GROUNDS CLAIMED FOR AN ESTABLISHED RELIGION. 365

vations that had crept into the Christian profession; such as, the unauthorized distinction between a bishop and an elder, which might be called the first stone in the kingdom of the Clergy; and not long after that was the introduction of infantbaptism, a practice which, by breaking down the scriptural barrier between the church and the world, contributed greatly to draw a form of godliness over multitudes on whom the Gospel had no salutary influence. These, with other unscriptural usages and human inventions that might be mentioned, exhibit clear proof, that the spirit of error was at work, and Antichrist beginning to raise his head, before the times of Constantine. There was, however, a check, or let, or hindrance to his progress, so long as the Roman government continued Pagan; but when this obstacle was removed out of the way, which was effectually done by the incorporation of Christianity with the civil government under the auspices of the imperial convert,- from that moment the man of sin began to stalk abroad with gigantic strides, as will be hereafter shown. In the mean time, as the advocates of national establishments of Christianity, have since the days of Constantine bent all their efforts, and exerted their utmost skill, in order to vindicate the connexion between church and state, and palliate what I consider to be an evil of enormous magnitude, I shall now attempt to set this important topic in its true light.

Those who have paid any considerable degree of attention to the subject must have perceived that the writers in defence of ecclesiastical establishments have not all taken the same ground, neither indeed have the dissidents in opposing them. What is termed the Jure Divino argument has been long since exploded by all moderate men, and has given place to what is termed the argument from utility--in other words, it is pleaded that ccclesiastical establishments can be shown to have their use in advancing the cause of religion in the world, and consequently they must be right! This is the sole ground on which Dr. Paley thinks them defensible. But you shall have his own words:"The authority of a church establishment is founded on its utility; and whenever upon this principle we deliberate concerning the form, propriety, or comparative excellency of different establishments, the single view under which we ought to

consider any of them is that of a scheme of instruction,— the single end we ought to propose by them is the preservation and communication of religious knowledge. Every other idea, and every other end, that have been mixed with this, as the making of the church an engine, or even an ally of the state, converting it into the means of strengthening or diffusing influence, or regarding it as a support of regal in opposition to popular forms of government, have served only to debase the institution, and to introduce into it numerous corruptions and abuses.”*

There is much candour in this statement, and I should think it scarcely possible to place the subject of a church-establishment on less obnoxious grounds than Dr. Paley has here done. "The notion of a religious establishment," he tells us, "comprehends three things: a Clergy, or an order of men secluded from other professions to attend upon the offices of religion; a legal provision for the maintenance of the clergy; and the confining of that provision to the teachers of a particular sect of Christianity."

Now, on this I take leave to remark that, to secure this "legal provision for the maintenance of the clergy," the application of force, or of human laws, is necessary; it must be secured by acts parliament; it is not left to my option whether I will contribute to the support of this order of men or not; the magistrate is armed with authority to compel me, he can enforce an immediate compliance with whatever he demands. "The establishment," says the Vicar of Harrow, "remembers that man is fallen, forces him to provide the means (of religious instruction), and trusts that the conversion may follow."+

Such, then, is the ground which is taken by these writers to demonstrate the utility and necessity of a religious establishment. It is not presumed, nor is the smallest attempt made to show, that either the Saviour or his apostles have delegated a particle of authority to legislate in the affairs of his kingdom, to alter the constitution of his churches as framed by his direction and exemplified in the churches of Jerusalem, &c.; and it deserves particular notice that, in advocating ecclesiastical establishments on the ground of their utility, neither Archdeacon

* Moral and Political Philosophy, Book vi. ch. 10.

+ Cunningham's Velvet Cushion, p. 88.

OBJECTIONS TO ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS.

367

Paley, nor his ally, condescends to take the least notice of our Lord's account of his own Kingdom, as a spiritual economy, nor to show us how this officious interference on the part of his professed disciples is to be reconciled with his own claims of being sole legislator ;-besides which, the fact is somehow strangely overlooked, that, for the first three hundred years, ecclesiastical establishments were unknown-there existed no order of men secluded from other professions to attend on the offices of religion, nor any legal provision for the maintenance of the clergy. The elders, bishops, or pastors of the churches were chosen by the people, according to a rule prescribed by the apostles for their guidance and direction, 1 Tim. iii.; Titus i.; and 1 Pet. v. 1-4; and recollecting who had said, "it is more blessed to give than to receive," and "freely ye have received, freely give," numbers of them imitated the example set them by the great apostle of the Gentiles, working with their own hands for the support of themselves and families, that they might make the gospel without charge, and thus demonstrate that they were not actuated by sordid motives, but by love for the Redeemer and the souls of their fellow mortals. It is not denied that the Christian law recognizes the right of an elder or pastor to receive support, nor that such persons in many instances did accept a maintenance from those who partook of the benefit of their labours, but the bounty of the church was a freewill offering a matter of liberality; and compulsion, or force, in order to extort it, was out of the question, until the days of Constantine. In the constitution, order, and worship of the churches, instituted by the apostles, there is a divine simplicity pervading the whole, which indicates the finger of God; but it was ill adapted to gratify the ambitious views of self-seeking men, and in their great wisdom, or rather folly, they soon began to mingle their own inventions and introduce innovations under one pre-text or other, and, in exact proportion as these prevailed, that which professed to be the kingdom of Christ was wofully secularized, the fine gold became dim, and we shall presently see what consequences ensued.

From what hath been already said upon the subject, I think it must be allowed, by every candid enquirer after truth, that, admitting the end of an ecclesiastical establishment to be what

Dr. Paley has stated, viz. "the preservation and communication of religious knowledge"-such an establishment is both unnecessary and inexpedient. Genuine Christianity never made her way so successfully as while she was not only destitute of a legal establishment, but the object of continual persecution, and consequently left to her own native energies and the care of her divine author. She then appeared in her pristine glory—" fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with bạnners." It was not until efforts were made to assist her with the puny arm of flesh-to bolster her up with human laws-that her progress became paralyzed and her march impeded. Her overofficious friends would have done well to take a lesson from the case of Uzzah and his attempt to support the ark, under the former dispensation, as recorded 2 Sam. vi., by which they might have been taught that the "Mighty God" is able to take care of his own cause that he is jealous of his honour, and will not give his glory to another; but "their foolish hearts were darkened." "Men have been very long in discovering," says Dr. Campbell, ❝and even yet seem scarcely to have discovered, that true reli gion is of too delicate a nature to be compelled by the coarse implements of human authority and worldly sanctions. Let the law of the land restrain vice and injustice of every kind, as ruinous to the peace and order of society, for this is its proper province; but let it not tamper with religion by attempting to enforce its exercise and duties. These, unless they be freewill offerings, are nothing—they are, in fact, worse than nothing. By such an unnatural alliance, and ill-judged aid, hypocrisy and superstition may, indeed, be greatly promoted; but genuine piety never fails to suffer."*

In these observations I most heartily concur, and they lead me to remark that the incorporation of Christianity with the political constitutions of this world cannot be looked upon as an indifferent matter, but as a positive evil, to which no reasonings, however ingenious and plausible, no pleas of utility can possibly reconcile us. The allegiance which we owe to Christ obliges us to view it as contrary to his revealed will, incompatible with the nature of his kingdom, and calculated to give a false repre

* Lectures on Eccles. Hist., Lect. III.

CHRIST'S KINGDOM DISCLAIMS ALL PENAL LAWS. 369

sentation of the genius, character, and pretensions of his religion -in short, as what never did nor ever can take place in this world without drawing in its train that corrupt state of things which, in the apostolic writings, has obtained the name of Antichrist-the man of sin, against which the vials of the wrath of Almighty God are now pouring out upon the earth.

To illustrate this point, it should be carefully remarked, that Christianity is a revelation from God, and, as such, if we have any thing to do with it, we must take it as it stands ;-we must implicitly acquiesce in its doctrines and submit to its precepts, and receive its own account of the way in which it is to be supported and propagated in the world. Now, in examining the written records by which it is conveyed to the world, we find that its great author has disclaimed the aid of the civil magistrate, the power of the sword, the use of all penal laws and sanctions, either in establishing, defending, or promoting its interests in the world-and in this respect it stands conspicuously distinguished from all worldly kingdoms. Having its seat in the understanding, the will, and the affections, the only engine or instrument which it can possibly admit of, is that of moral suasion, the conviction of truth, which is so essentially different in its nature from force, that the two principles are perfectly incompatible. Where conviction exists, power is excluded; there is in this case no room for its operation; on the other hand, the application of power or force implies the absence of conviction. Its aid can only be needed where conviction, as a principle of action, is not to be found; but it is this power which properly belongs to the civil magistrate. He does not depend on the influence of persuasion, which is the only principle that Christianity admits of. It is no doubt well when the magistrate can show the reasonableness of his requisitions, but the sword is his proper and legitimate weapon. Whatever be the state of the mind, he comes clothed with authority to enforce immediate compliance with his demands. Such is the case with that religious establishment for which the writers above-mentioned contend; whether I admit the truth of Christianity or not, the law of the land compels me to contribute to the maintenance of the clergy, or the magistrate has the power of forcing me-and this is the inevitable