not, the right to defend, vindicate, protect, and support, at the public expense, the religion of that church?

This question is also decided in the affirmative, by the example and authority of the same paramount power. The Jewish church was fortified with a multitude of ecclesiastical laws, enacted by God himself for its government; protected by the secular power, and its priesthood amply provided for, by contributions, rendered "compulsory" by divine authority, upon the whole body of the nation. And after the theocracy of Judaism was exchanged for a human monarchy in the same nation, the administration of the ecclesiastical laws, both penal and salutary, devolved upon the civil authorities; who were required to carry them into execution, and which continued until the Babylonish captivity.

During that period, the Jewish national priesthood existed in the plenitude of its glory; yet, though incorporated with the state, it acted in subordination to the monarchical power. But after the return from Babylon, the chief authority, both in church and state, appears to have been vested in the HIGH PRIEST, and, subsequently, to the princes of the Asmonean race, and the SANHEDRIM, or great council of the nation. This arrangement was also evidently in the order of Providence, and thus the union of the church with the state, in that highly favoured but rebellious nation, was clearly sanctioned by divine authority, until its final subjugation by the Roman power.

Thus we see, sir, that both the erection of a "national church establishment," and its conservation and support, as well as a national provision for its priesthood, having been once enacted, and providentially preserved for many ages by divine authority, it is morally impossible that such institutions can have any inherent tendency to destroy, depreciate, or counteract the religion they are intended to cherish and support. And I believe the establishment of these facts overthrows the main pillars of the theory advocated by your correspondent "Argus ;" who, with his "hundred eyes," does not appear to have any clearer views of his subject than a man of common sense, blessed with only two! The main pillars of his structure thus demolished, the whole fabric erected upon them falls of course along with them. I shall, however, with your permission, proceed to gather up a few of its mutilated fragments, for the purpose of exposing the fragile materials of which they are composed.

The world, sir, has now done with Judaism, as a divinely established system of

ceremonial types and shadows; and Chris. tianity, under the auspices of its glorious Author, has happily succeeded it, as the ultimatum of divine revelation, and the great antitype of all the sacrificial and ritual institutions of that initiatory scheme of salvation and it is unquestionably true, that the kingdom of God, that is, the kingdom of grace upon earth, and of glory in heaven, "is not of this world ;" it sprang not from a terrestrial source, nor does it associate with either the maxims or the practices by which the affairs of this world are usually conducted. All this is readily granted; but 1 challenge ARGUS, or any other advocate of the same cause, to prove from this concession, that any state upon earth has not an indefeisible "right" to embrace the christian religion, to establish, and associate itself with, a christian church, and to exert the power with which God hath invested it, in the vindication, defence, and support of that religion. Nay, I go farther, and challenge him to prove that all this is not well-pleasing and acceptable in the sight of God. He neither has done, nor can do any such thing; and yet, until he does it, all his arguments are futile and nugatory; those being the only principles upon which his assertions of the injurious effects of church establishments can possibly rest.

The great and fundamental defect of your correspondent's hypothesis is, that it is founded on fallacious principles; he argues from the abuse of a thing against its legitimate use; and erroneously concludes, that because corruptions have crept into church establishments, therefore they are pernicious nuisances, and ought not to be tolerated in a christian country! With equal truth and reason might he have said

"The human heart is often found to be the seat of moral corruption, therefore it never can associate with the religion of the Son of God, nor become the temple of the Holy Ghost! and, consequently, "the Gospel can never reassert its primitive power, till so unnatural an alliance be dissevered, wherever it exists," and that religion be for ever separated from that sink of corruption, the human heart!" what, I ask, are the fifty pairs of eyes which your correspondent professes to possess, good for, if they cannot discover the obvious absurdity of such conclusions?

In attempting to evade the force of some of my former observations,* ARGUS qualifies the broad assertion, marked with an italic letter, in the preceding paragraph, by the

&c.

Vide Imperial Magazine for April, 1831, p. 170,

following paraphrase, which he flatters himself will now command my concurrent ap. probation; viz. "that Christianity can never so thoroughly and fully evangelize a community oppressed by the incubus of a national church, as where its energies are uncramped by the withering and paralyzing influence of secular policy." Every one must see, sir, that this is a mere petitio principii; it is a congeries of assumptions, without the shadow of a proof, or even a solid argument, to support them. As a general observation, it is good for nothing; because it is perfectly possible that a church may exist in union with, and supported by, a political state, as free from "the withering and paralyzing influence of secular policy," as were the pure and undefiled religion, and the heaven-inspired souls, of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in the corrupt court of Nebuchadnezzar! Only let the ministers of Christ feel and exhibit the power of the religion they profess; let them faithfully discharge the important duties of their sacred function; let them follow the illustrious examples of those brilliant stars of the Jewish politico-ecclesiastical "establishment," Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Nathan, Micaiah, Ahijah, and Isaiah; and, instead of sinking themselves into the vortex of corruption, they would be instruments, as those ancient worthies were, in the hand of the great Head of the church, of purging the state itself, and the hearts of statesmen also, from that corruption which your timid correspondent appears to think is more than a match for both the grace and the Spirit of the living God! Surely the incredulous heart of this man cannot believe "the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our God and of his Christ," or he would never counsel the British church thus to run away from the state, and leave it exposed to all the wiles of the grand adversary.

that ever

Your correspondent, sir, quotes the case of" Constantine's unnatural coalition of the civil and ecclesiastical power," as having "laid the foundation of those corruptions which issued in the assumption of the papal power;" and, as a proof that every union of church and state must be productive of similar effects. With equal truth and reason might he have asserted, that, because the marriage of our late sovereign, George the Fourth, was an unhappy one, therefore no other king ought ever to enter into the marriage state! To show the fallacy of this conclusion, I need only to re-state the fact, that, instead of such a result issuing from the union of church and state in England, it was that very union which, under the 2D. SERIES, NO. 17.-VOL. II.

government of Henry VIII., and Edward VI., and Elizabeth, enabled the British nation and church to get rid of that accursed incubus upon all true religion, "the papal power."

That the providence of God uniformly superintends the affairs of his church; that, in reference to its interests, he "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will;" that all the dispensations of his providence are directed by a combination of consummate wisdom, with unbounded benevolence, and infinite power; that, after all, “ his judgments are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out," will perhaps be admitted even by ARGUS himself! And that, in spite of even his criticisms thereon, "all things are working together for good to them who love God." These, sir, are positions which I presume few of your readers will be disposed to deny. Hence the impossibility of proving, as Argus is bound to do, that it was unwise in that Providence to permit even the deprecated union which, he asserts "issued in the assumption of the papal power."

the

But, sir, in thus permitting the religion of the Bible to become, at least nominally, that of the Roman empire, it obtained a footing in Europe, which it could not have obtained by any other means. And although the churches, both of Rome and Constantinople, were ultimately overwhelmed with a torrent of corruption, yet both the records and the principles of genuine Christianity have been preserved by that Providence in inviolable purity, amidst all the clouds of ignorance, the ravings of superstition, and the fires of persecution, which inflicted upon papacy the sacred cause of Christ, and upon his faithful followers. It was, sir, from amongst those clouds, and out of those very fires, that emerged "the, noble army of martyrs," who, though brought forth and nurtured in the very hot-bed of corruption, sealed the truth of that religion, which they rescued from the flames, with their own blood. Thus popery itself became the scaffolding, in and by which, the great Master-builder of Christianity erected his true church; and surely in this respect the Church of England is entitled to at least equal honour with the Church of Rome; and the permission of their existence, in the order of Providence, demands our acknowledgment that the interests of true religion could not have been so well secured by any other arrangement.

Sir, accurate definition is the life of sound argument; and, as your correspondent, although he has called in Dr. Paley to his assistance, is evidently lame upon this 2 F 161.-VOL. XIV.

16 yoke of bondage" and scourge of the human race. A debt, the obligations of which have been accumulating, with terrific magnitude and most awful results, from its non-payment, for at least two centuries last past!*

Secondly. It is the duty of every christian government both to prohibit and prevent the practice of idolatry, or the worship of any false god, within its dominions. And this principle also brings the British government, as christian, into hostile collision with the Church of Rome, which, in the sacrifice of the mass, is downright palpable idolatry. The practice of popery, therefore, ought not to be tolerated in any christian country. If it be said that this is an unauthorized interference with liberty of conscience, I reply, It is not; for true liberty of conscience, in a christian country, consists in allowing every man to read, think, judge, and believe for himself; and to practise true piety, as he is directed by the precepts of the bible; but it cannot lawfully extend to the violation of those precepts, by the corruption of the national worship, and the consequent injury of the religion and morals of the country. For an unsound religion cannot produce sound morality; and, surely, it is the duty of every government to protect the moral integrity of its subjects.

Thirdly. I apprehend no secular government ought to possess the right of nominating or appointing ministers to any church, unless it be to one, or more, exclusively selected as its own place of worship. Nor can any state, king, or government, ever possess authority to dictate any peculiar form of prayer to their subjects; nor, of course, to enforce uniformity over the kingdom, in reference to such form; nor to fix or regulate the titles and rank of the clergy in any church except their own. But all such places of worship, as well as all others, should unquestionably be gratuitously open to every one choosing to attend the service of God therein.

Fourthly. After securing the worship of the only true God, by and through the mediation of his Son Jesus Christ, in all religious assemblies tolerated in the country, neither the state nor its church should have

How the British government, and especially the British monarchs, as, during their several reigns, the "heads of the church," and the "defenders of its faith," will exonerate themselves from the responsibility incurred in this behalf, and particularly for the encouragement and support given by them to popery, during even the last half century, is not for me to determine; but this I well know, that both the government and the hierarchy will hereafter have an awful account to give for their respective shares in that encouragement.

any kind of control over the other "religious establishments " of the kingdom, either in the appointment of their ministers, the mode of conducting their worship, the regulation of their discipline, or the dictation of their theological creeds, upon speculative points of doctrine. With perfect freedom of conscience, all these particulars should be left to the regulation of each church, on its own behalf; but, for the reasons I have formerly assigned, I am decidedly of opinion, that all christian ministers should be paid by the state; yet, with an understanding that their congregations would always be at full liberty to increase their stipends, if they pleased so to do, according to existing circumstances. All places of worship should, also, in my humble opinion, under proper regulations, be erected, or purchased, and kept in repair, at the expense of the government; and, of course, be the property of the nation, and let off by lease, at a fair rent, to the respective occupiers.†

Fifthly. As uniformity is one great characteristic of truth, and although it may be impossible, as well as improper, to coerce the human mind into its possession, yet, with a theological system of uncorrupted truth, supported by divine authority, in our hands, a man of common sense would be almost tempted to think, that if wisdom, sincerity, candour, genuine piety, and integrity, were to preside at a general assembly of British ministers of the gospel, of every existing denomination, convened by delegation, something might be done, under the auspices and at the expense of the government, towards producing such a correspondence of principle, and co-operation of exertion, among the different sectarian parties which now divide the religious world, as would have a happy tendency to promote the general interests of true religion, far beyond what appears to be possible in the present divided and distracted state of that world.

Indeed, it is impossible to calculate the advantages which might, and probably

+ That some of these proposed regulations might be open to objections, I do not pretend to deny; as the imperfections of human nature, and the disordered state of all human affairs, render it morally impossible for any system of church government, or ecclesiastical institutions, to meet and obviate the exigencies of every case, or to evade every difficulty that may occur therein. And it is often the case, that, after all our efforts to obtain perfection, we have nothing left but a selection of the least of the evils which are unavoidably placed in our way. By the adoption of the measures suggested above, all the evils arising from a monopoly of chapel property by ministers, and all the interminable difficulties attending trusteeship, would be effectually removed.

would, accrue, to the knowledge and prac. tice of genuine religion, if such a coalition could be carried into effect; and I incline to think, that an effort to effect it would be well worthy of the enlightened and liberal age and country in which we live. At any rate, in such a conference, the foundation might be laid of an union society, agreeing in all the essential and fundamental truths of Divine revelation, and bearing a suitable and appropriate designation, descriptive of its truly catholic, christian, and philanthropic character, the salutary influence of which might spread, and extend over the habitable globe, and to the latest posterity. And, sir, I am bold to affirm, that it must be under the influence of some such institution, that, by the blessing of God, the religious world will, if ever it does, live to see

"Names, and sects, and parties fall,

And CHRIST alone be all in all!"

It is not, sir, as a mere idle, speculative theory, that I throw out the preceding suggestions; but as, in all human probability, this nation is on the eve of, at least, an ecclesiastical revolution, both in principle and in practice, I conceive it to be the duty, as well as the privilege, of every one who wishes well to his country, to endeavour to promote its spiritual as well as temporal happiness and prosperity. And this is my sole object in thus writing.

I have, in my former essay, fully admitted, and deeply lamented, the awful extent of corruption existing in the present state of the British church; nor do I pretend to deny its pernicious influence upon practical piety, and experimental religion, among the members of that church: but surely, common sense tells us that it is not the existence, but the abuses which have crept into the "national church,” and its illegitimate subjugation to "the withering and paralyzing influence of secular policy," that has issued in those disastrous effects; which, counteracting and frustrating the gracious designs of God in the institution of that church, now call for the correcting hand of reformation, to check their farther progress, and remove their destructive operation; yet I can by no means ascribe so extensive a range to that influence, as would be requisite to support the theory of your correspondent.

For, as it is a perfectly gratuitous assumption, on his part, that the very existence of a national church is necessarily inimical to the interests of true religion, so the conclusion by him founded thereon, viz. that Christianity would uniformly flourish better without such a church, is palpably fallacious. This is clear, from the

unquestionable fact, that some, yea, and much genuine piety, is, and ever has been, found in the established church of England; instead, therefore, of diminishing the general stock of piety in the nation, it is evident that the national church, with all its faults, increases it; and, hence, the onus probandi still lies upon ARGUS, of his assumed fact, "that more true religion would, at this day, have existed in the nation, than is actually found therein, had it never possessed a national church establishment." Here, sir, is the fulcrum of the argument, the pivot on which the whole controversy turns. If ARGUS cannot prove this point, (and prove it, I am certain, he never can,) all he has said, or ever can say, against the utility of a national church, as such, goes for just nothing!

The case of America, which ARGUS adduces in support of his hypothesis, is a mere petitio principu, defective in all the points necessary to give it any weight whatever in the scale of argument. What, in the name of common sense, are the hundred eyes of this man good for, if they cannot reveal to him the fact, that to give his comparison the weight of a single feather in this discussion, he should prove, 1st, that there is actually more genuine religion, and less impiety, in America than in England; and 2nd, that this difference in favour of the former is owing, exclusively, to its want of a national church?-Of these assumed facts, he has not advanced even the shadow of a proof; and yet he affects to treat my logic with scornful contempt! I ask him, where is his own? Is this the best specimen he can afford of its paramount excellence? Meantime, my argument in favour of the utility of the British national church establishment, founded upon the best possible evidence, namely, its many excellent fruits, remains not only untouched by my opponent, but for ever invulnerable, supported as it is by the impregnable facts, that as popery fell before its triumphant power, so at least nine-tenths of all the genuine piety now in the nation is its offspring.

For, sir, it is not Methodism only, but almost every other species of soundly christian Dissenterism, in this kingdom, that has derived its theological principles, its speculative divinity, and its practical piety, under God, from the Church of England, as the immediate parent of them all; and in every such instance, (I believe without exception,) it was the form of church government, the too rigorous enforcement of discipline, the defalcation in zeal and piety in the clergy of the establishment, or some other non-essential appendage to the church,