MASTER NEGA TIVE NO. 93-81292 MICROFILMED 1993 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the ^ "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project Funded by the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or other reproduction Is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes In excess of fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order ,0 d involve violation of the copyright law. A UTHOR: HEUGH, HUGH TITLE: CONSIDERATIONS ON CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS PLACE: GLASGOW DA TE: 1833 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT DIDLIOGRAPHIC MICROrORM TARHFT Master Negative # Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record Restrictions on Use: 2.2. Tjor\sicle:T»)l>Q-ns or* civil No. 1^ of a volume of pampVilpts. o ^sfs^blisn- ; TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA MaJe SfcEMEN^^^ HB ^"^^^""^ ^^^^^^= '"^ DAfE FILMED: _<^^^ INITIALS HLMEDBY: RESEARCH P UBLICATION.S. INC WOODnRrDGE7c:T 1 r Association for Information and Image Management 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 1 2 3 11: iHiniiiiiiiniiiiiiiim rrr 5 6 7 8 liiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii TTT T TTT 1 n 12 13 14 15 mm iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 10 m TTT TTT Inches 1.0 I.I 1.25 Ik 2A II ^-^ 1^° 1^ 3.2 2.2 1*1 !■■ 1111= ISO 2.0 !& 1.8 1.4 1.6 V I MfiNUFfiCTURED TO FIIIM STPNDPRDS BY fiPPLIED IMRGE. INC. KoAZ. CONSIDERATIONS ON CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION; WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING REMARKS ON Dr. INGLIS'S "VINDICATION." By H. HEUGH, D.D. THIRD EDITION. GLASGOW: DAVID ROBERTSON, TRONGATE; JOBN WARDLAW, EDINBURGBj WESTLEY & DAVIS, LONDON. MDCCCXXXIU. ii .'ii ^ CONSIDERATIONS, 4;c. i i / % In addressing the public on Civil Establishments of reli- gion, It IS unnecessary, at the present crisis, to shew the importance belonging to the subject of inquiry. It is difficult indeed, to arrest the attention of the communitv generally to any subject not very palpably connected with heir individual interests, or not associated with incidents ll f !iM • P"^^i' ""^".^Z ^"* ^5^ ^" ^^« ^^^^ seriously directed their minds to this subject-by the active friends of religious Establishments of the empire on the one side, and by the opponents of these Establishments on the other-there seems to be perfect harmony in this at least, hat the question is one of the most important to which the attention of this excited country is at this moment turned. I do not speak of those abettors of our Estab- hshments who cling to them for wealth, and distinction, and influence only, or whose attachments have no higher origin than educational influence, or common usage, and fashion; the former connecting with this question the interest with which cupidity and ambition invest their favounte objects, the latter that which powerful prejudice inspires; nor do I refer to those among the dissenting bodies whose hostility to Civil Establishments may oriffi- nate m causes not less reprehensible. I know that there are excellent men in our endowed Churches, both Episco- palian and Presbyterian, who honestly believe that with these Establishments the cause of religion, of morality, of social order and happiness is inseparably linked; that the I? 1 *l,. . ^® institutions, that is, the removal of their legal fistablishment, would be the fall of this country; and who iiave enlisted m their defence, not only their earliest and I J W\ ] most pleasing recollections, but likewise their most ardent religious and patriotic feelings. On the other hand, there are many, whom I at least reckon equal (I lay no claims to superiority,) in whatever most adorns the character of the man and of the Christian, and who cordially coincide with the former in all their leading views of Christian doctrine and morals, who regard the establishment of Christianity by civil legislation as a great evil, which the genius of this religion, and the authority of Christ pro- scribe; the tendency and the effects of which they believe to be most injurious to the interests of that very religion which it ostensibly befriends; and the removal of which, they would gladly hail as the dawn of a brighter day than Christianity has ever seen, since she bent from her native dignity and independence, and crouched to the protection of imperial Rome. But while the importance of the question is extensively conceded, and considerable attention has already been drawn to it, much still remains to be done to promote inquiry, and to help forward the p\iblic mind to an en- lightened and satisfactory decision. Able and learned treatises have appeared on both sides of the question, and pamphlets, and articles in public journals have been very profuse, distinguished by various degrees of ability, in which the question has been considered in nearly all its aspects. Public meetings have been numerous, and much has been ably said and strongly felt, on these scenes of high and often useful excitement. It is undoubted, how- ever, that the merits of the subject are still but very par- tially appreciated ; that deliberate and dispassionate in- quiry has not yet extended to the great mass of the read- ing part of the community, or to the larger proportion of any order of society; that misconceptions are very exten- sively abroad, and feelings are up, not the most creditable in themselves, nor the most favourable for candid exam- ination; and, above all, that a compendious view of the question, within manageable limits, and unaccompanied with personal invective, or acrimonious feeling, is still, perhaps, a desideratum. How far the following pages are fitted to supply this latter deficiency must be left to others to decide. The author can sincerely affirm that they have been undertaken from a deep conviction of the solemn importance of the subject in itself, and also from the pre- sent condition of our national affairs; and that, though reluctant to step into the arena of controversy, he should have been wanting to his sense of duty, had he hesitated to do the little he has it in his power to accomplish, to forward a cause in which he believes not only the civil rights of dissenters, now constituting a large majority of the church-going population of the British empire, and the peace and happiness of our common country^ but also the interests of scriptural religion and holiness are essen- tially involved. I *^>**»vard. 19 der, those who exert themselves to have those abuses removed. VI. The present movements against the Established Churches are described as causeless and wanton acts of aggression ; they are even represented as deeply ungrate- ful on the part of those by whom they are made; and as indicating a restless dissatisfaction with the constitution of the country, which ought to be repressed. Who was interfering with the dissenters, it has been asked, that they have all at once turned their forces against the Churches? Were they subjected to persecu- tion, as their forefathers were — were any new measures, unfriendly to their religious interests adopted, or even meditated, by the legislature — were the slightest obstruc- tion presented to the freedom of their religious worship, to the circulation of their writings, or even to the exten- sion of their churches, they might have cause for com- plaint, or some excuse for their present excitement. But when the reverse of all this is the case — when they enjoy all the liberty that reasonable beings can desire when so very lately, the disabilities under which they laboured, and which the legislation of our ancestors had handed down, have been generously revoked by the mildness and liberality of modern times, ingratitude stamps their present hostility; and there must be in those men a restless dissatisfaction with the usages of their country which it would be dangerous to favour, and which it is the duty of the legislature, and of all good men, to discountenance and put down. In short, modern dissenters are the fabled serpent, that stung the kind breast in which it was warmed to new life. Now, if the following reasoning be correct, I think it wdl appear that the aggression is entirely on the other side, that is, on the side of the Established Churches, and of that unjust legislation, as I shall endeavour to show it is, by which those Establishments have been so Jong supported. They, we hold, have been aggressors of long standing, and they complain of us, because they think we endanger their power to make their aggression permanent. Assuming in this stage of our observations, what I shall presently attempt to prove, that the Estab- ' II 'i 20 lishments are unjust, and that they press injuriously on that lar^e class of the community who cannot conscien- tiously join them, then which party is the aggressor? Is it that party that seeks, hy fair and constitutional means, relief from a grievance; or is it the party by whom, or for whom, the grievance was made, and by whom it is sou-ht to be perpetuated? Is the oppressor, who seeks to continue his oppression, or is the oppressed, who seeks only immunity, the first assailant in the contest by which the question at issue between them is to be decided.- Or if oppression be considered a strong and offensive similitude, is the monopolist, who strives to maintain his uniust advantages to the exclusion of his neighbour, and scolds and threatens when his supposed rights are called in question, is he not the aggressor on the rights ot those around him, rather than those who suffer by the uniust partiality which he enjoys, and who seek, not the possession of hi~ advantages, but simply, the abohtion of his monopoly, unaccompanied with any claim tor dam- ages or compensation for the injuries they have long sustained? For the rest— dissenters ought to be gratetiil to the Father of mercies for the great advantages they enioy, and grateful to those legislators, (Churchmen, 1 suspect, can claim but a small share of this homage,) by whose exertions these advantages have been secured to them • but it is not inconsistent with gratitude for the advantages we enjoy, to seek exemptions from evi s we still suffer. And, as for disaffection to the state, it wdl probably be found, that these are the best friends of the peace of their country, and the stability of its laws and its government, not who defend abuses which existing law may unhappily sanction, and which spread through the state disease and weakness, but who, with cautious vet firm decision, would apply the knife to the gangrene, that the health and vigour of the body may be increased """oHheT mistakes I have probably dwelt too long in the apprehension of some of my readers; but every one who has watched the discussion of great public ques- tions must have remarked, how greatly and how long, the chief subjects in debate have been concealed, or ob- scured, by tlie mists which error, and prejudice, and 21 excited feeling have succeeded in throwing around them. And I am persuaded that whoever is acquainted with thft history of this controversy, and with its present state, must in candour admit, that had every thing been spared which is fairly referable to the various fallacies which I have noticed, a very large deduction would have been made from the speeches and the writings to which it has already given rise. ^rf*J<#*#^ SECTION II. INQUIRY INTO THE LAWFULNESS OF CIVIL ESTABLISH- MENTS OF RELIGION. The manner in which the Church has enjoyed the support of the state has not been uniform. It appears in several and important varieties at the present day, and it has done so in former ages. Nor has less diversity appeared in the pleadings which the advocates of eccle- siastical Establishments have advanced in their favour. A faithful and minute history of these varieties, both in the institutions themselves, and in the principles on which they have been professedly formed and defended, would be very instructive, and not a little curious. It will suffice for my purpose to indicate some of these, in the shortest manner. The absolute and despotic form demands notice first, as having been the most ancient probably, and certainly the most general. Under this form, the state allying itself with some one class of professed Christians exclusively of all others, not only throws around it the protection of law, and supports it by compulsory exactions, but inter- dicts the creed and worship of all other denominations; and regarding the toleration of these sects as a criminal connivance with their errors and false worship, employs all its power and terrors, to compel universal obedience to one spiritual, as to one civil code of law. This is reli- gious intolerance and despotism in the very zenith of their glory. It must not, however, be thought that reli- gion and religious uniformity, the plausible objects for c 3 i (i'* r i\ J\ 22 wliich such expedients are ostensibly employed, have been gained by them, any farther at least, than profession is concerned. The Church has either been the too. ot the state, or the state has been the vassal of the Church; and the one has employed the other, for religion profes- sedly, but really for its own purposes of ambition, or lucre. From these unhappy countries in which such systems of civil and religious tyranny prevail, true reli- ffiou flies ; and her place is usurped, though under the veil of hypocrisy, by superstition, error, infidelity, and crime. In this form Civil Establishments appeared in Christendom prior to the Reformation, and continue m some Catholic states to this day; but I ani not aware that in any country where the light of the Reformation penetrated, and still shines, however faintly, there is any extensive desire to recur to it. , , , „ ^ In the countries which acknowledged the Reformation, establishments of Christianity assumed a milder form, iox the most part. When the Popish church was repudiated and a purer faith owned, the Reformed Churches obtained that favour with the state, from which their predecessor had been ejected. The laws which formerly established Poperv now sanctioned the creed of Calvm or Luther; the revenues which the Popish church enjoyed were now transferred to the Reformed, as far as they escaped the rapacious hands of the monarch, or his nobles; and in most cases, the fallen party was subjected to discounte- nance and disabilities, the same in kind though modified in the degree of their severity, which itself had been accustomed to inflict. In those days of dim vision-very dim in as far as the perception of the common rights and liberties of mankind was concerned— before the advanc- inff liffht had shown to Protestants the unrighteousness ot all civil inflictions for conscience' sake, the presumption „f man's usurping the throne of the Almighty, and jud^- inff for his fellow-man respecting his dnty to tiod ana his eternal salvation, even Protestants were doing m one conntrv toward Roman Catholics the same things in substance which, in another, Roman Catholics were doing toward Protestants; and, (which was not unnatural, aftei the principle was adopted and acted on,) inflicting o their fellow-Protestants a discipline not dissimdar to that I I \ 23 which they had themselves experienced from the hands of Rome. Our own illustrious Knox, and his reforming compeers were passing through the medium of a Scottish Parliament bloody laws against Papists, ordaining that the idolater must die the death, (laws, I believe, which, independently of other circumstances, their own better nature would have restrained them from executing) while the flames of the Inquisition were consuming Protestant martyrs in Spain and Italy. The " bright occidental star" of England, proud Elizabeth, shed no very benign influences on her puritanical subjects; and our Jameses and Charleses employed their High Commissions, their Star Chambers, the bayonets of their soldiers, and the decisions of their Lauds and their Lauderdales, to force Episcopacy on Presbyterians, while the blood of the Hugenots flowed in profusion, under the counsels of the Guises, and the bloody despotism of the Charleses, and Henrys, and Louises of France. There is no doubt that the Reformed Churches were hostile to the doctrine of toleration; wished to monopolize religious liberty; and were restrained, as far as they were restrained, from intolerance in practice, not by their own principles, but by the mild influence of the gospel of peace, and the advancing spirit of the age in which they lived. Few modern friends of Establishments would plead for reduc- ing to practice the laws of those days ; and are not over fond of having them drawn forth to public view from the statute-books, or religious formularies, in which they are recorded. In this second form of Establishments, then, the separatists exist rather by connivance, and practical sufferance, and with great consequent annoyances, than by formal toleration and acknowledgment. But the most plausible form in which Establishments have appeared is in alliance ivith toleration. " Toleration is of two kinds — the allowing to dissenters the unmolest- ed profession and exercise of their religion, but with an exclusion from offices of trust and emolument in the state; which is partial toleration; and the admitting them, without distinction, to all the civil privileges and capa- cities of other citizens; which is a cow/?te toleration."* * Paley's Moral Philosophy. U] ,#l 24 The approach which has been happily made in Great Britain to the complete toleration which Dr. Paley de- scribes, is comparatively recent; and like every great improvement in the practice of legislation, has resulted remotely from free discussion, but more immediately from a succession of wrongs and struggles; of wrongs rousing the injured, and through them forcing onward the tide of sentiment; and of struggles, the object of which has been to compel institutions to adjust themselves to opinions. This state of extensive and advancing toleration in the British empire, from the period of the Revolution till lately, is well known. Its recent progress by the emanci- pation of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and by the abolition of the truly infamous Test and Corporation Acts, is very auspicious to the hopes of the friends of religious liberty. And here we now are with religious Establish- ments, in the least offensive form in which they have ever appeared in this country; connected with a toleration xiQ2iv\y c(mplete in Dr. Paley's sense of the term; with some of their most oppressive accompaniments, in the judgment of their opponents, confessedly abolished ; with not a few of their most necessary supports, in the estima- tion of their friends, withdrawn. Here we are, with an Episcopalian Establishment in England and Ireland, a Presbyterian Establishment in Scotland, and a Roman Catholic Establishment in Lower Canada, all other de- nominations being allowed to profess and worship as they choose; only the whole ecclesiastical revenues being, by the compulsion of law, appropriated exclusively to these Establishments, with two very trifling exceptions—the grant of a small sum to Ireland annually from the public treasury — and the exemption of Episcopalian and other dissenters in Canada from paying their proportion to the local Establishment. In the following argument, I shall give the friends of Establishments the full benefit of this mild and plausible form in which they now exist; al- though, with all fairness, in trying the principle, I shall pursue it to its just consequences. I am quite aware that there is a fourth form to which I ought to allude, in which all sects enjoy a legislative provision. France cares for no religion, and she equally endows all. In some of the States of America, contrihu- 25 tion for the support of religion was compulsory, while its appropriation was left to the option of every individual. This usage is now, I believe, extinct. It seems to be the last piece of the old leaven which the young state had brought over from the old. It is purged out, and the whole has indeed become " a new lump." In the follow- ing argument, I do not need to advert very particularly to this form of Establishments. The compulsory princi- ple being recognised, I oppose it on this ground. And the more reflecting among the friends and opponents of Establishments will agree in condemning it, as involving on the part of the community the sinful inconsistency of giving public countenance and support to all forms of be- lief and worship, and thereby tending to destroy practi- cally religious and moral distinctions. I. I argue against Civil Establishments of religion, first of all, because they imply on the part of the civil powers, a legislative judgment in religious matters, which, I hold, is not competent to them. That a judgment in religious matters is implied in the very idea of a Civil Establishment of religion, is nearly self-evident; and will be obvious, whether we attempt to form the theory of Establishments abstractly, or advert to the history of their formation. Suppose the chief magistrate, or the legislature of any country, about to establish some form of religion for the nation, the magistrate, or the legislature would sit in judgment on the question. What form of religion is it right to establish? — and the public deed legalizing the form of belief and worship which had been determined on, would proceed on that judgment, and would be an autho- ritative declaration of it. The theory of an Establish- ment, then, is an overt declaration, on the part of the magistrate, or legislature, to this effect; To us it belongs to judge what form of belief and worship the nation over which we preside should receive and support; and we have judged and enacted accordingly. History, in this instance, confirms theory. To go no farther than our own country, look at the origin of our religious Establishments, and it will appear that this right of judging in religious matters was assumed and exercis- li i i 26 27 ed by the Scottish and English monarchs, or legislature. At the Scottish Reformation, the parliament examined the question, whether the ancient or the new opinions should henceforth be the religion of the land; and by acts passed in the exercise of this unchallenged right, the par- liament judged that the Popish faith should be abrogated, and the Reformed substituted in its place. Henry in England broke the fetters of Rome with his own despotic hand; proclaimed away the old religion; and authorita- tively introduced the new. The struggles in Scotland, when Episcopacy and Presbytery contended for the mas- tery, were not merely a war of words, or books, or Churches — proselyting or counter-proselyting on the part of the rival sects; the court was the head-quarters of the strife — the Presbyterians, eager to obtain its judgment and sanction for Presbytery — and the Episcopalians as eager for the idolized authority on behalf of their loved Episcopacy. Even the Westminster standard-books were of civil as well as ecclesiastical authority; the parliament summoning the Assembly — ordering the books to be pre- pared — ^judging of their merits after they were finished — and enacting them by the sanction of their authority as the national creed. When Charles came back, he judged them unsuitable for England, and by his royal authority restored Episcopacy. And William, and his parliament, at the revolution, judged every thing over again ; and fixed Presbytery for Scotland, and Episcopacy for the other two kingdoms. Now, is this right competent to a human legislature? May a monarch, may a parliament, assume and exercise it, without delegation from those for whom they legis- late? Should it be delegated to the ruler, or legislature of any country? Or is its assumption, when it is assumed, or its delegation, should it ever be delegated, the assump- tion or delegation of a supposed right, with which the civil powers should never be invested? I shall attempt to answer these questions. That rulers have the right, and are under obligation, to judge for themselves in religion, is, of course, universally conceded. The highest public functions do not absorb this private right, do not exalt them above this personal obligation. It were well for their own sakes, and for the interests of religion, if this right were acted on, if this obligation were fulfilled, by those high in place, with more independence of the prejudices of birth, station, or fashion, with deeper seriousness of feeling, and a greater honesty of purpose, to avow and follow out their convic- tions, at whatever cost, than, it is to be feared, is gener- ally done. Nor is it easy to conceive stronger tempta- tions to denude themselves practically of this right, which the meanest of the subjects enjoys, to neglect this obliga- tion which lies on high and low alike, than the circum- stances of monarchs, and other high functionaries aflFord • who must either profess and officially defend a creed,' which, in many instances, they neither believe, nor un- derstand, nor regard; or forego their interests, their power, and their splendour. The first insurmountable objection to this alleged riglit of a legislature to judge respecting a national religion, is, that It implies a judgment for others in that of which every man must judge for himself only. God has given us a revelation of his will, which he has commanded us to examine, to believe, and to obey. Every man must give account to God for complying with this heavenly man- date, or neglecting it. Where is the third party, who, witlioutan express divine appointment dares to interpose, and authoritatively to decide, what interpretation it be- comes the individuals composing a nation to put upon this record of God, and by what forms they ought to worship him? The assumption is impiously arrogant. Dr. Paley evidently felt the *' serious inconvenience," as he calls it, of a national creed, enforced by human autho- nty ; and pleads for the indispensable necessity of abating the evil to the utmost, of making it ** as simple and easy as possible"~-and « adapting it, from time to time, to the varying circumstances of the Church"— and, after all, making its statements rather « articles of peace," than confessions of faith,"*— that is confessions of the sub- scnbers unbelief, doubt, or hypocrisy. Thi* objection becomes more forcible when it is con- sidered that the sanction of civil law implies not only • Mor. Phil. \^ I 1 28 mithority, hut force. Let there be no authority, and there k no law. And if the law does not secure obedience to it,elf^if it has no penal enforcement connected with it- f it is left to the subjects to obey or disobey it at the.r option, then it is virtually no law; it is a mere mockery ^legislation; the legislature, and the thing legislated or are brought equally into contempt; and he sooner this shadow o^f a law evanishes the better. All, accordmgly, who have pleaded for Civil Estabhshments of religion, have invariably held that the coercive power of the W must be employed to enforce them; although they differ Tto the extent to which this power must be carried- some holding that it should repress religious errors op- pored to tlJpubliccreed^butall agreeing that it shouW ^'^^^::^^ t^^ of the Church maybe sli'hted by light and ungodly minds, even among the c eC thi power of following it up with civil penalties in their case seems necessary to the genera Iwelfai^. * Warburton,'in his ingenious but ™o^t soidustica de e of the Church of England, on principles, and for ol^iects which even Dr. Paley reprobates, as ^e-ng o dy t « debase the institution," after demonstrating the na ural inSendence of the Church on the state, proceeds to a"S for his favourite alliance, for this, among other =ns, that the state r^^^^^^^:^^ :f^::iSi=t,^ -prS, as its secona term "a le^al provision for the maintenance of the Sv "t enforced, as a matter of course, by law like anv S/'tai Besid'es the legal --tion to ecclesiastic^^ formularies. Dr. M'Crie expressly asserts, that it i. t e lutTof the magistrate to " suppress irrehgion, impiet), r^^^^^ The Westminster Con- E tlkcles, that\he magistrate " hath authority, and it khl duty, o take order, that unity and peace be pre- se ved in th^ Church, that the truth of God be kept pur and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed. . Essay on the importance of Religious Establ^hments, page Hi + Warburton's Alliance, page yy. t Mor. Phil. § Statements, &c. page 80. 29 all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline pre- vented, or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better ef- fecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatever is trans- acted in them be according to the mind of God."* Let us suppose, then, that the magistrate laden with obligations so onerous and so awful, addresses himself to the dread work of reducing these obligations to practice, the great question to be considered is. What form of re- ligion shall he receive into the national code, and enforce by the national sanction? Shall we answer with some, " t1t£ true religion?" Were all minds in harmony on this most momentous subject, such a general expression might suffice, both for the conscience of the magistrate, and for the letter of the law. But as the law must be definite, and as the phrase, " the true religion," is indefinite, the magistrate must proceed to define ; and what then must he do? I shall not take the example of a Mahommedan, or a heathen magistrate; but of one existing amidst all the advantages of our own country. What shall he do? We know how magistrates have acted in establishing religion; the question before us is, How should they act? I do not wish to represent the divisions among Christians as more numerous or important than they are. I rejoice that in the leading points of truth and morals. Christians of many denominations so nearly harmonize. But the fact cannot be disguised that Christian denominations are many; and the question is not one of abstraction, but of practice, and must be grappled with, if the magistrate must legislate in religion — What creed, what class, shall he legalize? As far as diversities of church order are concerned, Dr. Ranken is abundantly facile : He says, " There is no form of church government prescribed in the New Tes- tament .... Jesus Christ hath left the appointment of * Confcssiou, chap. 23. In the church with which the Author is connected, the approbation given to the Westminster Formularies is qualified with the exception of whatever in these books teaches, or is sup- posed to teachi compultory, persecuting, or intolerant principles in reli" gion. li W M 30 subordinate constitutions and laws, to the ordinary exer- cise of human wisdom .... Judging from facts, no one government will suit all times, all situations, a I national tempers and characters. But whether the civil constitu- tion hath derived \ih peculiar form from accident, or from expediency, or from necessity, it is certain there will and ouffht to be a general resemblance to it m the ecclesiasti- cal constitution."* This is accommodating enough Dr. Paley looks the difficulty more fully in the face, and with his wonted luminous simplicity gives us the following remarkable paragraph. " But after the right of the magistrate to establish a particular religion has been, upon this principle," (mentioned before) " admitted, a doubt sometimes presents itself, whether the religion which he ought to establish, be that which he himself professes, or that which he observes to prevail amongst the maiority of his people. Now, when we consider this question with a view to the formation of a general rule upon the subject, (which view alone can furnish a just solution of the doubt) it must be assumed to be an equal chance whether of the two religions contain more of truth, —that of the magistrate, or that of the people? Ihe chance then that is left to truth being equal upon both suppositions, the remaining consideration will be, from which arrangement more efficacy can be expected; trom an order of men appointed to teach the people their own religion, or to convert them to another? In my opinion, the advantage lies on the side of the former scheme; and thi« opinion, if it be assented to, makes it the duty of the magistrate, in the choice of the religion which he estab- lishes, to consult the faith of the nation rather than his own, T ^ . ^ rm • 1. 1.* There are only three ways of it. 1.— The magistrate must either establish every variety of religion which is professed in the nation, and thus, to use Dr. PaJeys phrase; there will be "a chance" of his establishing « the true religion ;"— a plan which would relieve the magistrate from a burden of anxiety, but which no en- liffhtened friend of Establishments will defend. 2.— Ur he must take the first part of Dr. Paley's alternative. i I I • Essay, pp. 17 and 19, 2C, f Mor. Phil. 31 and establish his own religion. 3 Or he must take the second part of it, and establish that of the people, that is, of the majority of the people. Now if of the two latter he must adopt the former, and make his own conscience law for the nation, where is the human being to be found, uninspired, fallible, compassed with infirmities, who should dare to take upon him to legislate for the religion of a kingdom? Besides, if the conscience of the magis- trate must govern the law, the law must change with the changing convictions of the magistrate. How many Establishments would this give us in the course of a generation ? Or if he take the second part of the alter- native, and establish the religion of the majority of the people, then he is met with the following difficulties: May not the majority be on the side of error, as, for example, every Protestant believes Ireland to be? Is the majority to dictate, through the medium of the magis- trate, to the minority, in matters of divine revelation? Is the magistrate to be the conscious instrument of this presumptuous dictation, of this legislative enforcement of an erroneous belief? Is the magistrate to legislate in opposition to his conscience ? Or is he to keep two con- sciences — a public and a private one; by the former of which he is to be governed as a magistrate, by the latter as a man? These difficulties appear to me insurmount- able; and I may be permitted to ask, can a principle be other than false, and immoral, which, try it as you will, forces such results? The subject may also be viewed in its relation to various forms of civil government, and we shall again be brought to the same conclusion. It- is hardly necessary in our circumstances to remark, that the power of legislating respecting religion should not be lodged with one, or with a few; with one despot, or with a despotic oligarchy. British freedom spurns despotic legislation on any subject, and therefore on the subject of religion. The friends and opponents of reli- gious establishments who love liberty, (and who hates liberty?) will concur in the sentiment, that a despotic legislation in religion is inadmissible; although I must add, that if it is incumbent on the magistrate, de facto, to i iu f S2 legislate for the religion of the country, the despot, de /e^to, must judge and legislate m religion. -^ But let us select a more favourable case, let us take ouf own and suppose such a legislature as freemen ac- TowlIdgeVoceed^ to form a religious establishment for their country. Then, unless the country were unani- mous on the subject of their intended procedure, (a case Xh we are not at liberty to assume) the same msur- ^ZMe difficulties which, - have -n, app y^^^^^^^^^ individual magistrate, are applicable to the collective representative" of a free people, ^^f "^l.^eS aZ^^ be! in the same manner as the mdividual, e^t^ier to adop rndeTgo th^ra?pVrxlina^ and di.~ ^ us unequalled importance merits, ^^^^ without which although a decision might ^^''^^XIT^Ta^A regarded as conscientious and enlightened. -^.--Ana, secondly, the legislature must not only examine the r/stem'of religio'n to which they affix the l.ig^^ tion of the nation, but they must ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ acts by watching over the working of the system aite it has Wn established. The ^^^r^^' ntltTs A us that the magistrate " hath authority, and it i^ his rfL to tike i that unity and peace be preserved in t^ct^t£ty^e truth of GodbeA^.;>ure-« that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed^^^^^^^^ that he must " provide that wf^tsoeveris transac^d^u^ synods be according to the mind of God. An \ 35 Establishment of the Church is usurpation — the state thus legislating assumes a power which no state right- fully possesses — and the Church that consents to receive this Establishment is implicated in the guilt of this un- holy usurpation — " Then both commonwealth and reli- gion will at length, if ever, flourish in Christendom, when either they who govern discern between civil and reli- gious, or they only who so discern shall be admitted to govern." * n. The Legislative Establishment of the Church im- plies injustice. Justice requires that the state should extend equal favour to all, on whom it imposes equal burdens, and from whom it exacts equal allegiance. A departure from this principle, by demanding the same allegiance from all classes of the community, and imposing the same burdens on them, while injury is inflicted on any one class, or favour denied to it, is injustice. Civil Establishments of religion are chargeable with this injustice. They consist in selecting one class of the community as the objects of the favour of the state — in distinguishing that class, not by its services to the state, not by the measure of its allegiance, not by the amount of its burdens, but solely by its opinions — and in extend- ing, in a particular form, the patronage of the state to this class exclusively. To it the state grants a standing in law, as a recognised body, or corporation, which it denies to others — it forms a connexion with it, from which it excludes others — it secures to it emoluments, which it does not secure to others — it compels by the force of law, all other classes to contribute their proportion of money or other property to the support of this one, which, on its part, is required to contribute nothing to the support of others. All this is extending a species of favour and support to one class, which is denied to others, equally ^ faithful, equally submissive to the state. Is not this ^^ential, unqualified, injustice? The duties of the governing and the governed are reciprocal. If the governing extended to every class of * Milton's Prose Works, vol. 3, p. 31 a i I ii 36 the Kovemed equal favour, and if one class should refuse that full allegiance and obedience which the others ren- der, would not the recusants be ""J-^t.^V f ITr"/ raent, and would not the government act justly m enforc- bg the same submission from them, wh.ch it demands and receives from their fellow-sub^cts? But .s not m- justice the same in its nature, when practised by the troverninK, as when it is practised by the governed? ^ The nature of the wrong may be illustrated otherwise. The individuals included in the favoured class, may have no superior personal claims to these excluded-they may have no superiority of talent, or learning, or religious or moral worth-they may not do more, nor be qualified for doing more, for promoting the best interests of the com- munity in all which the excluded classes may equal, or excel tiiem. The class thus favoured may not stand in need of the pecuniary support which it enjoys; it may have the larger share of wealth; and the ar'-angement of the state may exhibit this form of injustice, that the poorer are compelled to contribute for the richer. And there may be no means of passing from the excluded to the favoured class, except at the expense of s'^'^l' ^a"'" fices, as religious principle, and a good conscience forbid. This is the aspect of the injustice which the civd Estab- lishments of religion in this empire present. The ininstice may be exemplified by an analogous case. Suppose a body of men who supply the necessaries of life taken into the favour of the state— suppose that a certain proportion of the manufacturers of bread receive the exclusive recognition and alliance of the government, not because they are poor and need it, not because they produce an article of superior value, not for any person 1 services or merit-and suppose the community, the poor- est in the community, whether they use the article or not, those who dislike and refuse equally with those who u»e it compelled by the force of law, to support those estab- luhed manufact'urers of the staff of life would not the injustice of such an arrangement be as obvious as s ab- surdity? The injustice is the same when it is applied to '^te'injustice implied in Civil Establishments of reli- gion is of the nature of religious persecution towards the \ 37 other classes of the community. What is religious per- secution? Is it not subjecting an innocent person to in- jury for conscience' sake? Is it not the infliction of evil for his religious opinions or usages? The evil thus in- flicted may vary indefinitely in its amount. To perse- cute, it is not necessary to hang or burn the victim. It is not even necessary to immure him in a dungeon, or to banish him from his country. The infliction may be in- definitely lessened; but if you inflict at all, you persecute. One stripe is as really penal as thirty-nine. A legal in- dignity for the sake of religion is persecution, as really as a fine or stripes. The infliction on character, name, stattis in society, is as bad as blows, is so felt by those who bear it, and would be so felt by the favoured class were they subjected to it. Nay, you may persecute by mere negation. If you keep money from entering the pocket, the injury is nearly the same as if you took it out after it had been put in. The recent disqualification of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and of the English dis- senters, were in their nature penal, as really as positive inflictions; were felt to be so by those who bore them, and who were justly determined to bear them no longer; were argued against in both Houses of Parliament on the ground of their persecuting character; and the abolition of those most odious distinctions, for the perpetuation of which so many ecclesiastics contended to the last, was received by the millions to whom it was given, not as a boon, but as a part of their just rights, which had been so long, and so nefariously kept from them. Indeed it is instructive to mark the gradual mitigation, the retreat, of the persecuting principle, from the bloody severity in which it once appeared, to its feeble remains in the exist- ing Establishments of religion. In the plenitude of its power it commits the heretic to the gibbet, or the flames. Next, it is denied the blood, but is permitted to prey on the liberty and the substance of its victim ; it fines, it im- prisons, it banishes^ it passes " five mile, and conventicle acts.** This also becomes intolerable, and a third abate- ment is obtained; and then it can only exclude from place, emolument, and power, by disqualifying laws, by test and corporation acts, all declared necessary for the safety of the Church and the state. But these too must * |i Mi ll If it 38 be renounced, and then nothing remains but to affix some stigma, and to retain exclusive support; the former by such legalized names, in invidious contrast, as " holy orders, and pretended holy orders — clergymen, and min- isters — church and meeting," or by virtual disqualifica- tion, when legal has ceased ; the latter by compulsory ex- actions from all for the support of the favoured party. In all these various forms and stages, in all these descending degrees, the persecuting principle is the same in its nature. It is the principle of unjust violence for the sake of con- science, progressively mitigated and restrained, but still existing and acting. Had it never existed, persecution had been unknown; nor will persecution cease, but by its final extinction. In looking to the religious Establishments of this kingdom, the first character that strikes us is the inequal- ity of the law that appoints them. Observe Ireland, and say whether the arrangement is equal, by which a rich handful are exclusively supported, at the expense of the multitude in poverty ; by which legal, perhaps military violence, compels the many to support the few. Is just- ice done to Ireland? — Look next to England; and ask whether justice can sanction her present, any more than her past ecclesiastical arrangements; the law by which the rich minority receives exclusive support, and by which the poor majority must first support their own instiutions, and, next, be compelled to contribute to the support of their rich neighbours. That a majority of the people of Scotland belong to the Established Church does not alter the natuie of the injustice. Take it locally. Examine it in Edinburgh, or Glasgow. Probably within the last twenty years, in building and repairing churches, paying interest of money, and supplying certain deficits^ not less than £100,000 has been paid from the common funds in each of these cities. During this space, the dissenters have been compelled to pay their proportion of these sums, while they have built their own churches, and sup- ported their own worship. Is there justice here? Would it be just to reverse the case; — to disfranchise the Estab- lished class, and to treat them as the disfranchised have been treated so long? We come, then, to the solemn conclusion; Establish- '•i 39 ments of religion by civil law are unjust; the religious Establishments of this country are unjust; the principle of persecution inheres in all of them; the laws which establish them are unjust; the legislature in passing, or maintaining these laws legislates unjustly; the dissenters have been, and are, the victims of injustice; nor will the laws and the administration of our country, in other respects so admirable, be cleared of the stain of injustice, till these institutions be changed. The force of this conclusion is not felt by dissenters only, but is rapidly extending to the generous breasts of many of our breth- ren in the Establishments, who are alive to the injustice with which dissenters have been long treated by the state, who are becoming ashamed of the offensive favour- itism bestowed on their own Churches, and heartily approve of the efforts now making to have Christian Churches of every name placed on the same level. There are two replies which have been made to this charge of injustice. The one is shortly stated by Dr. Ranken. He says, " It is dictated by common sense, that every society may prescribe rules for itself. And if a majority of a nation shall choose to fence in its Church and state . . .who has any right to complain?"* But may not a majority err as well as a minority? May not a state pass unjust laws ? Has not every subject a right to complain of injustice from a private individual, but much more from the state? Is not injustice so much the more to be complained of, when it is decreed by a law ? And should not all, by peaceable and fair means^ endeav- our to have unjust laws reversed? — Bishop Warburton takes rather higher ground, holding that " reward is not one of the sanctions of civil society'* — that " the only claim which the subjects have on the magistrate for obedience is protection " — and " that all places of honour and profit in the magistrate's disposal are there ... in the nature of a prerogative^ which he may dispose of at pleasure, without being farther accountable than for the having such places capably supplied." f This is too high for modern opinions. It needs no refutation now-a-days; and I only adduce the words of the learned bishop to 'i \\ Essay, page 81. t AUiance, pages 209, 210. M [ 1 / 'n it 40 show to what shifts a bad cause, by a cruel necessity, drives the most talented men. III. Civil Establishments of religion are unscriptural. This third argument brings us, I am aware, to the most important and decisive view of the question. By the verdict of the scriptures these Establishments must ultimately stand or fall ; and every one who owns the authority of divine revelation must consent to an appeal to this supreme tribunal. My conviction is that this appeal must prove fatal to them. The grounds of this conviction I shall now state as succinctly as the nature of the subject will admit.* It has been thought by some writers disrespectful to the authority of the Old Testament to limit the evidence on this subject to the New; and in the heat and vehe- mence of controversial writing it has been asserted, that they who thus limit the appeal, set aside virtually the inspiration and authority of the Old Testament. A few words may suffice to correct this mistake. Suppose 1 hold that the Christian Church is a special institution ot Jesus Christ— that it was predicted by the ancient pro- phets that in the days of the Messiah a new order of things should arise, new heavens and a new earth created, a neia kinydom set up, and that the writers of the New Testament have asserted that this new order of things has come, and that they have explained its nature; do I invalidate the Old Testament scriptures, because I appeal to the writings of the New Testament for the precise character of that very change which the former foretold, and which the latter professedly record ? To render the matter still more evident, suppose particular instances. * The scriptural argument has been so particularly considered, with the usual ability of the distinguished writer, in a work which has akeady obtained a circulation far beyond that to which these page, will reach, that the following illustration maybe deemed superfluous. But this omission would be inexcusable in a compend. Besides, the same subject will hardly ever present itself to two minds m exactly the same form. Of Mr. Willis' elaborate Discourse on the other side, I shall only say, that if Dr. Wardlaw's Sermon be not consid- ered as a sufficient antidote, the matter is in the Dr. 's hands, no; mine. In the mean time, the public wiU examine both, and torm their own decision. .! 41 Is it from the Old Testament, or from the New only, that I am to learn the obligation of the first day of the week— the orders of Christian office-bearers and the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper? Or do I reflect on the inspired authority of the Old Testament writings (an authority expressly sanctioned by Christ and his apostles) when I decline an appeal to the Old Testament for these institutions of the New? I may be mistaken in affirming that the relation of the Christian Church to the civil powers is to be learned only from the New Testament; and I should be inexcusable if I refused to examine any thing in the Old Testament which may even be alleged to bear upon the subject; but surely this mistake would imply nothing having a tendency to sub- vert the inspired authority of these ancient " oracles of God." On the alleged evidence from the Old Testament, I shall content myself with making two observations. The first is this — we cannot conclude that an appointment is imperative on the Christian Church, simply because that appointment formed part of the Jewish code, for these obvious reasons— because, on this principle, the whole Jewish code would be obligatory, which is not pleaded for— and because we find many things enjoined and done under that dispensation, which could not, without sin, be repeated now. On these grounds, it will no more follow that simply because religion was established by law under the Old Testament, it should be so established under the New, than it will follow that because a hereditary priest- hood existed then, it should exist still; or that the Levi- tical orders should be the model after which a Christian priesthood should be formed; or that idolaters and Sab- bath-breakers should still be put to death. Yet how extensive has been the influence of this inconclusive reasoning from what teas under the law, to what should be under the gospel. This was evidently the principle of Knox's reasoning and legislation, against Roman tatholics. It has been the principle of more than one stately but unchristian hierarchy. And I think it is one prmciple to which the civil legislation respecting the Christian Church, which has so long prevailed, is to be traced. Judaizing has not been confined to a few in tie E ^ ^ 1 1 ■(^ ll 1 42 primitive times. It will not do to tell us that if it is sin- ful to establish religion hy civil authority, then it would never have existed with the approbation of God, even under the Old Testament. Apply this objection to the extermination of the devoted nations— to the hereditary priesthood — to the capital punishment of idolaters and Sabbath-breakers. In cases innumerable, it may be sin- ful in us to do, without a divine appointment, what, with such an appointment, we are bound to do. When, then, we would examine any part of the Jewish code, with a view to its incorporation with systems either of civil jurisprudence, or Christian ethics, we must try it, not by the mere circumstance that it exists in the Jewish code, but by some character inherent in itself, or by its relation to the law of Christ. Trying the question of Civil Establishments of religion in either way, we give up the argument from Old Testament example; and, in the former case, we examine them by their justice or expe- diency; in the latter, by their agreement with the spirit and appointments of the New Testament. IMy second remark is, that the specific passages zisualb/ adduced from the Old Testament are inapplicable, either ou the principle just stated, or as proving more than those who adduce them will admit. Let us take examples. Dr. Ranken, with others, refers to the cases of Abraham and Melchizedec, arguing the propriety of the union betwixt Church and state from the union of civil and sacred otfices in these remarkable persons. Of Abraham he says " the offices of prophet, priest, and king, were tluis united in the same patriarch; "—and of Melchizedec, " a neighbouring and cotemporary patriarch, is represented in the same ancient record as king of Salem, and priest ot the INIost High God. What could be more intimate than such an union of religious and civil authority in the same person?"* But do not these examples prove too much, and therefore nothing, in the argument before us? They go to prove, if they prove anything, that our king niiifht or should, ex officio, be a minister of religion; and that our ministers of religion should hold civil offices; in fact that civil and sacred offices should still coalesce in the 43 same persons. Tliis is somewhat more than the English practice of occasionally investing Rectors with a commis- sion of the peace ; or granting to Lords Spiritual the powers of Temporal Peers, with a seat in the upper House. Both Dr. Ranken and Dr. JVrCrie refer to Nebuchadnez- zar; the fonner to the decree of this oriental despot re- specting the worship of liis golden image, in these words, " Nebuchadnezzar, too, the king of Babylon, Dan. iii. 1. enforced the national religion by the severest penal laws, Whosoever falleth not down and worshippeth the image, shall be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace' !! * — the latter, with more judgment, quotes his decree respecting the worship of the true God, and, with pru- dence equal to his judgment, suppresses the penal enforce- ment of it, mentioned in the same verse. " Our argument is confirmed by the consideration that the scripture re- cords approved exa?nples of magistrates who were not Jewish, who exercised their authority for the advance- ment of religion, and the ordinances of God. We find Nebuchadnezzar and Darius publishing decrees to promote the knowledge and worship of the true God among their subjects, and prohibiting them from " speaking anything amiss against him." Dan. iii. 29. iv. vi. 26.f I know the late Dr. Ranken was a man of too gentle a spirit to desire the rekindling of the fires that piously consumed heretics; nor does any living man wish less than Dr. M'Crie that snch savage despotism as he alludes to were employed to propagate true religion, or to destroy its enemies. But if Nebuchadnezzar is not an example to Christian rulers in the latter part of his decree, how do you prove, from the mere record of the decree itself, that he is an example in the first part of it? You must justify this distinction by an appeal either to some general principle, or to the spirit or letter of the New Testament; in either of which cases, you abandon the argument from its record in the Old Testament. On the same grounds we set aside such pasages as the command in the second Psalm, addressed by Jehovah to the proud enemies of his anointed Son, *' Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed ye judges of the earth. ft; Essay, pages 4, o. * Essay, page 8. f Statement, page 128. l! 44 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with tremhling"— the predictions in the seventy-second Psalm — and the passage so often quoted from the forty-ninth chapter of Isaiah, "And kings shall be thy nursing-fathers, and their queens thy nursing-mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their faces toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet." The argument derived from these, and a few similar passages is to this eflfect; — these magistrates are addressed not as individuals, but as magistrates — in this public character they opposed Christ and his church— and in this public character they are to serve the Lord and favour his cause.* I shall endeavour afterwards to show that the principles which we advocate not only permit, but demand, that rulers and legislators ought to do much, in their public character, in favour of religion. Who doubts that it is incumbent upon them to protect all Christian churches from all unjust annoyance, in the exercise of this inalienable right, common to the whole race of worshipping God according to the dictates of their conscience — and this is no small matter; and that they are under the highest obligations to be religious themselves, and to exercise the whole moral influence connected with their public character, to advance the interests of true religion? The question, then, is not, whether, as men, and as public men, they ought to do any thing for religion? since respecting this there is no dis- pute ; but, what should they do, and how should they do it ? After you have adduced precepts requiring them to favour religion, and predictions, assuring us that ultimately these precepts shall be obeyed, you have not proved that they ought to employ compulsory legislation to establish and support Christianity. You have no more proved that because these rulers employed civil power to pereecute the Church before their conversion, they should employ the same power afterwards in its favour — than because some unconverted military despot employed his soldiery to spread havoc among Christians, he should, when con- verted, employ the same violence against infidels— or because Saul, when a Jew, breathed out threatenings and slau'yhter against the disciples of the Lord, it became him, * Statement, page 130. 45 when a Christian, to show the same spirit of sanguinary intolerance against their enemies. The question as to the manner and extent of the commanded and predicted coun- tenance to the Church, must be settled by some general principles, or by the New Testament. These general principles I have already stated; to the New Testament, with profound reverence, let us now appeal. The first and simplest view of the argument is that which is derived from the silence of the New Testament on the subject. We shall search its pages in vain for any express sanction, (for I choose to put the argument in this form for the present) of compulsory Establishments of Christianity. By express sanctions, I refer either U\ direct appointment, or approved example. Now I am not aware that any passage in the New Testament, however apparently casual, however insulated, has undergone any attempt, by the most sanguine and ingenious of our opponents, the object of which has been to prove that we have, even in one instance, a command, or an example, in the New Testament, expressly sanctioning the institutions in question. Paley, Warburton, Ranken, and I know not how many beside, most frankly concede this much. Now there are some circumstances which render this silence very remarkable, and which, I think, are fitted to produce a strong effect on every unbiassed mind. In the first place, the subject is confessedly most im- portant. If our opponents are right, the legislative sup- port of Christianity is essential to its prosperity, if not its existence, even in countries in which it has taken the deepest root, and has most extensively overspread society with its influence — as in our own land. Consult the most eminent modern supporters of Establishments, and Dr. Chalmers among the rest, and they will tell you that there is nothing betwixt us and an inundation of heathen- ism, but the powerful embankments which the civil power throws around the Church. On the other hand, in the belief of their opponents, the connexion of the Church with the state is a copious source from which issues the worst, and most corrupting influences, to which true reli- gion is exposed. Confessedly, then, they are great instru- ments of good, or of evil. By universal consent they are agents of vast power, against the truth or for the truth ; e3 m W n 46 47 i If • iii for preserving or corrupting the gospel ; for disseminating the religion of Christ, or arresting its progress in the world. And be it remembered, the instrument to the connection of which with religion such effects are ascribed, has always existed. It was not doubtful whether Christ- ianity should be placed where some form of civil govern- ment was established. Is it not strange, that if, by the will of Christ, this instrument was to be employed for tlie support, the almost necessary support of his religion, no express intimation of his will to this effect should be found in the New Testament? Then, let it be remembered that the New Testament writers are very minute in their moral directions. Take the concluding parts of the Epistles, and see how they descend into details, respecting the duties of men placed in the various conditions and relations of society — of hus- bands and wives — of parents and children — of masters and servants — of pastors and private members of Churches — of rulers and of subjects. Yet not one command is recorded, directed to rulers, requiring them to employ their power to establish and endow Christianity. Considering the ample poivers, compared with the ex- ternal circumstances^ of the apostles, this silence is very unaccountable, on the theory of our opponents. From their Divine iVIaster, they received an unrestricted com- mission to go into all the world, and to preach the gos- pel to every creature, and to teach men to observe all things whatsoever their Master had commanded. And were not rulers as much bound to do homage to this com- mission, proceeding from Ilim who hath power over all flesh, as the poorest and most abject of the people? The apostles became too conspicuous and influential in society to escape the notice of the rulers long; and it was ex- pressly and often foretold by their Master, (and his pre- dictions, we know, were fulfilled to the letter) that they should be brought before rulers and kings for his name's sake; while, in these circumstances, it should be given tJiem what to speak. But how did the apostles act, when, in all the plenitude of their inspiration and authority, they stood before rulers and kings, and gave their hea- ven-inspired testimony? With great power they spake — accusing the Jewish rulers with being the murderers ot I ^ the Prince of Life, and calling them to faith in the name of Jesus, and repentance unto life— to the heathen poten- tates, they preached righteousness, temperance, and judg- ment to come, till they trembled, and they faithfully de- clared to them the gospel of salvation ; but never, in one instance, did they command, or counsel, these authorities, that they should employ their power against the false religion which they supported, and to establish and endow Christianity which they opposed ; never, in one recorded case, did they faithfully expose their wickedness in ne- glecting this the highest of their public duties, or call them to repentance for their iniquity. How shall we account for this? Let candour do its best, and try to account for it. Is this what a friend of Establishments would have expected, or wished? Is it not exactly what a Voluntary Church-man would? Besides, the commencement of the new dispensation was die very time when the appointment in question should have been given. When the Christian institution was appoint- ed by the Author and Finisher of our faith, in his own person, or through the medium of his apostles, it was the precise time when this mode of upholding his Church must have been fixed, if it was to be resorted to at all. When the Mosaic economy T^'as introduced, it was not left doubtful how the state and the Church were to be allied under the theocracy — if indeed, under that economy the Church can be distinguished from the commonwealth. Kings, there were none at that period; and the call of the people for those magistrates was against the will of God. But it is very remarkable, that the regal govern- ment demanded by the people, is anticipated in the Mo- saic statutes, and the duties of the future magistrate, in regard to religion, are minutely given. Was Christ less laithful than Moses— the Son over his own house than the servant? Let it not be said that the Jewish and •eathen rulers were not within the Church, but were hostile strangers, and that, therefore, it was in vain to demand their legislative aid. It is not enough to say in ''^ply,. that the liearts of these rulers were in the power |>f Christ, and that he could have turned them to favour ''>s gospel, even as he turned the heart of Saul of Tarsus, not less hostile than that of any Jewish or heathen ruler, Ii I ■ 48 that thus tliere might exist somewhere, in Judea, if not elsewhere in the world, the model of at least one Estab- lished Church enjoying the sanction of Christ or ot his apostles. Thai would have decided the question in per- petuitv. This model church, however small, and however soon swept away by Roman invasion, or overthrown by the internal convulsions of the Jewish state as it expired, would have lived in the pages of revelation, to. guide the arrangements of Christian states and Churches while the world lasts. But for this desideratum we have a blank. I ffo farther, however, and ask, why the duty ot the rulers, which certainly was not dependent on their pre- iudices and inclinations, was not distinctly laid down, that there might have been found in the Christian code, as there was in the Jewish, an authoritative provision for the period when Christian princes should appear? Besides, it was at the time of the introduction of Christianity alone, that such an authoritative provision could he ffiven. Then in- spiration was vouchsafed, and miracles attesting inspira- tion. But that period of extraordinary revelation was short. Inspiration was soon to cease, miracles to disappear, and the canon of scripture to be completed. If, then, an imperative communication of the will of Christ respecting the support of the civil powers to his church was to be iriven at all, it was to be given then ; otherwise this usage, deprived of his authority, and delayed till the ordinary channels of its communication had been finally discon- tinued, must be classed, as far as express authority is con- cerned, with those injurious and human additions to Christianity, which are stigmatized as " the doctrines and commandments of men." .i f f To this reasoning it is unsatisfactory to reply, tliat u was the Divine will that Christianity should at first make its way in the world without the aid of human laws, that thus its power might be the more clearly n^'-^^^^ested; because admitting the full force of what is alleged tha the propagation of Christianity, without civil aid, and even in opposition to human power, forms one ot the evidences of its divine origin, the question remains nn- answered, Why, in the period of inspiration, no prospec- tive provision was made for the future intervention ot i 49 the civil power, when, it is contended, that intervention should be wanted? Nor is it a satisfactory reply to say, that the presence of miracles accounts for the absence of civil aid, but that that aid should be wanted when miracles were to cease. It has always appeared to iny mind strange that any judicious friend of Establishments should lay weight on this consideration, or sliould gravely name it at all; for in no view can we consider the place of miracles as supplied by Civil Establishments. 1. Miracles were the seal of God to the truth of the doctrines and mission of those by whose instrumentality they were wrought. The works done by Christ bore witness of him that the Father sent him. By the wonders done by the apostles, the Lord gave testimony to the word of his grace. But there is nothing in a Civil Establishment of religion to shew that the system established is true. It shews that it has, or has once had, the approbation of man, but not that it has ever had the approbation of God. Legislative acts, as Mr. Hall has remarked, can add nothing to the evi- dence, and, therefore, nothing to the power of religion ; but, on the contrary, by the appearance of human author- ity and dictation, which such acts carry on their front, they rather excite prejudice and provoke resistance. I fear that the mere concession that Christianity now needs these Establishments for its support, would do more against its interests, than they could possibly effect in its favour. 2. Miracles arrested popular attention to the ministry of those by whom they were wrought, which the history of their operation by our Lord and his apostles very fully illustrates; the miracles attracting crowds, from the mere impulse of curiosity, who were in some degree predisposed, from the effect of the mir- acles, to listen with interest and awe to the instructions of men whose powers and recommendations were so extraordinary. But what tendency has an Establishment f'f Christianity by human law to effect this? The recom- mendation of the state may be given to the weakest, as jvell as the ablest; to the basest, as well as the best. Ihe slave of fashion, the tame admirer of power and g^reatness, the interested aspirant after place and emolu- '"ent, may be attracted by religion when she is decked I 50 in the liveries, and glitters with the insignia of the state; but what is their attachment worth? Has it not a stronger tendency to produce disgust, than imitation? And is not religion, thus attired, apt to gain followers, rather for her adventitious appendages, than her own intrinsic excellence and charms? 3. Establishments of religion are professedly intended to provide for the office- bearers of the Christian Church a competent maintenance, and to afford them the fullest support of the law in the exercise of their functions. Is there any analogy here betwixt Establishments of religion and miracles? In some instances, the awe with which the beholders were struck by the manifestations of miraculous power, may have restrained for a season the fury of the enemies of the Church ; but far from securing permanent protection, the miracles of Christ and his apostles contributed to excite the rage, and draw down upon them the ven- geance, of the Jewish authorities. Then, as to support: — the poorest of our missionaries, or of our pastors, are rich compared with Christ and his apostles. " The Son of man had not where to lay his head." The apostles had *' neither silver nor gold;" and the man who was not behind the chiefest of the apostles, labouring more abundantly than they all, often wrought with his own hands for his daily bread, and was occasionally in want of all things. Christ performed miracles for the supply of the wants of the multitudes who followed him, never for the supply of his own; nor, invested though they were with power over nature, were the apostles directed to exercise that power to enrich themselves, or even to provide for their own sustenance. 4. It was in the midst of miraculous manifestations— the plagues which desolated Egypt, the separation of the Red Sea, the terrors of Sinai, and all the wonders in the wilderness- that the .fewish theocracy was introduced; and had any provision by human legislation been intended by Chnst for the New Testament Church, no objection to the in- troduction of that provision could have arisen from similar miracles ; while, as we have seen, on other grounds, the period of miraculous manifestation was the only fit season for its authoritative appointment. In this part of the argument / have assumed that tlu' 51 New Testament affords no express authority for the com- pulsory support of religion; but before proceeding to an- other step in the same argument, I must advert to the attempts, obviously futile though I think they are, to adduce the semblance of a proof of direct New Testament authority upon this subject. The parabolical language of our Saviour, " compel them to come in, that my hou.e may be filled," Luke xiv. •23. has been adduced only by those whom sound, rather than sense, guides in their capricious interpretations of the scriptures, and of whom the enlightened advocates of Establishments will be ashamed— as if physical violence, not entreaty and powerful persuasion, were prescribed by our Lord— as if men were literally to be cudgelled into the membership of the Church, and to the communion- table itself. From the passage in 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2. " J exhort, there- fore, that first of all, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we maij lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty,'' it has been argued that there is an implied duty on the part of the magistrate to enforce the practice of godliness, as well as of honesty.* To every reader I may leave it to determine whether tliis interpretation is not an assumption; and whether the passage means more than this, that it might please God. in answer to the prayers of his persecuted church, so to lispose the hearts of rulers, as that Christians might be permitted to observe the ordinances of his worship with- out molestation, and might be encouraged to live in all uood conscience toward God and toward man?— or, to use the words of one sufficiently well affected toward Established Churches, " that feeling as good subjects, we "lay be suffered to lead an undisturbed and peaceable life, ^vhile Ave worship the true God, and honestly perform t'veiy civil and social duty."f The only other passage (with the exception of some predictions in the close of the Apocalypse, on which I ^hall not presume to offer any comment) which has been • Dr. M'Crie's Statement, page 139. t M' Knight in loc» M H ?l II 52 generally adduced, is the following: " Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God ; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that doeth evil." Rom. xiii. 1—4. In arguing from this passage for compulsory legislation respecting the Christ- ian Church, it seems to be taken for granted that by the phrase " that which is good," the apostle means obedience in general, both in worship and morals — that, therefore, the magistrate has superintendence over both — and that both should consequently be enforced by his authority. But let the two following considerations be attended to. 1. The apostle speaks very evidently of the powers that then were. Did these powers enforce the duties of Christian worship? 2. Doing evil, in this passage, isco- extensive with doing good; and on the man that doeth evil his stvord descends, and he executes wrath. Are we then back once more to penal laws, and to the extermi- nation of heretics? What can be plainer than that the apostle does not treat of any supposed power of the magistrate respecting Christianity, (nor is his silence on such a power, when writing of the duties of civil func- tionaries, to be overlooked) but relieves the Chiistian mind from all anxiety as to the lawfulness of obeying even bad magistrates in lawful things, enjoins this obedience, assures them that it is the will of God they should con- scientiously render it, and reminds them that civil go- vernment is of the utmost advantage to men, constituted as it is for the prevention and punishment of crime, Jind the promotion of social order? " For want of other proof, they will needs wrest that place of St. Fm\, Rom. xiii. to set up civil inquisition, and give power to the magistrate both of civil judgment, and punishment in causes ecclesiastical. But let us see with what strengtn 53 of argument; " let every soul be subject to the higher powers. First, how prove they that the apostle means other powers, than such as they to whom he writes were then under; who meddled not at all in ecclesiastical causes, unless as tyrants and persecutors? And from tliem, I hope, they will not derive the right of magistrates to judge in spiritual things. How prove they, next, that he entitles them here to spiritual causes, from whom he withheld, as much as in him lay the judging of civil> 1 Cor. VI 1, &c. If he himself appealed to C^sar, it was to judge his innocence, not his religion."* But I proceed with the scriptural evidence. It is not enough to assert that the New Testament is silent as to any appointment for civil legislation on behalf of Christ- ianity, It must be remarked farther, That it contaiyis post-- tive appointments, illustrated by apostolical example, that the support of Christianity was to be accomplished by other means. In this part of the argument, it will be observed, the pi-oof IS limited to the pecuniary support of Christian- ity. 1 he contributions of those who willingly offer—of those particularly who have experienced the value of the blessings which Christianity confers, and recognize as supreme law the authority of Him who having bled tor their ransom, lives as their Lord and their King— these are the appointed revenues of the kingdom of Christ upon earth. That these voluntary contribution, are expressly appointed— that they are appointed as expressly as Prayer, or the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord s Supper— that the appointment has the same appearance of permanence as that of those ordinances— that no indication is given of a period when anotlier order of things should arise, when this original and aivuiely instituted mode of supporting Christianity should be supplanted by another better and more efficient, than »=* given that Baptism and the Lord's Supper should give place to some other and more efficacious rites— that this appointment is not only recorded, but vindicated, on the '"gli ground of its intrinsic fitness and equity, as not being .merely arbitrary, but founded on justice, and gooaness, and wisdom— that there is as much reason to * Milton's Prose Works, vol. iii, page 327. F 54 65 \ -\ t 5» If conclude from the record, that this appointment is lion- ourinff to the Lord Jesus, and for the best interests of his church, as the positive institutions to which I have ad- verted, and that the abolition of the one, and the substitii- tion, by human authority, of others in their room, would be dishonouring to the Redeemer and injunous to his c-hurch, as a similar change in regard to the latter would be— and, finaUy, that this appointment given by Christ, reiterated and recorded by his inspired apostles, wa^ acted upon by the primitive churches, and by the apostles themselves, all these are matter of fact, not more dis- putable than that the inspired record exists. \\ hen our Lord sent forth the first labourers, he commanded them to receive their support from those among whom they laboured; and rested his command upon this principle, universally acknowledged in society, " the labourer is worthy of his hire," Luke x. 3-8. The apostle Paul lavs down this divine appointment for the Christiaii ministry, more fully in I Cor. ix. 1-14. from which louff passage I extract the following sentences. U ho eoeth a warfare at any time on his own charges" A\ho planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof r or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk ot the flock? Say I these things as a man, or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou Shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt this is written, that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thinff if we shall reap your carnal things? Do ve not know that they which minister about holy things live ot the things of the temple? And they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the gospel shou cl live of the gospel." In this passage, the duty of properly supporting the ministers of the gospel- their support from the field in which they labour, the vineyard whicli they cultivate, the temple in which they minister, the altar at which they serve^the equity, and reasonablene^^ of this arrangement, placing as it does the support ot tne Christian ministry on the- same ground on which fair paction, or the sense of justice, places the support of the labourer in any order in society— and the express ap- pointment of the Lord, fixing and sanctioning this equi- table arrangement, for his own honour, and the interest of his Church, are expressly and plainly taught. But is not *' the law;' referred to; and did not the Jewish law appoint tithes? Yes; God appointed tithes from the eleven tribes, for the support of the twelfth, who had no other inheritance; but the hereditary priesthood and the tithes have passed away together; nor is there one sen- tence in the New Testament which alludes to their per- manence. In these sentences, it is not so much the tithes that are referred to, as the oblations at the temple, and the altar, of which the priests were partakers. Besides, the tithes were appointed to be paid by those only for whom the priesthood ministered : and that was for all Israel. Had there been six of the twelve tribes at lib- erty to have priests of their own, would these six tribes have been commanded to pay tithes for the priests of the other six, and for their own also? In addition to all, the tithes were commanded of God, but were not to be exacted by legal distraints, and military violence.— But again, does not the apostle refer to soldiers? And does not the whole state pay for the troops? He refers to the pay of soldiers, but only as far as it serves the pur- pose of his own argument, which is, that soldiers are supported not by their own private resources, but by those who employ them in their warfare. But he no more refers, (nor does the purpose of the illustration require it,) to forced taxes for the pay of the military, than he does to the military plunder of conquered ene- mies, to which successful warfare has resorted in all ages. In the same spirit of equitable and wise appointment is the following apostolical precept, " Let him that is taught m the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things," Gal. vi. 6. In these words we have an in- junction possessing the same inspired authority as the other precepts with which it is connected, having nothing in its character implying that it should be of less perma- nent obligation ; but on the contrary resting on such a us answered, My kingdom is not of this worid. If my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, tuat I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is "ly kingdom not from hence. Pilate, therefore, said un- f3 It il 58 to him, Art thou a king, then? Jesus answered, Tliou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I bom, and for this cause came I into the world that I shotdd bear ivitness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice^' John x. viii. 36, 37. In opposition to the Jewish charge, that Christ, by making himself a king, spake against Csesar, he shows that CcBsar^s province and his were separate^ Caesar having nothing to do in the province over which he was king. His kingdom does not require, nor admit of violence, such as the Jews thought the Mes- siah would employ, such as the Jewish multitudes, who recently followed him, could have employed at his com- mand. Finally, these two considerations are explained thus: Jesus is a king in proclaiming " the truth," that is, his gospel, " the gospel of the kingdom," often called by him '* the truth ;" he came into the world to bear witness, with authority, to this truth; this truth is the law of his king- dom : and his subjects are those, who, from homage to him. " hear his voice," that is, receive and obey the tnith whicli he has taught. Such are the circumstances connected in the passage with the great testimony itself, " My kingdom is not of this world." A kingdom which employed no au- thority such as Caesar employed — which availed itself of no force, such as the multitudes expected, and such a* these multitudes might have been employed by Christ to exert — which governed men by the authority and evidence of divinely attested truth, to which Caesar's authority could add nothing; such are the characters of Christ'> kingdom, which this testimony, explained by its connec- tion clearly includes. And I may ask, whether if thi kingdom of Christ required the intervention of civil la\v for its establishment — if its doctrines and institutions were to be enforced by royal and legislative enactments— it men were to be coerced by the authority and the ven- geance of law to contribute to the support of its institu- tions — and if compliance with these civil enactments were to be the path-way to temporal emolument and honour. the testimony could have been given, and given in the cir- cumstances in whicli it was uttered, by the King of truth " My kingdom is not of this world? " Very similar to this declaration of Jesus is the follow- ing in the writings of Paul, respecting the only legitimate 59 influence in the Church which the gospel recognizes, which 1 quote with this one remark, that the word " carnal" does not denote, as it often does, that which is morally corrupt ; but, (as appears from the contrast instituted in the pas- sage itself,) human violence of any kind. " For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strongholds ; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringeth into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ," 2 Cor. X. 4, 5. The conclusion, then to which these remarks conduct us, is this ; taking the New Testament for our guide, we perceive no trace of any precept, any example, any intelligible indication of the will of Christ for the employ- ment of civil law to enforce the support of Christianity that Christ and his apostles have appointed the volun- tary contributions of its friends for the support of the Christian religion, resting this appointment, not on divine authority alone, but also on its intrinsic equity, and fitness —and, finally, the opposition of the spirit and the maxims of the New Testament, to the employment of civil force for the support of the gospel. On these grounds we as- sert, that the highest authority to which man can appeal, is resisted, by the employment of compulsory legislation for upholding the religion of Jesus. Objections to the views whicli I have presented shall he afterwards considered ; but there is one, which may, with more propriety be introduced here, from its imme- diate connexion with the position which I have just been endeavouring to establish. The objection is to this eff*ect; " whatever may be alleged respecting those early ap- pointments and usages, they are insufficient now; if the ministers of the gospel are not supported by the state, they will not be duly supported at all; the Christian ministry will rapidly fall into contempt, and Christianity itself will fall with its ministry." The writers to whom I have repeatedly alluded are very copious in their de- clamation on this topic, and probably no one is more so, than our respected countryman Dr. Chalmers. Now, if the preceding reasoning be correct, I deny that any cir- if 1 1 If I N 60 cumstances can justify the compulsory intervention of laws for the endowment of the Christian ministry, on this general ground, that if the members of the Church fail to obey an institution of Christ, the Church is not at liberty to drop that institution and supply its place by one of its own invention. The Church must faithfully adhere to the ordinances and commandments of the Lord Jesus, rejecting every substitutionary expedient, however specious, and persuaded that " the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." The case of the apostles proves, that if the resources appointed by Christ should, for a time, prove scanty, or fail, it is incumbent on the ministers of the gospel to resort to bodily or mental labour to supply the deficiency, and to do so with humility and cheerfulness, rather than invoke the brute force of law, to compel con- tributions, which the authority of Christ and the remon- strances of men, have failed to draw forth. But that such a substitute of a human device for Christ's own ordinance, implying as it does, so much distrust of the power and faithfulness of the Lord of the Church, and so much opposition to his express authority, should be vin- dicated, and declared necessary to the prosperity, or the existence of the Christian Church, is fitter far for the mouth of the infidel, than for that of the Christian, or the Christian divine. Leave it to the enemy of Christianity to vaunt, " If the secular arm do not uphold your reli- gion, it will fall and perish — its strength is in your statute-book — the soldiery is its rampart — in the wealth which you compel a reluctant people to lavish on its structures, and its dignitaries, in the stigma with which you contrive to brand all who deviate from the national belief, in the road which conformity opens to the gratifi- cation of vanity, ambition, or lucre, lies the mighty potency of its charms — leave your religion to itself, as ours is left — give us a fair arena, and let us meet it on equal terms, and we will show you that the contest will neither be long nor doubtful, and that the triumph of our cause will be easy and complete." To the boasting in- fidel leave such language as this; but never let it be heard from Christian lips. What I — if you want courage to tnist to the simple provisions of the Lord Jesus, and 61 to his blessing to render them effectual, look to facts, and gather confidence. Think of the three centuries, during which, unaided by secular power, Christianity spread with a rapidity, and achieved triumphs, unknown in any other period of her history, even to this day — reflect on the preservation for many ages of the small remnant of the faithful, who kept the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, while the protected and en- dowed Church was apostate — observe how British dis- senters, amidst all the repression of penal laws, disquali- fying statutes, public indignities, and the constant influ- ence of Establishments tending to uproot from the breasts of Christians all sense of their obligation to support religion by voluntary oblations, have now in- creased to millions — look to the spread of Christianity in every quarter of the world, by Bible and Missionary Societies, within the last forty years, all of them resting exclusively on voluntary support — above all, turn your eyes to the New World, and contemplate the refreshing, the magnificent spectacle, of a mighty people, within whose territories the compulsion of force for the sake of religion is unknown, relying on the sure efficacy of the simple appointment of Christ, and provided with the means of Christian instruction and worship, far beyond any other country on the face of the whole earth; and if these facts do not suffice to re-assure your confidence, and to put your doubts and fears to flight, your case must be hopeless. In illustration of these remarks, I have great pleasure in extracting the following paragraph from the pages of a writer now familiar to an admiring public, whose high talents are only outshone by his personal virtues, and of whom it may be truly said, " Nihil tetigit quod non ornavity " The voluntary principle is a moral power which rapidly increases from being acted upon. Paley was greatly ignorant of the state of primitive Christianity, when he asserted, " to the scheme of voluntary contribu- tion there exists this insunnountable objection, that few would ultimately contribute any thing at all." Whereas the reverse was the case in the primitive Church — the early Christians erred in contributing too much. Besides lolieving the persecuted, the sick, and the afflicted, and ■I 62 encouraging, from too indiscriminate almsgiving, a num- ber of impostors, they enriched to such an extent their office-bearers and bishops, that long before even persecu- tion had ceased, they made the eminent situations of their Churches tempting objects for the disgraceful rivalry of worldly cupidity, and secular ambition. The truth is, the Church of Christ was corrupted by wealth long before it was corrupted by power."* IV. I argue against Civil Establishments of religion from their bad tendency and effects. If I have succeeded in proving the truth of the pre- ceding considerations, this last may be regarded as a consequence from them; for if Civil Establishments of religion imply usurpation, on the part of the legislature, of powers which no legislature rightfully possesses — if they are essentially unjust — and if they are unscriptural, their tendency cannot be doubtful, and their effects mast show what that tendency is. These Eistablishments, it may be remarked, first, /a// to accomplish the ends for which they have been constituted. These, as pleaded for by their defenders, are, the religious instruction of the nation, and national uniformity in reli- gion.f But have our Establishments accomplished either of these objects, or do they tend to accomplish them? As to the former, I suppose these two things will not be disputed — a great proportion of the instruction given in the Established Churches is nominal, not real, being poison, rather than wholesome aliment, or a with- holding to starvation rather than a supplying of mental food — and, next, the great body of the empire, of those at least who seek and get religious instruction, derive it, not from the Established Churches, but from other sources, choosing rather to pay for it elsewhere, than enjoy it there for almost nothing. — As to the other end, uniformity in religion, every candid man, who knows any thing of the subject, will admit, that in this respect the Establishments have been total failures. There is no approach to this uniformity. In the Church of Scotland, the Moderates * Address, &c. by James Douglas, Esq. of Cavers. f See Paley, &c. M 63 and the Orthodox have been long arranged under certain leaders, and in opposite and conflicting bands; the former notoriously including a great diversity of sentiment, and, as a whole, always outnumbering the latter. Of the seventeen thousand clergymen of all names and orders in the English Establishment, not a tithe hold the Calvin- ism which is taught in their Articles, nor are even mode- rately evangelical, as the best men in that Church believe and lament; nor can we peruse such well-known works as those of Tillotson, Barrow, Butler, Paley, Watson, Marsh, iMant, Scott, or Newton, without being struck with the great diversity of creed which exists, and is taught, in the Church of England. The uniformity, then, is that of a name, but no more; it is a thing of sound only, not even of visible appearance; it may impose on the ear, but the eye detects it. Indeed, an analysis of sentiment, resulting from intimate knowledge, would probably shew as great a variety of conflicting opinions, on the most momentous subjects, within as without the pale of the Episcopalian Church. A more heterogeneous mass, under the same cover, was never found in one package. Of the Church of Ireland, as effecting the religious instruction of that country, or of its uniformity in any thing save its exactions, I need say nothing. Hated by the country which it has so long afflicted and spoiled, and in which military violence alone preserves its tottering existence, and now become the scorn of an indignant empire, that insult to the name of even a National Church must speedily disappear. But, besides. Civil Establishments tend to corrupt re- ligion and to counteract its progress, by the secular injiu- mce which they introduce into the Church. It may be assumed, that the state will not encumber itself with the Church, with its creed, with its structures, with the sup- port of its clergy, with its complaints and its petitions, without some very tangible equivalents, and these proba- hly of a description which the Church ought not to pay. These equivalents are generally such as the following — accommodation in the matter of discipline, by throwing open her gates, without scruple, for the admission of her rulers, and their dependents and followers, to her most sacred privileges — the understood or avowed exercise of influence, \ w ! hi i 'I li l| f 64 l»y secular patronage, in the distribution of her livings, and the government of her affairs — with subserviency and devotion on her part, to the state, on whicli she rests. These matters are brought out by Warburton, somewhat strongly and offensively perhaps, but with much trutli, at least as far as England is concerned. This bold and learned ecclesiastic does not adduce it as a charge, but pleads and argues for it, as a fact, and as a duty, that the Church (which no man shows more clearly than he, is naturally independent of the state) in forming her alliance with it, agrees by paction, that in return for her endowment, and the coact ire power lent to her by the state, she " resigns up her independency, and makes the magis- trate her supreme head, without whose approbation and allowance, she can administer, transact, or decree no- thing." * This is speaking out. He goes on to vindicate the Church for making the king her head, showing how fine a thing it is for the Church to have a crowned head, and sternly contending, (the following are his words) *' that no ecclesiastic of the National Church can exercise his function, without the magistrate's appointment and allowance — that no convocation or synod has a right to sit, without express permission of the civil magistrate— and that no member of the Established Church can he excommunicated, or expelled the society, without the consent and allowance of the magistrate." Nor is this surrender of her independence enough for the benefits of a state alliance; for the bishop adds, that the Churcli must bestow " additional reverence and veneration on the person of the civil magistrate, and on the laws of the state," and must " engage to apply its utmost endeavours to serve the state.*' In the Church of England, according- ly, no attempt is made to separate the precious from the vile, as far as admission to Clu-istian membership is con- cerned; and thus men are lulled into self-deception, and false security, by the possession of a nominal and worth- less Christianity. And who knows not that by the ap- pointment of the bishops — by the crown patronages — by the livings in the gift of the aristocracy, or of the bishops^ state intiuence is as universal in the English Church as * Alliance, page 147. 65 bishop Warburton could desire. It is, indeed, a great state engine, constructed and kept moving for purposes of state; a disciplined ecclesiastical army, under the autho- rity of the crown, as truly as the military. Now and then the machine may creak, and work harshly, and become somewhat unmanageable from the neglect of a due supply of oil to its ponderous wheels, or the rude experiments of some meddling under-workers— symptoms of mutiny may appear among the officers, or in the ranks, from the dis- missal of some favourite general, or the stoppage of pay, or a threatening of reduction. But keep the machine in its old condition, oil it abundantly, attempt no new ex- periments, and it will go on performing its huge and fan- tastic movements, as in the olden time— let the troops have their old commanders, give them their pay, provoke them with no threatened reductions, gratify them with their holiday dresses and evolutions, and his Majesty may count upon them as long as he lives. Alas ! — what the Church has suffered from this surrender of the liberty wherewith her Redeemer hath made her free — this servile prostration at the shrine of wealth and power — this sale of her birthright for a mess of meat I — When will she have the virtue to abandon her ruinous alliance, for the sake of which she has vilely cast her honours away, reassert her original purity and independence, and bow to no other name, than the name of Jesus!— In Scotland, things are better. The Scottish Church never owned the king as her Head — and may she never ! — and never surrendered the independence of her courts and her discipline. But the unliallowed influences have found their way into Scot- land also. It were easy, but not pleasant, to show how they have stolen in, and what havock they have wrought. Let the case of patronage suffice, as an example — of pa- tronage, in the train of which so many evils have followed. At this moment this evil is denounced by many of the best men in the Church of Scotland, as " unscriptural and sinful;" but what follows? Is this " sinful and unscrip- tural " thing renounced at all costs? Is entrance into the pastoral relation, or connexion with the state itself, de- clined, rather than comply with this invasion of the rights ot the Christian people, this " sinful and unscriptural " usurpation in the Church ;— rather than " do this evil that 66 67 l|i Pll i< good may come?" No such thing. What has been iv practice, exists in practice as ever — the king — the town council — the private lay patron, repeat the evil as they have been accustomed to do — congregations bow to it-1 ministers of the gospel coincide with it, in receiving gratefully the patron's grant, as the necessary pre-requisite to the call, or the induction — and the Church puts her- self into the abject condition of a petitioner to the legis- lature to redress an evil which she should abolish herself. How much more dignified, how much more scriptural, to sever by one act the connection, from which nothing but evil has resulted, or will result; and thus at once lay the axe to the root, in place of cropping the twigs, or loppinjj off some branches. In this way alone, it is probable, will the evil ever be cured; for an Established Church, with- out royal or aristocratical patronage, is an anomaly of which history affords no record. Still farther, Civil Establishments of religion have a tendency to persecution. One principle on which the Church solicits the sanction of the state is the connection betwixt true religion, and the ends for which good govern- ment is instituted, to secure moral order, and temporal happiness. But if this connection betwixt true religion and the interests of society, (which is unquestionable) be admitted as a reason why true religion should receive the sanction of civil law, and a Christian Church should be supported by the state, is it not also a reason why false religion, which subverts morality, and does more to in- jure even the present happiness of mankind than all other causes combined, should be repressed ? The second seems as fair and as evident as the first of these corrollaries; and all the earliest and ablest pleaders for Establishments did in fact argue as strongly for the legal suppression of all heresies, as for the legal establishment of the true religion, and endowment of the true Church. Hence the alliance betwixt legal establishments of religion and intol- erance — hence penal laws — hence real or virtual disquali- fication — hence the fact, that every exclusive Civil Establishment of Christianity has persecuted. In the form of compelling the support of a system from which we derive no benefit, which applies to dissenters univer- sally, and in grievous vexations for conscience' sake. endured by the millions of English dissenters, persecu- tion by the Establishments exists to this day; while that wrath and malignity which the present discussions have already drawn forth so abundantly, (not by any means universally in the Established Churches, for by very many in those communions the discussions to which I allude are welcomed, and the principles advanced by the dissenters approved, or favourably listened to) in well known quarters, the persecuting spirit seems to live and operate with nearly all its pristine vigour and activity. To these manifestations I may apply the language of Hall, with slight change of expression. " Till this busi- ness was agitated, however, we were not aware of our labouring under such a weight of prejudice. Confiding in the mildness of the times, and conscious that every trace of resentment was banished from our breasts, we fondly imagined that those of Churchmen were equally replete with sentiments of candour and generosity. We accordingly ventured" to bring forward " our claims as men, and as citizens ; but had not proceeded far, before we were assailed with the bitterest reproaches Their opposition was more violent than was expected. They let us see that however languidly the flame of their devotion may burn, that of resentment, and party spirit, like vestal fire, must never be extinguished in their temples These evils « are often mitigated by the virtue of" members of the Establishments; " and among the English clergy in particular," (and let the Scottish have their just share of the tribute) " as splendid exam- ples of virtue and talents might be produced, as any which the annals of human nature can afford; but in all our reasonings concerning men, we must lay it down as a maxim,, that the greater part are moulded by circum- stances. If we wish to see the true spirit of a hierarchy, we have only to attend to the conduct of what is usually termed the High Church party." But the worst aspect of Establishments is t/ieir tendency to diffuse irreligion and impiety. Next to the excellence and the evidence of the gospel itself, nothing contributes so much to its diffusion as the influence of its heavenly doctrines on those who profess to receive them. The spiritual system itself may be very imperfectly discerned, I I '^ ::. f I ■lit li li 68 but it will be seen embodied in the living character of its ministers, and professed friends. But looking generally at our Establishments, what does the observer perceive? He sees at once that it cannot be ani/ one system which the state approves, for Popery, Episcopacy, and Presby- tery, all bask in its favour, and share its endowments; and, to a reflecting observer, it will not appear more con- sistent, that the systems thus favoured are locally separat- ed, one in Canada, another in England and Ireland, a third in Scotland, than if they co-existed in the same locality, and all the three were established in London, Dublin, or Edinburgh. He will observe farther, that it cannot he any one system which is meant to be supported in any one of these Churches ; since all the world knows that in the one Episcopalian Church, for example, you will find as many opinions as you can fancy, and thus a real variety of creeds is equally supported, though under one delusive name. It cannot be any love to the system established, that has won for it the endowment of the state, for it is obvious that it is subordinated by the state to its own secular purposes, not to objects of piety. What must be the influence on the mind of the observer, of the great body of the teachers of religion solemnly subscribing what they neither believe nor teach — of the buying and selling of livings, like any other marketable commodity — of the clergy, by thousands, binding them- selves to duties which they never perform — of exacting the hire, but refusing the labour? Then the cry is ever ringing in his ears, " if the state do not support this sys- tem, it must perish ; " and when discussion gets active, and change is demanded, with one voice '' the clergy exclaim their Church is in danger, speaking broad, as Mr. Burke says, and meaning only that their emoluments are endangered." What is the man to infer from all this? Judging of Christianity, not as it is in itself; not iis it appears in its divine simplicity, majesty, and holi- ness, in the word of God; but as it is seen in this corpo- ration which calls itself the Church, he comes to the fatal conclusion — it is all imposition together — it seems to be a great government job — a piece of complicated priestcraft — the priests themselves do not believe what they swear to — the people do not believe it — and the 69 difference betwixt them and us is this, that we are honest, and they are hypocrites. We know, from their writings, how the excellent of the earth, in the Establishments, perceive and lament this state of things. As it is, I suppose I do not hazard too bold an opinion, when I say, that, probably, of all the causes of infidelity and immo- rality in the country, the state of the Churches of Eng- land and Ireland, (arising, be it observed, mainly from their being state Churches,) may be regarded as the chief. ** Hence," says Hall, speaking of the disagree- ment between the public creed of the Church, and the private sentiments of its ministers, an evil, he remarks, " not likely to be remedied, before it brings the clerical character into the utmost contempt — hence the rapid spread of infidelity in various parts of Europe; a natural and never-failing consequence of the corrupt alliance between Church and state."* iMW^Orf^W^O^^MWtftfiJM^X*^ SECTION III. OBJECTIONS. If the reasoning in the preceding pages be correct, 1 am not particulai-ly solicitous respecting objections, how- • It is no objection to this statement to tell us, that evils existed in the Church before Christianity was established, and even while the apostles lived — that evils of great magnitude are found in unestablished Churches — and that the removal of Establishments would not effect- ually purify the Church. All this is admitted. But the springing up of corruption from other sources does not diminish its amount from this most copious of all ; and surely it is enough that the purity of our religion be exposed to contamination from causes inherent in our fallen nature, without adding to them that mighty and most efficient auxiliary, the influence of the state. — One can hardly repress a smile at the simple reply, which is so often made to the call for improve- ment — " there is nothing perfect, you have faults yourselves " — sage sayings, which would have contained as satisfactory reasons against the Reformation of Luther, or even the preaching of the apostles, as against any correction of abuses in present times. Is our remoteness from the goal of perfection a reason why we should not strive to get nearer it? g3 II I ; ! I li if If 70 ever plausible, that may be brought against it. Of the leading objections, however, I shall take a rapid survey. Among the writers to whom I have already alluded, Bishop Warburton, and after him Dr. Ranken, tell the opponents of Establishments that they have the common consent of mankind against them. They collect the suffrages of the world, of all ancient and modern nations, and they say they are all against us, with exceptions too trifling to be noticed. This, doubtless, is a formidable array. And as China, it seems, is rather a doubtful case, Dr. Ranken is at great pains to show, that what he calls " the Chinese Church," is really an Established Church! Be it so. Truth must not be determined by the multi- tude of suffrages in its favour. We trust we have Jesus Christ and his apostles with us. Beyond all dispute, the Christian Church for three centuries, was, in practice at least, as we are. And looking around us at this day, we do not feel that we are few. Be this, however, as it may. " The antiquity and extent of the practice only show the inveteracy of the prejudice." " But what say you to the Reformers?," We must confess with sorrow that we cannot claim thenu We should have exulted in having had these great and good men on our side. But they are all against us — Luther- Calvin — Knox, every man of them. But, remember, they were against toleration too. They dismounted the old lady, it has somewhere been quaintly remarked, from the beast on which she rode; but they were too eager to leap into the saddle themselves. They were all against the " intolerable toleration of all religions," as keenly as they were for the establishment of the " true religion," and because they w^ere for the latter, they were against the former. Let any one consult a well-known work in every theological library, the *' Syntagma Confessw7iu?n" if he wishes proof of this. We must call no man on earth A faster. " Dissenters have no right to intermeddle with the ( luirch; she costs the country nothing; she has her own patrimony; and nobody has a right to it but herself." I believe the public have already overruled this objection, ill all its parts, and after counsel has been heard on both >iides. Who contribute to the funds that build and repair 71 churches in Edinburgh, Glasgow, London, Liverpool, and every where? Churchmen and dissenters equally. Who replenish the treasury from which issue government gi-ants, for building government churches, increasing small livings, paying troops for gathering tithes in Ireland, &c.? Then, as to nobody being injured because the Church has a tenth; would any body be injured if she had a half, or the whole? Why is a tenth so harmless? But pri- vate individual property! Let that never more be heard of, from the lips of Churchmen particularly! Hear a Layman on the subject. " At the Reformation, the doctrine, that church property is public property, was established beyond any reasonable doubt, by the wealth despoiled from the Church of Rome being applied to the support of principles diametrically opposite to the super- stition for whose maintenance these funds had been originally set apart. It would almost surpass belief, that a Protestant clergyman, subsisting on the residue of Popish benefices, could hesitate for a moment to admit that church property is public property, for otherwise what right has he to his present living? which, unless the state had the power to divert it from its original in- tention, must inalienably have belonged to the Popish priesthood, and he who appropriates their goods to his own use, except upon the principle that church property is public property, is, in terms of his own confession, a robber and spoiler of churches. But by every mite that a Protestant clergyman receives, he acknowledges this principle, that church property is public property, that the legislature has the right to withdraw it from its original purpose, and to assign it to objects diametrically opposite, provided these objects are supposed to coincide with the greatest possible amount of public good."* But, dissenters may still be asked, Do you, after all your noise, really wish a share of the property of the Church? No— but we wish exemption from paying any share of it to you— we wish you to do this fair thing, to support yourselves as we do— we wish the state to dispose of its own property for the benefit of all its subjects, and not hestow it on a portion of the community who are not ♦ Mr. Douglas's Address. i 72 paupers. Were its continued application to religious pur- poses determined on by the legislature, it ought to be equally distributed among all parties in the country, for it was originally held, not by a party but by a church which included the whole population. Two results would follow — the Church would have no more claim on the dissenters — and the dissenters giving up, on principle, their portion to the state, it could not be but that the present endowed minority would be forced to follow the example of the unendowed majority — It is not thus, however, that matters will be adjusted. " But what would you do with the thinly populated parts of the country? Would you leave them in their poverty, destitute of religious instruction?" — First, if it is to be put on this issue, take the benefit of the objection for a season ; renounce your Establishment in the towns and populous districts, where the objection concedes it is not wanted — keep it, if you will, where you say it is needed. — Let this be tried; but if not, why may not the richer help the poorer? This is done in temporal things, why not in spiritual? — See what dissenters, poor as they are, have done in the poorest districts in Wales and in Orkney. — And is not Christ's appointment, like that gospel which transmits it, applicable to all varieties of place and circumstance? — Thinly populated parts of the country ! The less these are brought forward by the de- fenders of Establishments, the better for themselves. We are told by Dr. Chalmers, that men are not natur- ally inclined to receive the gospel, and if you do not anticipate their demands, they will live and die without it. — Did Christ understand this unwillingness of men, or did he not? Did his appointment proceed on a miscalcu- lation, which has at length been detected ? " The wisdom of God is wiser than men." Yes, human depravity is opposed to the gospel; indolence will not arouse itself to examine it ; prejudice misinterprets it ; pride cannot brook its humbling doctrines ; sin hates its purity. The gospel must be brought to men, otherwise they will not seek after it. But is it the most likely way to overcome this aversion, to compel men to pay for the gospel before that aversion is overcome? Then, if the state will form itself into a missionary society, and compel the supply of its 73 treasury from its subjects of all parties, must it not either support missionaries from all the parties, by whom that treasury is replenished, (and in this case you are brought to the compulsory support of all, even the most conflicting- creeds) or commit the injustice of compelling all to sup- port one? Finally, it is objected, that our doctrine is at war with national schools, a national Sabbath, and, indeed, national religion itself. We deny all these. — There may be uni- versal education, as in America, where there is no Estab- lished Church ; and there may be the want of such educa- tion, as in England, where an Established Church has existed for centuries. — As an institution essential to the welfare of the nation, the Sabbath may be, and ought to be, set apart from secular labour; but it is not pretended that law can compel its religious observance, — Then, as to national religion, you cannot, without violence, without mockery, produce the appearance of religion, unless the people are religious. Rulers should do the following things in favour of religion — they should be religious themselves — they never ought to do any thing inconsist- ent with religion in their public functions, but should rather relinquish their places, than violate its dictates — in their deliberations they should acknowledge God, who would thus direct their counsels, and favour their under- takings — and, finally, by all appointed means, they should do what they can to promote true religion, in their own dwellings, in their country, and throughout the world. Then, indeed they would be nursing fathers to the Church. A nation blessed with such rulers, and walking in their footsteps, would, indeed, be a Christian nation ; and by no other means do we conceive it possible that either rulers or their subjects, can justly attain this honourable name. These, however, are brief suggestions, which merit separate, and full consideration.* * I may refer for a more ample illustration of the above reply to the well-known writings of Mr. Marshall. Indeed, on what part of the preceding discussion might I not have referred to the productions of tijat powerful and intrepid writer. it'l 74 It cannot be too deeply impressed on the minds of dissenters, that, under God, the issue of this great ques- tion depends on themselves. They need not dream that their opponents will concede any thing of their own accord; or that the legislature, unasked, and uninflu- enced, will renounce their hold of the national Churches. With themselves, therefore, the success of their cause rests; and I have no doubt they possess the means to ensure that success, sooner or later. They have every inducement to exert themselves. Wronged for centuries, without a cause — enduring their wrongs with a patience bordering on pusillanimity — the long-tried friends of this noblest temporal blessing with which a country can be enriched, civil and religious liberty, is it possible that a British legislature can always shut their ears to their prayers? They have still holier objects to animate their efforts. The buyers and sellers must be driven out of the temple of our God — " the abomination that maketh desolate, standeth where it ought not," and must be expelled from his sacred territory — the foul treason against Sion's King, that she has another head than him, must cease for ever. For the spiritual welfare of their fellow-countrymen, for the influence of their religion, for the glory of their Divine Lord, the Church of Christ must be emancipated from the polluting slavery under which she has fallen, and must appear, as at the first, holy and free. With such objects in view, let British dissenters do what they can, and they shall prevail. Let them be unit- ed — let them be steadfast — let them be fearless— above all, let them be tranquil in spirit, possessed with the con- fidence which piety inspires. In repelling the attacks of their opponents, it is but due to truth, that they give things their proper names. Abuse, slander, scurrility, falsehood, must not be softened down from a squeam- ish fear of giving offence. But let no injury, past, present, or future, provoke retaliation. Such weapons 75 our cause needs not, our religion forbids. No law is more imperative than that of our Lord, which we are especially to remember in seasons of temptation — " Bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you; and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you." Let us own with candour and with cordial delight every excellence that appears in the Established Churches — let us hail with joy every symptom of improvement which they exhibit — let us pray for their prosperity, as we pray for our own. Doing homage to this divine appointment, " whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing," let us cooperate with them, if they will cooperate with us, in every good undertaking, which regard to consistency of principle will allow. And let us not doubt, that although in the progress of the discussions that have begun, there will be, to a considerable extent, a collision of feeling, as well as of opinion, the Redeemer's prayer shall prove more powerful than the passions of his weak and imper- fect followers, and the delightful consummation for which he makes intercession shall be accomplished, " that they all may be one, as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." " For a time it is to be feared there must be conflict and confusion. But from disorder, order will arise. The stream of public opinion, so tranquil in its onward progress, is originally formed of many opposing currents. But, as at the junction of two mighty rivers, though all for a time, amid the conflicting and intermingling waters, be uproar and confusion, at last they find a common issue, determined by the propor^ tion of their respective forces, and with calm and un- resisted majesty form a passage to the sea."* As to the immediate prospects of the dissenters, I am Hot competent to hazard a decided opinion. On the one hand, the Establishments have in them much talent and worth, and great wealth, numbers and influence; and in this day of their trial, they are very naturally making common cause. In high quarters, the persuasion is deep- rooted, that you must preserve the altar, if you would • Mr. Douglas's Address. 1/ 76 iiDliold the throne. Besides, there are in every old coun- trv and there are in our own, and they are not without their use in times of rapid change, men of talent, educa- tion, and pietv, who are yet so wedded to the most ab- surd ahuses, as to employ the whole influence of then- talents, and even of their piety, to defend, rather than correct them. There is often a tardiness about our legis- lators, too, by which they will grant nothmg, till it is wrunff from them; and St. Stephen's swarms with Hon- curable and Right Honourable defenders of abuses, which the dullest artizan has long before detected!. The Slave trade— Slavery— the Reform question, exemplify this assertion. Evik are not redressed till half a century after the whole country denounces them. Our legislators have been hitherto in the rear, never in the front of the nation • and if the people had not pulled them along with ffiant strength, while every thing has been in progress, thev would have remained stationary, or have fallen back The stately old ship with her massive bulwarks, and iier majestic rigging, encumbered with the number of her hands, and devoted to an antiquated seamanship, sees the low-built adventurer with few to work her, and no useless tackle, yet with resistless power, cutting the ^vaters, and shooting fast a-head; and were the friendly rope not cast aboard, and the old vessel dragged along, she would remain far at sea, lumbering among the bil- low. long after her swift rival had reached the port, and disembarked the cargo.-So that years may pass, and this veneration may pass, before any material ecclesiasti- cal change be effected. Nor need this vex us much. Come it will. . ^ rr\ On the other hand, there are opposite symptoms. Ihe progress of our opinions is more rapid than the most san- Line of our friends could have anticipated. A goodly proportion of the press is doing its duty ^^\^^'''^'\Jl has been admitted even by the king s ministers, that a large majority of the empire, and a very large majonty of the ciiurch-going part of it arc unconnected with the Established Churches. Even of Scotland Mr. pougla> remarks " It is obvious to the most superficial observer, that the Church of Scotland, unless some remedy is pro- vided, is, in this part of the country at least, in a rapid 77 state of decay. We have the bare walls of an Establish- ed Church, but the living stones are in every sense ab- sent. The population of the country have gone else- where. The Church of Scotland, in several respects, is worse off than the Established Church of Ireland. In the latter country, if the majority of the people are at- tached to Popery, the wealthier minority profess to adhere to Reformed Episcopacy. In Scotland the wealth of the country has been long Episcopalian." If it be so in Scotland, what must it be in England and Ireland? Both in Scotland and England, members of the Estab- lishment, in growing numbers, have adopted and avowed the opinions of the dissenters, on the propriety of a total separation of the Church from the state ; they feel indig- nant that they who are so well able to support their own institutions, should hang, like paupers, on the state for their support; they are persuaded that it is as unjust, and as mean, for dissenters to be burdened for the build- ing of their Churches and the pay of their ministers, as it would be to tax them, if they could, for the building of their dwelling-houses, or the payment of their domestic expenditure; and they are convinced that the opposite opinions and usages will soon be matter of history, as relics of a half-barbarous age. The intemperate violence of our opponents, too, is forwarding our cause greatly; as their ill-concealed apprehensions betoken its issue. And, finally, the dissenters, have, as yet, made only a partial commencement of their work; their chief exer- tions remain to be made. Here and there they have moved in Scotland, and some slight demonstrations have been made elsewhere; but even the Scottish dissenters are but partially up, and the might of England remains to be roused. If, then, so much has been effected by these small affairs of outposts, what may not be accom- plished when the whole forces advance? The ecclesiastical structure has been examined,* and It has been found insecure — the national lever has been forced into the wall — a firm fulcrum has been placed — and there is. no want of hands. The first jerk has made • See Parliamentary proceedings respecting the English and Iruh Churches. H 78 the whole fabric totter; and many within are in rag*' and consternation. Let them come out tranquilly witlj all their honours, and with all their baggage, for it is not the men, but the si/stem, that must be overthrown. If they will not come out, they must, perhaps with little ceremony, be kindly brought out; for sooner or later the work must be done; one strong pressure of the national might must be applied to the lever — and then the struc- ture will be tossed from its foundation. None will ultimately rejoice more in the result than the worthy proportion of those who shall be dislodged. They will not be houseless, but will quickly find themselves in less stately, but more secure habitations; where they shall be more happily, and more honourably, because more scrip- turallv, accommodated. APPENDIX. Since the former edition of this Pamphlet was published, the work of Dr. Inolis in defence of Ecclesiastical Estab- lishments has appeared — a production in every respect worthy of its author. Although he modestly denominates it a Tract, it contains a digest of nearly all that may be urged in defence of Establishments, prepared with care, arranged with much skill, and presenting the arguments, and the replies to objections, with great perspicuity and ability. Its spirit is not less to be admired than its other qualities. There is hardly an offensive expression in the whole book ; and yet from first to last it has all the life and energy which may be expected from strong, yet well moderated, feeling. — There would be some comfort and hope in controversy were it always managed in this way. It would be arrogant to presume to reply fully to such a work in the few pages of this Appendix. Indeed as Dr. I. does not profess to advance much, if any thing, that is new, a reply to his arguments has been anticipated in what has been previously written by many in opposition to Civil Establishments of Christianity. I shall only pre- sent my readers with examples of the manner in which Dr. I. conducts the arguments, and in which, if I mistake not, even he has signally failed in the leading positions he has taken; and I trust the examples shall be given with fairness and candour. The reader cannot but be struck with the air of confi- dence, or rather triumph, with which Dr. I. begins, con- tinues, and concludes. I do not ascribe this to artifice; with Dr. I. it seems to be the natural expression of strong conviction.' But as it is not without its effects on certain minds, even in this age when men are little apt to defer to human authority, I shall contrast the second sentence in the Preface of Dr. I. (for thus early does his triumph com- \i 80 mence) with the judgment of a man, whose superiority to most other men, I presume Dr. I. himself will agree with the British public in acknowledging. Says Dr. I. ' Perhaps no argument, on a subject on which wise men have differed, was ever more triumphant than that by which the cause of Ecclesiastical Establishments has been maintained." Says Mr. Hall, " That Christianity is a simple institution, unallied to worldly power; that a Church is a voluntary society, invested with a right to choose its own officers, and acknowledging no head but Jesus Christ; that ministers are brethren, whose emolu- ment should be confined to the voluntary contributions of the people, are maxims drav^ni from so high an authority, that it may well be apprehended that the Church is doom- ed to vanish before them."* Thus oppositely do men judge on the same subjects. In an introductory section. Dr. I. gives a short history of the controversy, which he naturally subordinates to his own view of the argument. " The objection to Ecclesi- astical Establishments as connected with the state, is not of very distant or early origin. We can look back on the circumstances of the Christian world, and the opinions or sentiments of men respecting such Establishments, be- fore any opposition to them was contemplated. We can also look back — with assurance of not being deceived — on all the circumstances connected with the origin of that op- position, ascertain the credit due to its authors, and form an estimate of the events by which it was influenced, and to which it still bears a close and faithful resemblance." f The histoTy la then given to this effect:— No objection was made to the establishment of Christianity under Constantine, which, on the contrary, " was hailed by the Christian world as a blessed and glorious event" — it was acquiesced in during the middle ages — it was adopted by all the Reformers — opposition to the principle was first broached by the fanatical Anabaptists of Germany — the fathers of the Scottish Secession held it— and, in fact, opposition to it is a thing of yesterday.— This statement is plausible, but, unfortunately for its influence, it will not bear examination. Works, Vol. iii. p. 150. f Vindication, &c. p. 6. 81 Let it never be forgotten, that the apostles, the apos- tolical Churches, and all the Christian world during the three first centuries, were, in practice, as we are. Then, what are the facts respecting the Establishment of Chris- tianity under Constantine? 1. The Christian Church had never from its commencement passed under a storm of persecution so terrible, as that by which it was assailed immediately before Constantino's accession. The four edicts of Diocletian, issued A. D. 303 and 304, are well known. By the first, the Christians were deprived of their civil privileges, and of their books, and their churches were ordered to be demolished ; by the second, their ministers were imprisoned ; the third ordained that these captives should be tortured, to induce them to renounce their religion and sacrifice to the gods; and the fourth provided that torture in every form should be applied to Christians throughout the empire to drive them to apostacy.* Is it wonderful that when, in such circumstances, a deliverer suddenly appeared in the per- son of Constantine, the Christians should gratefully ac- cept the tranquillity brought to them, without very scru- pulously inquiring into the terms on which it was vouch- safed? 2. The settlement of the affairs of religion by Constantine was so objectionable, as that no enlightened friend of Establishments, at this day, will venture to defend it. Not contented with exempting Christians from persecution, by securing to them the free and unmolested exercise of their worship, or even with establishing Christianity by law, he proceeded to pass severe edicts againts the pagans, enjoining the forcible suppression of their idolatrous worship ; he exercised the same violence toward the numerous separatists from the Catholic Church ; and he assumed a lordly power over the favoured Church itself. The following are some of the expressions of Mosheim. " Toward the latter end of his life, he issued edicts for destroying the heathen temples, and prohibit- ing sacrifices .... Though he permitted the Church to remain a body politic, distinct from that of the state, as it had formerly been, yet he assumed to himself the supreme power over this sacred body, and the right of * Mosheim, cent. 4th. h3 1-i 1 1 82 modelling and governing it in such a manner as should be most conducive to the public good. This right he enjoyed without opposition, as none of the bishops presum- ed to call his authority in question ... He made several important changes in the form of the Roman government. And as there were many important reasons which indue- ed him to suit the administration of the Church to those changes in the civil constitution, this necessarily introduc- ed among the bishops new degrees of eminence and rank." * The following is a short extract from an edict of Constantino respecting the Arians. " ^loreover if any book composed by Arians shall be found, it shall be committed to the flames .... This also I enjoin, that if any one shall be found to have concealed any writing composed by Arius, and shall not immediately bring it, and consume it in the fire, death shall be his pmiishmeiit; for as soon as he is taken in this crime, he shall suffer a capital punishment." And as to the other sects, the Novatians, the Valentinians, the Marcionists, «S:c. with imperial despotism he denounces them as ** enemies of truth, evil counsellors," &c. and " he deprives them of the liberty of meeting for worship, either in public or private places; and gives all their oratories to the orthodox Church "\ Such was this first, and universally " hailed," Establishment: — and it suggests these two remarks— tliat the civil Establishment of Christianity from its very commencement has been allied with persecution, and spiritual usurpation— and that the acquiescence of the Church in Constantino's settlement no more favours the legal sanction and compulsory support of Christianity, than it does sanguinary intolerance and persecution. Why will the friends of Establishments be so unwise and rash as always to force us back to this most inauspicious era, the age of Constantino? 3. There existed, prior to the cige of Constantino, numerous separatists from the general Church, against whom, I have said, Constantiue issued his intolerant edicts. Among these, the Nova- tianists held the chief place; a sect which arose about the middle of the third century, which, indeed, carried its discipline towards those who had once lapsed into * Mosheim, cent. Ith. I Jones, chap. iii. 83 idolatry to an extreme; but whose creed was pure, the lives of whose members were exemplary, who rapidly grew in numbers, spread over the Roman empire, kept themselves from the corruptions of the Established Church, and from whom, probably, the illustrious Wal- denses sprung. We know these men chiefly from the accounts of their enemies; but this we know, that they retained the primitive mode of supporting Christianity, and were rewarded, as we have seen, with persecution. The following are the words of Mosheim respecting the Novatians. " Among the sects that arose in this century, (the third,) we place that of the Novatians the last . . . Novatian erected a new society, of which he was the tirst bishop; and which, on account of the severity of its discipline, was followed by many, and flourished, until the fifth century, in the greatest part of those provinces that had received the gospel .... There was no differ- ence, in point of doctrine, between the Novatians and other Christians .... They considered the Christian Church as a society where virtue and innocence reigned universally, and none of whose members, from their entrance into it, had defiled themselves with any enor- mous crime; and, of consequence, they looked upon every society, which re-admitted heinous offenders to its communion, as unworthy of the title of a true Christian Church. It was from hence, also, that they assumed the title of Cathari, i, e, the pure; (Puritans,) and what shewed a still more extravagant degree of vanity and arrogance, they obliged such as came over to them from the general body of Christians to be baptized a second time, as a necessary preparation for entering into their society. What now becomes of Dr. I.'s implied argument from the establishment of Constantino? The history of this event should be better known; for the more the charac- ter of Constantino himself, the nature of the power which he assumed over the Christian church, the exercise of the same intolerant power toward all without her pale, and the disastrous results of the whole, are understood, the more clearly will the unhappy tendency and effects * Moslieim, cent. Hi. 84 of the alliance then formed betwixt the state and the Church become apparent. The other steps in the history may be noticed more lightly. During the middle ages, " the Church was in the wilderness;" and the Waldenses, and those who held their opinions, comprehending under these, not the in- habitants of the Alpine vallies only, but separatists from the Established Church in many parts of Europe, main- tained the primitive order in practice, and, it is probable, to some extent in principle too; for in a Tract of the Waldenses quoted by Milton, they say, " that to endow Churches is an evil thing; the Church then fell oflP, and turned whore, sitting on that beast in the Revelation, when, under pope Silvester, (in the fourth century) she received these donations." * The Reformers, as I have shown, were as hostile to toleration as they were friendly to Establishments; and, indeed, taught that the magistrate was not less bound to suppress ffdse religion, than to endow and support the true. If Dr. I. has his pedigree, then, we have ours also. If his church be the lineal descendant of the Constantines and the Silvesters, and those who ranged themselves under these dignitaries, ours claims a prior and purer origin. If he give one history of the controversy, we meet him with another. We say, that, de facto, for three hundred years, the Christian Church, unallied with the state, as we are, was supported like ours, by the voluntary contributions of its friends; and of this fact, with all its value and consequences, no man can deprive us — that the same power, which first legalized and endowed Christ- ianity, smote with the one hand, while it caressed with the other; bound with fetters the serviles whom it caressed; and claimed and exercised the terrible power of doing the one and the other at its pleasure — the No- vatians, the Waldenses, " the Church in the wilderness," are our predecessors — the English Puritans, the dissent- ers of Europe, the voluntary benevolent associations for extending the knowledge and power of Christianity, ♦ Milton's Prose Works. Likeliest means to remove hirelings out of the Church. 83 American Christians, have all kept our principles active in their practice — and at this day these principles are understood more clearly, and avowed more extensively than heretofore. This is our history of the controversy. Let us now see how Dr. I. conducts his argument. It is given in three chapters — the first asserting the divine authority for Church Establishments — the second an- swering objections to this high claim — and the third treating of their utility. We object to arguments derived solely from the Old Testament on two grounds. 1. Because they prove too much. Take the example of the Jewish kings, who were bound to exercise the severities of the code of the theo- ocracy^against religious as well as civil oifences — as idol- atry — Sabbath-breaking — the neglect of the passover, &c. Now it is plain that you must either adopt the whole of the example, or go to the New Testament to determine to what extent it binds you. The former is not held ; the latter abandons the argument from the case of the kings of Israel. Dr. I. indeed, would plead that we must adopt as much of their example as is fixed by the moral law. But the moral law binds us to obey every positive institution which it pleases God to appoint. Under one dispensation, it pleased God to appoint coercion in re- gard to religion ; and it would have been immoral in the Jewish authorities to refuse to exercise this coercive power. The question is, what has God revealed under the new dispensation, the appointments of which the moral law binds us to observe ? 2. Because as far as compul- sory payments for the support of religion are concerned, they fail. God commanded that tithes should be paid, but we have no evidence, but the reverse, that he ever required that tithes should be exacted by legal violence. Dr. I. likes this sentiment very ill ; but in place of dis- proving it, he says, " it wears the aspect of a dernier resort in the argument. What sort of evidence do our opponents suppose that we ought to produce? Was it really to be supposed that the brief history which has been transmitted to us of the Jewish commonwealth, should contain a statement of what we should now call actions at law, which had taken place, for enabling indi- viduals to recover their rights, or a compensation for the n 1 w w III 86 loss of them? Are not all laws enacted with a distinct understanding that they are to be enforced? Is there any thing in the case of the Mosaic institutions that should lead to an imagination of their having been, in this re- spect, an exception from the general rule? Were not the sanctions of the Mosaic law temporal and worldly? And can it, in this case, be supposed that such a law as that in question was not enforced by temporal and worldly means?"* This will not do. We ask no record of actions at law, which Dr. I. might have very well known we do not demand even one allusion to them — we do not advance a plea for the record of even one case of legal violence on one solitary tithe-recusant, as a warn- ing to the discontented ; but we have a right to demand, in the absence of all these, one penalty appended to the tithe-law, in the very minute code of the theocracy, as ice find in that code against other civil and religious offences. That to pay tithes under that economy was a sacred duty we admit, and that the man who withheld them robbed God; but we see a wisdom in leaving the offender in this case, as in the higher departments of obedience, ex- clusively to the judgment of God. It exempted the priests of Jehovah from the odium attaching to civil processes, and violent distraints, for their livings. It cherished in the bosoms of the priests a sublime con- fidence in God. And it made their resources to depend mainly on their standing favourably in the estimation of those for whom they ministered, by the purity, fidelity, and dignity of their characters. In a word, we only ask what every tithe-recusant had a right to ask, had an action at law been brought against him — shmv us your warrant from the statute-hook for this action, and for the violence you employ, and the damages you claim. It is not unnatural for Dr. I. to refer to actions at lata, but with all deference, I am not sure how far it is wise; for had such actions been as frequent in Palestine as in Britain or Ireland, they would probably have been allud- ed to, however incidentally, in the sacred history, as forming a part of the e very-day usage of the country. And yet it is remarkable that Dr. I. makes a very ♦ Vindication, pp. 41, 42. 87 just and liberal concession to dissenters, as far as the argument against them taken from the theocracy is con- cerned. He says, " Now, I admit, that, under the Mo- saic dispensation, there neither was, nor could be, any such dissent from the Established Church as prevails in the present times. Any man who had publicly and openly disavowed the Levitical priesthood in the exercise of its functions must have been cut off from among the people of God ; and I readily concede that, for this reason, there is nothing in the ordinances of Moses, or rather in the procedure and practice under these ordinances, that can be regarded as a positive and direct example of an Eccle- siastical Establishment maintained at the expense of a community, inclusive of disse^iters,' * This admission given cautiously, and with something of timidity, is not to be despised. Let it only be acted upon. Tell British and Irish dissenters — tell them plainly — the Bible knows no case exactly like yours relatively to the Churches that are — we cannot apply the tithe law to you — we think you should pay the tithes to the clergy whom you do not acknowledge, and pay for churches in which you do not worship, but even the Mosaic law does not warrant us to go farther in regard to you — we cannot cut you off for refusing to acknowledge the existing priesthood, and, therefore, we must let you alone — we have no authority to exact from you. Tell all dissenters this, and act upon it, and some considerable step shall then be taken from things as they are, to things as they should be. But the Dr. will not let us off after all. For he not only affirms that the Mosaic law required tithes without legal exemption, (which all admit) he goes back to the patriarchal ages, and there he discovers pregnant proofs of Establishments, with arguments for binding dissenters as well as churchmen for their support. Melchisedec is the eminent person, to whose history Dr. I. refers, with no slender confidence. No fewer than eight pages of the work are devoted to the argument from Melchisedec; and, indeed, he returns to this case again and again, as to a necessary and a safe refuge. For Dr. I. perceives that the Jewish theocracy will not suit us, and, overleap- • VindlcatioD, p. 39. 88 89 \ng that system, he is desirous of settling his argument on the patriarchal dispensation, which resembled, more nearly than the Jewish theocracy, the simple constitution of the Christian church. I have already shown that the argument from the case of Melchisedec, by provmg too much, proves nothing; it would require that the regal and sacerdotal offices should be united in the same person, (which, indeed, was one design of this type) a junction for which our opponents will not contend. But Dr. I. thinks that this junction shows that there must be some connection, of a very close nature, betwixt these offices; and that it is very unlikely that Melchisedec the king would neglect Melchisedec the priest, but, on the contrary, would employ his power, in the one character, to enforce the system over which he presided, in the other. Has Dr. I. forgotten the meaning of his titles? — " khig of righteousness, king of peace." From such a king, no forced exactions from his dissenting subjects, no favourit- ism to some one party in his dominions, could proceed. Happy if king William, and all other kings, would form on the model of the good Melchisedec! But let us see how Dr. I. makes out his case from Melchisedec against dissenters. He tells us that Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, and probably did so regular- ly— that it is also probable that other patriarchs and wor- shippers of God did the same— that Melchisedec was the head of the worshippers of that age— and that, as it is probable many who had to pay tithes, did not enjoy the ministrations of Melchisedec, we must not exempt dis- senters now from the compulsory support of those from whom they receive no direct benefit! " It is plain that Abraham did not depend on Melchisedec for the stated and ordinary ministrations of the priesthood; yet it is not less certain that he contributed to the maintenance of Melchisedec as a priest; and it would be most unna- tural to suppose that either the relation in which he stood to Melchisedec, or the duties which he owed to him, were peculiar to himself individually, or not realized in the case of any other. It is more reasonable to suppose that, in this respect, the condition of Abraham was the same with that of other patriarchs— the heads of families or tribes— who were devoted to the service and worship of the true God. Absolute certainty is not in this case, to be attained ; but even strong probability, in reference to the point in question, cannot be regarded as an unim- portant element in our present argument. For if Mel- chisedec, as the head of the priesthood under the patri- archal dispensation, derived tithes from every household among the worshippers of the true God — and consequent- ly from many to whom it cannot be supposed that his immediate ministrations extended — it seems strongly to forbid any rash conclusion that dissenters from an estab- lished Church must be exempted from all contributions to its support as a national institution — merely on the ground that they decline to be of the number, who im- mediately and directly profit by the labour of its .min- isters." * Let us see \^pt assumptions are here. 1. Because Abraham paid Tithes (interpreted by Paul to be ** the tenth of the spoils," obtained from the conquered kings) on one occasion, therefore he paid tithes to Melchisedec regularly for his maintenance, 2. Because Abraham gave him tithes, therefore tithes are to be exacted, 3. Because we know that Abraham gave him tithes on this one occa- sion, therefore the other patriarchs, and " every household among the worshippers of the true God," paid him tithes too. 4. Because all those worshippers did not enjoy his " immediate ministrations," therefore dissenters, who do not choose to profit by the labours of the endowed clergy, must not be exempted from contributing to their support. What shall we say to such assumptions, gravely substi- tuted in the place of argument? What must that cause be which impels such a man as Dr. I. to make such an intellectual exhibition as this? Yet if the case of Mel- chisedec will not justify Civil Establishments of religion, and compulsory exactions for their support, and if the ex- ample of the Jewish theocracy will not, the argument of Dr. I. from the patriarchal and Jewish institutions is an- nihilated. Let the reader examine and judge. A few words shall suffice on the argument from the New Testament, as I have already gone over this ground. He begins with referring to the unchangeableness of God, * Vindication, pp. 40, 41. I 90 (as if this guaranteed the unalterable nature of positive institutions)— he then selects the passage from the second P«alm, " be wise now, therefore, O ye kings," &c. and passages in the Ixxii. Psalm (as if these bound prmces to employ their civil, any more than their military power, for upholding and propagating the gospel)— the prophecy of Isaiah respecting kings and queens becommg nursing fathers, and nursing mothers to the church, is next argued, (as if many a private individual had not been, what kings and queens should be, nurses of the church, fathers and mothers in Israel)—" he is the minister of God to thee for good, &c. pray for kings and all that are m authority, that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty," are then pressed into the service, (as if any ingenuity, any force, could extract from these sayings an argument for legislative and coercive enactments for the support of the Church.) These passages have been ex- amined in the preceding pages; and the reader will find that if they will not prove the propriety of Ecclesiastical Establishments, nothing in the New Testament will, in the judgment of Dr. I.; for he adduces, and, indeed, can adduce, no other, that even seem to look so directly to- ward the subject. , • i But it is proper to advert to Dr. I.'s argument derived from what the New Testament does not say— from its silence as to any direct and express prohibition of Eccle- siastical Establishments. A Civil Establishment of re- ligion once existed in the Church, " and until we have some opposite and unequivocal intimation of the Divine counsel, we are bound to conclude, that no change has been in this respect intended."* And again he asks, <' is there any other case, then, in which God has been pleased to abolish what he once authorised and sanction- ed, without such an intimation of his purpose as we have looked for in vain in the case of Ecclesiastical Establish- ments'" t The answer which we are able to return is simple, and, I hope, satisfactory. First, We have exam- ples of appointments in the Old Testament system, cer- tainly abolished, yet not by any express intimation of the Divine counsel abolishing those appointments in particu- ♦ Vindication, p. 54. f lb. p. 57. 91 lar. Dr. I. will not affirm that tithes are now obligatory by Divine authority, exclusive of any human appoint- ment, as under the Jewish dispensation, and that now, as then, the man who should refuse them would rob God ; yet where is the express intimation that this appointment has ceased? The Aaronical priesthood has been expressly set aside; but where is the express rnXXmoXAonthotno hereditary priesthood should now exist in the Church? And so of many other cases. Secondly, Dr. I. will admit that a power in religion, co-extensive with that of the Jeivish kings, is incompetent to Christian rulers; but where is the express intimation of the counsel of Heaven respect- ing this restriction ? — ^nt, finally, we hold that the Jewish constitution, cw a whole, has been set aside, and, therefore, all its parts are abolished. The constitution and the re- lations of the New Testament Church must be learned, not from those of the Jewish Church, but from the New Testament. " There is a disallowing of the command- ment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." There has been " the removing of the things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain." I may be excused for passing Dr. I.'s answers to the objections brought against arguments, which I have en- deavoured to shew are inconclusive; and I shall now advert to his last chapter, which treats of the utility of Ecclesiastical Establishments. In conducting this part of his argument, Dr. I. appears to me to have fallen into the following mistakes, which, as far as I can judge, prove fatal to it. First, he affirms that after the cessation of miracles in the Cliristian Church, Christianity was propagated " in a great measure by an interposition of the civil power, in aid of the ministers of Christ, as an instrument in the hand of their Heavenly Master." (pp. 171, 172.) Now, I say nothing more of this fancy, that Ecclesiastical Establishments, in some measure, took the place of miracles, which it is lamentable to see insisted on, even by implication ; but I fearlessly meet the assertion of Dr. I. with the counter assertion, for the truth of which I appeal to the testimony of history, that from the days of Constantino downwards through the middle ages, Eccle- 92 siastical Establishments were the grand engines of that corruption, intolerance, and persecution, by which the dominant and nominal Church became distinguished, till ultimately she retained little of religion but the name. A seJid mistake will be found in the following strange assertion, which contains one of Dr. I.s arguments for the utility of Establishments. " It is manifest, that, it there were no Establishment, the support of the ministers of religion would be in proportion to the de™a«d for their services."* The meaning of this is, that, if here were no Establishment, the supply of ministers would be regulated by the wants of Churches already existing. But will this theory abide the test of facts? Whence came the supply of Christian labourers during the hrst three centuries-not to break the bread of life among those only by whom it was enjoyed and relished— but to impart it to the perishing multitudes, l>y ^^^««J ^^ ^,^^ undesired and unknown? Whence has originated the supply of Christian pastors among the growing numbers of British dissenters, and the still more rapidly increas- inff Churches of America? What is the principle of every missionai-y institution that exists, or that has exist- ed ^ Is it not to prepare and send forth labourers— not for the fields that are already fruitful-but to inclose the wastes, to cultivate the wildernesses, and to make the deserts to rejoice and blossom as the rose? The truth is, the ordinary principles of demand and supply in trade are but very partially applicable to the Christian Church In trade, self-interest is the sole moving principle, belt- interest demands: self-interest provides the supply. Ihe market-place is constructed, and thronged, under the im- pulse of selfishness; selfishness brings forth the price, and gives and receives the purchase. But Christianity, the fruit of Divine benevolence, employs, as its mstni- ment, that human benevolence, which itself has created in the breasts of Christians. The command, ** Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, was the expression of the Saviour's love to a world which he had visited in his compassion, and for the salvation ot whose inhabitants he had laid down his life; and by men • Vindication, page 178. 93 in whom the love of Christ had produced, as its fruit, love to men, was that command to be carried into execu- tion. " Good will to men" revealed the gospel from heaven ; ** good will to men " is to diffuse that gospel over the earth. " Freely ye have received, freely give," is the law of Christ. The real demand then, on the Christian Church is, not its own necessities only, but those of a world perishing for lack of knowledge, perish- ing in its sins, and uttering in the ear, not of selfishness, but of benevolence, the piercing cry, " Come over to us and help us." It was on the voluntary, not the compul- sory principle, that this call was obeyed at first; on the same principle are Christians obeying it at this day, forming their sacred treasuries, and sending forth devot- ed men of God from their shores, to visit the remotest and the most inhospitable regions, full of the blessing of the gospel of Christ; and we have the full conviction, that, as it has been, so it will be, and that by their acting on the same sanctioned principle, will Christians become the happy instruments of enriching the world with the salvation, and subjecting it to the obedience of Jesus. — I conceive, therefore, that the talk of Dr. Chalmers on the subject of demand and supply, and which Dr. I. has copiously borrowed from his pages, is worse than trifling. A third error in this chapter of utility is, that the voluntary principle will not suit the poorer, and the more thinly peopled districts of the country. Dr. 1. says, " It will not be denied that their, (the dissenters) places of worship are commonly erected — not where the spiritual wants of men are the greatest — but where the appetite and demand for religious instruction are the strongest. Nor is it possible that the procedure should be different."* Were I treating of the principle of this objection, I should refer to the preceding paragraph; but, as a question of history, I affirm that facts repel it. We must not condemn the voluntary principle, because it has not effected all that it is fitted to accomplish. In this way, Christianity itself might be condemned. We have a right to assert that what the voluntary principle has accomplished in some places already, it is fitted to • Vindication, page ISIr. i3 94 95 accomplish, in similar cases, any where — jnst as we say, that the triumphs of the gospel among the South-Sea Islanders, or the North American Indiums, or the savages at the Cape, proved its competency to effect similar tri- umphs among all placed in similar unfavourable circum- stances. Now, to how many poor and thinly-peopled districts may the dissenters appeal. Look to Orkney, where the desire of the supply was both excited and gratified by the instrumentality of dissenters. Look to Wales, where the Calvinistic Methodists have five hun- dred churches. Consult the history of the exertions of the Wesleyan Methodists, of the English Independents and Baptists; and it will be found, that it is by their exertions mainly that religion exists, to the extent to which it does exist, in the poorest, and most thinly peopled, districts of England. All these cases are refut- ations of the assumption of Dr. I. No man pretends that the dissenters have any where done what they should, but this is not to be ascribed to the voluntary principle, but to the imperfect extent to which it has been carried into effect. Farther y Dr. I. seems to assume, that the doctrine of dis- senters is, that were the voluntary principle acted upon exclusively, they alone would do more than both they and the Church do at present, and that the exertions of the Es- tablished Churches would cease. He says, " The adver- saries of a Church Establishment will not say that the labour of the Established clergy is altogether useless" — (No, indeed!) " but they seem to maintain that if there were no Establishments, the ministers of what they call voluntary Churches would do more good than is now done by their own labour and that of the Established clergy combined. This wears the aspect of a very bold posi- tion."* But who holds it? I know not. Does Dr. I. mean to say, that, if the Civil Establishment of the Church were withdrawn, the Established clergy would hold their peace, and that the members of their Churches would cease to assemble for public worship, or to exert themselves for the general interests of Christianity? No, our belief is, that fresh zeal would be added to the ♦ Vindication, p. 177. faithful and the zealous among their clergy — that new life would animate the private members of their Churches — that feeling how much they had done, however un- consciously, to repress the principles of voluntary exer- tion, in time past, they would labour to undo that re- pression in time to come — and that, as from their wealth they are well able, the truly Christian portion of them would rival the most devoted among the dissenters, in the amount of their benevolent Christian exertions. Another remarkable failure in argument is an attempt made by Dr. I. to strike a balance betwixt the amount of temptation which Establishments, on the one hand, and voluntary Churches, on the other, present to ministers of the gospel. In determining the question of utility, he admits that the temptation of an Establishment is to in- dolence, while we have a strong excitement to activity — that the peculiar temptation to the ministers of voluntary Churches is to corrupt their doctrine and discipline to please the hearers — and that this part of the argument must be settled by the answer to this question, Whether it is worse for the Church to have an indolent, or an un- faithful clergy?* (as if, after all, any part of the consti- tution of the Christian Church must resolve itself into a mere choice of evils!) Alas! bad men will find tempta- tions every where. Judas was tempted by avarice in following Jesus. But can these facts be disputed? — that the discourses, preached or printed, of evangelical dissent- ers, have been not less remarkable for their fidelity in asserting Christian truth, and in their minute discrimina- tion of Christian character, for their searching quality, to use a common expression, than those of the same class of the Established clergy — that if ecclesiastical discipline, in the admission, superintendence, or exclusion of members, (the grand test of fidelity,) exist at all in Britain, it ex- ists in North Britain chiefly, in South Britain entirely, among the dissenters — and that in the largest Establish- ment in the country, the Church of England, indolence is not only charged on a large proportion of the clergy, but faithless deviation from their own articles, subscribed • Vindication, p. 205, et seg. 96 and sworn, so as to justify the saying of Chatham, " a Calvinistic creed, and an Arminian clergy." Dr. I. seems to err equally in his estijnate of America. There the voluntary principle acts on a scale so ample, with effects so magnificent, and yet in the midst of cir- cumstances so unfavourable, that its success may be re- garded as itself a practical demonstration of its excellence. The unfavourable circumstances to which I refer are these— the existence of upwards of two millions of slaves in the United States, and the demoralizing influence of slavery — and the annual discharging on the American shores of crowds of emigrants from all parts of Europe, whose chai-acter and habits are not, for the most part, friendly to piety. In reducing, as much as possible, the spiritual condition of America, Dr. I. relies chiefly on the testimony of two individuals, one of whom wrote many years ago, and on that of an anonymous writer in the In- structor; and he not only sets aside some of the recent tes- timonies of the General Assembly of the United States, but he overlooks the authentic ecclesiastical statistics for 1833, presenting what may be considered tlie jyresent reli- gious state of America. From these, the following are extracts. Calvinistic Baptists, Methodist Episcopalians, Presbyterian General Assembly, Congregationalists, Orthodox, Total, Ministers. Communi- cants. 2,9U 303,827 1,777 476,000 1,801 182,017 1,000 140,000 7,492 1,101,844 Population. 2,743,453 2,600,000 1,800,000 1,260,000 8,403,453 Besides these numbers in a population of about 12,000,000 or 13,000,000, there are many other reli- gious denominations specified in the table from which I quote. And the following remarks, taken from a periodical in this country, are probably near the truth. " In Great Britain and Ireland, there is scarcely one evangelical Church to every eighteen hundred of the population; while in America there is fully one to every nine hundred, including the slave community. Again, in Great Britain and Ireland, Catholics, Jews, Unitari- ans, Universalists, and such as are nowhere accounted 97 orthodox, are fully as one to three of the population ; in America they are scarcely as one to six. Besides these conclusive facts, we may add, that we find in the coliunns of a High Church newspaper, published in this country, a complaint that the people of Great Britain hardly sup- port ybwr religious newspapers; while in America up- wards oi Jifty are flourishing." What facts will justify the voluntary principle, if these fail? But the most extraordinary error of all into which Dr. I. falls, in descanting on the utility of Establishments, is, their supposed tendency to unite nations. " When men in authority are united to those over whom they rule, by a profession of the same faith, and by the same exercises of religious worship, it has a tendency to unite their hearts in one bond of mutual confidence and mutual love." And this is to be accomplished by " an Estab- lished Church ! " * This may do for Utopia, but will it apply to any region on the surface of our planet ? Will it do for Britain? Will it do for Ireland? Will Dr. I. after study and inquiry, succeed in naming the thing which so much disu7iites Scotland, England, and Ireland, as the Ecclesiastical Establishments of these countries, and which must continue to divide them, until this cause of division shall cease? Upon the whole, the reasoning of Dr. I. in support of Establishments, from their supposed utility, seems not less infelicitous, than that in which he attempts to defend these institutions by the circumstances of the patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian dispensations, or by the direct authority of the word of God. In surveying the work of Dr. I. I cannot forbear again remarking, that its tone is polite, kind, and manly. He does not expressly affirm, but he seems to write under the feeling, that in this strife the dissenters are, as they ever have been, the party aggrieved ; and that, in these circumstances, to argue is enough — acrimony would be unworthy. What estimate must he form of the conduct of some of his coadjutors in this cause, who delight to add insult to wrong, and to cover their pages with revil- ing and slander? * Vindication, pp. 219, 220. §8 It seems somewhat ominous for the cause of Ecclesi- astical Establishments in this country, that they are so linked with one another. Were one so small, relatively to the empire, and so moderately expensive, as the Scot- tish, and which probably includes a majority of the people in this quarter, alone in question, it might, possibly, be endured for generations. But we have the huge English Establishment, with its bishops sitting where they ought not, and uniting with the most disliked of the Peerage against the people and their own anointed king, and its detested tithes, and its obnoxious clergy, and its dissa- tisfied and half-revolting people from the Church in which they remain. We have the Irish Establishment, the laughing-stock of Europe, regarded as a morbid incubus by the restless people of the island on which it is placed, and now in the process of being cognosced by the Brit- ish parliament. These all make common cause, and the work of Dr. I. illustrates this fact. The Church of Scotland will not now lift her voice against Episcopacy, as she did in the olden time — then, it was *' abjured prelacy," now, it is " the venerable hierarchy;" nor will she tell the king, sitting in the Assembly by his Com- missioner, that it is daring presumption to claim to be head of any church on earth, and that, as he values the permanence of his throne, he should renounce a pre- sumption so offensive in the eyes of Him who is " King of kings, and Lord of lords." No — this cannot be. These are not times to agitate^ after this fashion, the friends of Establishments believe and feel. What will be the result of this perilous coalition ? It may not be at hand — it may be still remote — but can it be other than this — that the sound and the unsound, the great and the small, the rich and the poor, religious Establishments, shall be mingled in the judgment of the British commu- nity — that the various partners in the common concern shall each be held responsible for the whole — and that, as one great and intolerable abuse, the more intolerable for its very magnitude, the voice of the indignant nation will ultimately demand the abolition of the whole? W. LANGj PRINTER, NELSON STEEET, GLASGOW. k ,„ _ COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES J This book is due on the date indicated below, or at the expiration of a definite period after the date of borrowing, as provided by the rules of the Library or by special ar- rangement with the Librarian in charge. ] DATE BORROWED DATE DUE DATE BORROWED DATE DUE ' ' ! 1 C2S(1 140)M100 COLUMB A UNIVERS TY 0032212313 / 337.-^2 "pS5©'«^ \ t, Z2. 3 SEP 2 2 mi