to appoint, in each, a committee, chapter, college, or whatever else it might be called, which should receive a legal in- corporation, and be accounted, as a body, the owner of that collective property, or of all that the holders of it within that district might choose to put into their hands ; they distributing to each his propor- tionate share of the total revenue, as colleges and chapters do to their fellows, canons, &c. The ob- ject proposed by this arrangement was to do away, which I think would be the result, most of the in- conveniences of tithes, which, as it is, are a per- petual source of bickering between the minister and his parishioners ; and to remove most of the obstacles now existing to their commutation for * Essay on the Tithe System. Hatchard, London ; and Parker, Oxford, first published in No. 16, British Review. EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. 169 lands. The supreme head on earth of each branch of Christ's church should evidently be some spir- itual officer or body. Whether the governor of the English church were the primate or the convoca- tion, or both conjointly, or any other man or body of men holding ecc/esias^ica/authority, not attached to any civil office, nor in the gift of any civil gov- ernor, in either case the nonsecular character of Christ's kingdom would be preserved. The king, in conjunction with the other branches of the legis- lature, ought to have a distinctly defined iemporai authority over every one of his subjects, of what- ever persuasion ; and, of consequence, over the ministers and all other members, both of the Church- of England and of every other religious community^ Christian, Jewish, or pagan, within his dominions: but neither he nor any other civil power should interfere with articles of faith, liturgy, church dis- cipline, or any other spiritual matters. The king- dom of heaven has no king but Christ ; and he delegated his authority to apostles, and, through- them, to bishops and presbyters ; not to any secular magistrates. These, therefore, ought not, by virtue of their civil offices, to claim the appointment to any offices in the church. The magistrate may^ however, very fairly exercise patronage in respect of temporalities ; selecting, out of those already or- dained by the church, whom he will for appoint- ment to certain endowments. He may rightfully say — ** You have consecrated this man a minister, I choose to appoint him to such and such a bene- p 170 CONSEQUENCES OF THE fice." That is no encroachment on the rights of the church. But it would be so were he to ordain (or, which is the same thing, compel others to or- dain) any particular person a priest or a bishop ; though one who is already a bishop he may insti- tute to a particular see. This translation, however, of bishops from one see to another, though no en- croachment on the spiritual rights of the church, I hold to be so highly inexpedient^ that I would have the church prohibit bishops from accepting such translation. If, however, the church thought fit to ordain many more bishops than you now have to act as assistants (of which there is very great need) to the bishop of each diocess, it would be very al- lowable for the magistrate to appoint one of these, whichever he would, to any vacant see, eiiher with or without the form of an election or recommenda^ tion; but no royal recommendation should be al- lowed to determine who should he ordained bishop, unless you come to the conclusion, and openly pro- claim it, that a bishop has x\o spiritual office distinct from that of the presbyter, and, consequently, that the ordination of a bishop is a nullity. Let a man be selected for the office of bishop, either by the dean and chapter, or by the other bishops, or by the clergy of the diocess, or by all the members ©f the church, lay and clerical, or, in short, in any way by the churchy as a church. All these modes cannot be equally expedient; but what I mean to point out is, that none of them would be at va- riance with the spiritual character of Christ's king- dom. EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. 171 A church constituted on these principles would combine the advantages at present possessed sep- arately by your church and by sectaries. A candid and intelligent by-stander can scarcely fail, I think, to remark, in contemplating the religious condition of your country, that you and the dissenters pos- sess each some advantages over the other. The Church of England has, generally speaking, a more learned and respectable body of clergy, from their superior opportunities of obtaining a good educa- tion ; from their not being dependant on wages paid them at the will of their congregations, and from other causes. It has also a sounder and a more permanent system of doctrines : by " more permanent" I mean, that, instead of trusting every- thing to the extemporary effusions of the minister (the grand source of unlimited fluctuations in reli- gion), you have an excellent compendium of divinity imbodied in your liturgy ; I do not mean that it is any advantage to have a system that is practically unalterable for ever. A well-built house is much preferable to a temporary booth ; but it is no ad- vantage to a house that it should be incapable of receiving repairs. The dissenters, on the other hand, have generally a greater degree of spirit and energy in their communities ; not merely from being the ex-parly, but also from feeling that what- ever is done in respect of their religious affairs is done by themselves, as a spiritual body, not by an extraneous authority ; and from the exercise of a mutual control, by their being able, in the last re- 172 CONSEQUENCES OF THE sort, to disown any member who might prove an incumbrance to their society. Your church, in shorU may be compared to a human body, more perfect as to the skeleton, and more beautifully con- structed ; but which, from languor of circulation, is become somewhat feeble in muscle — incapable of throwing off peccant humours — and ill qualified for energizing with vigour, when compared with a frame less perfectly compacted, but possessing a more lively circulation and a more elastic activity. Both these classes of advantages then, freed from their accompanying deficiencies, would be pos- sessed by your church were it but conformed to the principles I have been laying down. Another advantage, which 1 cannot indeed call a certain, but which I cannot help thinking a prob- able result, is the advancement of Protestantism both in your own and in popish countries. Among other obstacles to its progress, one, I have no doubt, is the jealousy felt by the ministers and other zeal- ous members of the Romish communion, of the sacrilegious power (as they consider it) exercised by civil magistrates in Protestant countries over their respective churches. They cannot bear the idea of surrendering the church into the hands of the secular power. Many of them undoubtedly perceive great part of the errors of their own church ; and some of them probably suspect the validity of the pope's claim to universal suprcm'dcy ; but still, they would rather submit to that, even though an usurping spiritual power, than to that EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. 173 secular supremacy which ihoy justly apprehend would be the only alternative. Remove this ap- prehension by establishing the spiritual in(|epend- ence of the church, and allowing due veneration for her Divine authority, and you will have removed at least one great obstacle (I think the principal one) to the conversion of the papist. As it is, one of their chief arguments is drawn from the secular character of your church-government. If the church in each country, they tell you, must needs have a supreme head superior to its own bishops and archbishops, it is better that that head should be the pope, who at least is an ecclesiastical offi- cer, than a king or a burgomaster. The only disadvantage, as some would account it, to counterbalance the benefits of the proposed change, would be one which /should reckon among its advantages, viz., the loss, if it might be so called, of many insincere, nominal members of your church, who have no real attachment to the society, no care for the objects it proposes, and whose con- duct tends neither to its credit nor to the support of its true interests. And such a loss would be a gain similar to what the mighty host of Xerxes would have experienced had he dismissed his use- less multitude of camp-followers, and retained only his efficient soldiers. The slight and hasty sketch I have given of the advantages which might be expected to accrue to your church from a strict compliance with the spirit of its Founder's precepts, may be sufficient, I think, p2 174 CONSEQUENCES OF THE to convince any attentive and candid reasoner that Christ and his apostles knew better what would conduce to the true interests of a spiritual kingdom than any of those ingenious but worldly politicians, who have always been endeavouring to improve upon the system they laid down. And this affords a strong presumption of the superhuman wisdom displayed by the first promulgators of the gospel. Should you adopt the main part of the principles I have laid down, and communicate them to any of the members of your church, you would find many, I am persuaded, who would in most points agree with you, but would (most of them) express their fears, that what was good in theory could not be realized in practice. They would tell you that it would raise clamour, and would be attended with various dangers, to attempt any change in the ex- isting system ; though they would acknowledge, that had things from the first been contrived differ- ently, it would have been far better ; but now, none but the most sanguine and wild enthusiast, they would say, can fail to perceive the universal confusion and ruin which would ensue from any at- tempt at a reform. Without stating precisely the process by which that ruin would take place (for the timorous can seldom bring themselves to take a very deliberate, and clear, and distinct view of the objects of their alarm), they would urge, generally, that objections would be raised ; that statesmen would be alarmed ; that churchmen would be di- vided ; that the activity of sectaries would be EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. 175 aroused, with a whole train of those undefined terrors which appal the imagination of the faint- hearted, and which they dress up in the specious garb of politic foresight. Some of these persons, perhaps, may be of the number of those who (like Paley) *' cannot afford to keep a conscience ;" who have prospects in the church or in the state which they are afraid of endangering by incurring the suspicion of being advocates of reform : " 1 thought to promote thee to great honour ; but, lo, the Lord hath kept thee back from honour." But others, probably, would be not self-interested, but merely timid ; fearful of some undefined danger to the church, and fearful of themselves incurring cen- sure, obloquy, ridicule, violent opposition, and per- secution ; and would thus be withheld, by a general, indistinct dread of ill consequences, from practi- cally assenting to what their judgment might ap- prove. I would ask such persons, Are these prin- ciples, or are they not, such as you are clearly hound, in duty to your Master, to advocate and to act upon, as you shall answer before him at the last day ? You should decide this question first, before you even take into consideration the calcu- lation of consequences, upon views of human expe- diency, in a case where you have express Divine injunctions. If you decide this question in the af- firmative, and yet refuse to act on your conviction, is it not that you would be willing to follow your Master, provided you were but not required to ** take up your cross and follow him ?** Is not 176 CONSEQUENCES OF THE your fear of censure, and opposition, and ridicule for obedience to his will, " being ashanned of him and of his words ?'* And is it not, consequently, to incur the risk of his being ashanned of you ? The very notion of Christian faiih excludes that of a distrust of Christ's power to support and prosper the endeavours of those who are ready to " leave all and follow him." 1 would say to one who dreaded lest he should sink amid the troubled waves of civil or religious contests, while walking over their surface to meet his Master who had called him, " Oh thou of little faith, wherefore dost thou doubt ?'* Thou wilt indeed sink, if thou dost not rely firmly on his word to support thee ! Take hold of Jesus, if thou art fearful, and he will bear thee up. But what, after all, are the mighty dangers so much apprehended ? The state, as we have seen, would lose nothing, and would gain much, in re- spect of the support derived from the loyalty of Christians, were civil interference in religious mat- ters withdrawn. The security of the church prop- erty, again, would not be endangered, as long as the principles of equity and good government should maintain their ground ; and on no other principles can that, or any other property, be secure, even now. But it is feared, perhaps, that when the church should exercise primitive discipline, excom- municating, as St. Paul enjoins, scandalous sin- ners, obstinate heretics, or pertinacious noncom- municants (by excom.municating I mean excluding EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. 177 them from all intercourse in things pertaining to religion^ not from receiving mere charitable of- fices, nor from the common intercourse of buying and selling, &c., which is allowable between a Christian and "a heathen man or a publican"); and when no fresh members should be admitted by baptism (except adults), without good and approved sureties for their being Christianly brought up ; it may be feared, I say, that, were all this done, a mighty defalcation in the numbers of your church would take place. Those, as I have already ob- served, who were not sincerely religious, nor loyal subjects of Christ's kingdom, would " go back, and walk no more with him :" and in God's name let them go 1 " Fear not, little flock !" ** The sword of the Lord and of Gideon" accomplished, with three hundred men, a victory, of which he would have failed had he scrupled to thin his host by send- ing back those whose hearts failed them. The field is thinned, indeed, by the removal of the tares ; but the wheat thrives the better without them ; they may not, indeed, be rooted up by force, before the harvest; but if they will go away of themselves, you will gain in purity much more than you lose in quantity. What, then, you may say, are we called upon to do ? To separate from the Church of England ? Surely not : but to strive, in the first instance at least, and to strive earnestly and steadily, to sepa- rate the church from the every way pernicious 178 CONSEQUENCES OF THE alliance with the state. I abhor schism ; I would not urge you to be one of those who cause divis- ions in the church ; but it is no schism to divide the spiritual kingdom of Christ from the secular government, with which it has no natural, and can have no lawful connexion. As I formerly re- marked to you, he who thinks his country en- thralled by an unfair alliance with some foreign state, would be a rebel, should he at once throw off his allegiance, without, at least, having first done his very utmost to restore her to independ- ence. So, likewise, does he incur the guilt of schism who, when his church is involved in corre- sponding difficulties, at once renounces her, with- out having ascertained, by using the most earnest and strenuous endeavours, that the case is en- tirely hopeless. The sectaries certainly deserve much blame for too hastily seceding ; but, on the other hand, it must be confessed that your church has been too backward in protesting. Let churchmen then, not the clergy only, but all members of your church who understand and who would promote her best interests, protest and petition, respectfully and modestly, but firmly and perseveringly, against the profanation of Christ's kingdom by that double usurpation, the interfe- rence of the church in temporals, and of the state in spirituals. The language of their petitions need not be offensive ; and the matter of them would be in the highest degree reasonable. They might EMANCIPATION OF THE CHURCH. 179 say, in substance : " We are convinced that Christ's kingdom is not of this world ; that, consequently, all interference of the church in civil, or of the tem- poral power in religious concerns, is clearly at variance with our Lord's design, and what we cannot in conscience acquiesce in ; we deprecate all imputation of disloyalty; we profess that de- voted and conscientious submission to the civil power, in all civil concerns, which was taught and practised by the apostles ; we are sincere friends both to the church and to the state, though not to the unnatural and unhallowed union between them ; the advantages to the government which states- men have proposed from the subjection of the church to the state, we are convinced, and are prepared to prove decisively, would be much more easily and effectually secured if all interference of this kind were withdrawn ; we ask no protection or support for the church from the government, except the defence of individuals from insult and persecution, and that security of property which is enjoyed by all hospitals, free-schools, parishes, and other such bodies ; we feel persuaded, and are ready to maintain, that under such a system gov- ernment" would lose nothing except odium and trouble, and would be a great gainer in point of influence, security, and popularity ; we doubt not the good intentions of the civil rulers towards the cause of religion, and in their capacity of Chris^ iians we invite their co-operation ; but, in that of 180 EMANCIPATION OF THE CHimCH. rulers^ they may do the church much harm, and can do it no good ; as citizens, therefore, we ask of the government only that protection which it i» bound to extend to all classes ; as a church, we ask nothing of it but to let us alone." THE END.