of the first changes that took place on the earth, Ovid collated all manuscripts and traditions that had any relation to his poem, the Hebrew scriptures perhaps among them, and from the whole he selected those accounts which appeared to him most just, or poetical. However this may be, there are many striking points of resemblance.

The golden age is illustrated by the primitive state of man, when the innocence of his character combined with the beauty of Eden in producing proper happiness. In the silver age, agriculture and tillage were first pursued, which was the case when Adam was cursed by the fall. The brazen age may have some allusion to the time when Cain's progeny had increased, and Tubal Cain was an instructor of every artificer in brass and in iron." Finally, the iron age was that age mentioned in scripture, when the earth was corrupt, and filled with violence, and giants existed in the world. These, according to Ovid, made war with the powers of heaven, and vied in excelling each other in cruelty and impiety. A council is called by Jupiter, and he resolves to destroy man. The south wind blows over the land; the sea refuses to receive the tribute of the rivers which overflow the valleys, and gradually cover. the hills.

"Sea covered sea,

Sea without shore and in their palaces

67

CHURCH ESTABLISHMENTS INDEFENSIBLF, ANTICHRISTIAN, AND A RELIC OF POPERY AND JUDAISM.

[This article is not to be understood as having any particular bearing on our own national church, or in fact on any particular church whatever. It assumes the question on a broader basis. The principle itself on which national churches are founded, the author thinks radically bad, and against this the whole force of his reasoning is directed.]

"Corruptio optimi pessima fit."

"Because of the extreme prejudice which both religion and philosophy have received from being commixed together, as that which undoubtedly will make an heretical religion and a fabulous philo sophy."-Lord Bacon.

IF agreeably to the above sentiment of the founder of the inductive philosophy, religion and science cannot be amalgamated without injury to both, it may, we think, as confidently be affirmed, that neither can eccle. siastical concerns be mixed up with the civil polity of a country, without mutually adulterating and corrupting each other. That is, as the evidences of science must not be sought for in revelation, nor the evidences of revelation for the most part in natural science, so it were equally absurd, and far more dangerous, to place civil authority in the hands of the church, or invest political rulers with ecclesiastical government and

And stabled."

Par. Lost.

Though it is on account of the holiness of Deucalion and Pyrrha that they alone are saved, yet the population of the earth is replete with pagan extravagances.

After the destruction of mankind, according to scripture and tradition, the waters began to abate, and birds were sent upon the earth. The waters gradually decreased, leaving a slime on the surface of the soil which rendered it extremely fertile. The earth having imbibed the moisture of the waters, swelled with the heat of the sun, and became exceedingly fruitful. Vegetation was surprisingly rapid, and Nature was soon clothed in the beauty and freshness of spring. Upon the command of his Maker, Noah and his family left the ark, and offered sacrifice on Mount Ararat. The Almighty then made an everlasting covenant with man, which was to be perpetuated by the bow in the clouds. This witness, as Campbell beautifully says,

suspend one's belief in any clearly ascer tained fact, or doctrine of pure revelation, upon the evidences of physical science, as to make the latter depend on the discoveries of holy writ. Natural and revealed religion can never disagree in their verdict, though our interpretation of their respective decisions occasionally may. So likewise civil government, regulated and pursued agreeably to its own principles, confined within its proper limits, and immediately directed to its appropriate ends, i. e. the protection of the person, property, and character of the subject-can never mar the purity of ecclesiastical discipline; nor, on the other hand, the latter, within the true sphere of its operation, be otherwise than favourable to the happiness of the commonwealth. the perversion of either, by making the state subservient to the aggrandizement of a sect, or the church an engine of state policy, must be productive of incalculable mischief to both; and, as all history proves, tend to the corruption of Christianity, and the restraint or annihilation of civil and religious freedom.

While

The argument against religious establishments of every kind may be thus stated, and I challenge any one to point out a flaw,

either in the premises or conclusion. To me it appears irresistible.

I-A church is a congregation of faithful men, in which the word is preached, and the sacraments are duly administered:

1. No person has scripturally any right to interfere in the discipline or government of a church, in virtue of his civil capacity, but only as a private member of the same.

2. But individuals may have talents for, and are often appropriated to, civil or political offices, who are spiritually disqualified for union with a gospel church.

3. Therefore, to invest the civil rulers of a country with church authority must be antiscriptural, sacrilegious, and highly pernicious to the interests of religion.

Thus far as to the evils of subjecting church to state authority. The following demonstrates the mischief and unwarrantableness of investing a church with secular power, and subjecting a state to ecclesiastical influence.

II.-1. The gospel is diametrically opposed to the use of any means but persuasion for the propagation of its doctrines, or support of its institutions.

2. But all national churches violate this principle, by making a compulsory provision for their support.

3. Therefore national churches, or ecclesiastical establishments, are antichristian, unjust, and subversive of the fundamental rights of conscience; i. e. that as every man must give an account for himself, he has an inalienable claim to choose, and give his exclusive support to that mode of religious teaching which he deems the best.

In order to the fuller development of the preceding_argument, I shall proceed to shew, I. That church establishments are altogether unwarranted by, and opposed to, the letter and spirit of the New Testament scriptures. II. That they have an awful tendency to corrupt the purity of Christian doctrine and discipline, and to secularize the ministers of religion. And, III. That they inevitably pervert and corrupt legislation, and violate civil and religious liberty.

Our first position, that church establishments are opposed to the spirit and letter of the Christian scriptures, will be indubitable, if we are careful to make the proper distinction between the legitimate attributes of civil government, and those of a gospel church. The first is a coercive authority appointed over a community, to make and administer laws for the protection of the person, property, and character of the subject; i. e. a power for the attainment of secular ends by secular means. The second is a voluntary association of Christian believers for the

administration of the ordinances of the gospel, and therefore without any coercive or penal sanctions to enforce its rules, being an institution for the attainment of spiritual ends by spiritual means. And the third implies a compulsory provision by the civil power for the clergy of a particular sect, or a most unwarrantable attempt to combine the first and second objects, but which has hitherto never failed to pervert and corrupt both.

The whole genius of Christianity, as exhibited in the precepts and practice of Christ and his apostles, is foreign to the remotest idea of an alliance with the civil power. Agreeably to the unerring standard of faith and practice furnished in the New Testament, they who preach the gospel, and they only, are to live of the gospel; i. e. by the voluntary offerings of the church to whom they minister in holy things. They who water the flock are to partake of the milk of the flock, but of the flock only which they water. For diligence and laboriousness, the gospel minister is compared to the ox that treadeth out the corn, whose mouth we are commanded not to muzzle; but we are forbidden to feed the lazy hireling, who is so frequently thrust upon the church by ecclesiastical establishments. The Christian pastor is to give himself wholly to the duties and studies of his sacred calling-to be instant in season and out of season.

A bishop, according to the New Testament, is an ordinary minister of the gospel; an overseer of a church or congregation, which he is commanded to feed, and not an overseer of other ministers. Deacons, agreeably to the same authority, are stewards, or managers of the temporalities of the church, or voluntary offerings of the members. The declaration of our Saviour, "My kingdom is not of this world," has a far more extensive meaning than many persons in our day are willing to admit; and, as is shewn by the following words: "if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight," imports not merely that the government of the church is spiritual in its nature and objects, but that no authority in it can be maintained or defended by, much less derived from, the civil power. When on earth, he utterly disclaimed any, the slightest assumption of civil authority, by commanding those who shewed him the tribute-money, to render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things which were God's; and by his appeal to the man who requested him to command his brother to divide the inheritance between them: “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?" And the apos

tles and first teachers of Christianity were equally opposed to any interference with the civil power.

To adduce the apostolic declaration of the primitive churches " having judgment of things pertaining to this life," as giving any countenance to the combination of secular and ecclesiastical power, is a gross misapplication of scripture; since the passage simply inculcates the duty of settling any differences among their members by arbitration, instead of legal process, but it cannot have the slightest allusion to the exercise of civil authority. Civil government cannot exist without penal sanctions to enforce its commands; and we are very certain the apostolic and early Christian societies had no such powers to back their decisions. The adjustment of differences arising amongst the members of a church by arbitration, agreeably to the Saviour's injunction,* must not be confounded with civil authority.

What government upon earth would tolerate an assumption of its powers by any religious party of its subjects? Would it not amount to high treason against the national authority? So far were the churches in the Roman empire from being "distinct states," or receiving any encouragement from the secular power, that the preservation and triumphant progress of Christianity, amidst a series of the most relentless, and almost unceasing persecutions, are among the miraculous evidences of its authenticity and divine origin. The decision of differences by arbitration, and the practice of a community of goods, in the primitive church, at a time when no property of its members was secure from spoliation, instead of proving that civil and spiritual authority were united, merely shew that the first Christians were frequently deprived of all protection from their political rulers, and that, at any rate, they deemed it more consistent with their religious profession, to abstain from "going to law with their brethren." While it is an indisputable fact, prominent throughout the New Testament scriptures, that the only legitimate means of extending Christianity, is persuasion; and, consequently, that its institutions cannot be justly supported but by the voluntary offerings of its converts.

It is pretended by the advocates of the hierarchy, that a Christian government is

"Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between

69

bound to make provision for the teaching of religion. But this is a mere sophism; a begging of the question. For I would ask, By what authority is it bound to do so? By that of the New Testament? Most assuredly not. For this, which is the sole authority to be recognized on the subject, positively binds us, as we have seen, to abstain from all civil interference in matters of conscience. All such schemes are, therefore, gratuitous, unauthorized, and open to the divine rebuke, "Who hath required this at your hands?" "In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' And unless their advocates are content to derive the warrant for their practice from the ecclesiastical polity of the Jews, it can be vindicated on the ground of a supposed expediency alone. But, surely, when we have the principles and practice of the apostles and first Christians so clearly exhibited in the New Testament as our directory in this matter, is it not unwarrantable to have recourse to the usages of a darker and superseded economy, as a guide for those who live under the brighter beams of the Christian dispensation?

The theocratic government having ceased, under which the Mosaic system originated, and the latter having been abolished by Christianity, let us not be so absurd as to imagine God has delegated his authority in the church to kings, or ministers of statethe rulers of this world. Hence, civil interference in spiritual matters—and for such persons to lay their officious and sacrilegious hands upon religious discipline-is as unwarrantable as the conduct of Uzzah, who, in spite of divine prohibition, put forth his hand to save the ark from falling, and was struck dead for his presumption. And in reply to all the special pleading of party advocates, we would say, "To the law, and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Every ecclesiastical establishment implies a compulsory provision for its maintenance, and a right in the secular power to control in sacred matters-points which are totally repugnant to the fundamental principles of Christianity. Thus we find that the New Testament is diametrically opposed both in spirit and letter to any interference of civil authority with the support or management of the institutions of the gospel.

take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he shall neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican," Matt. xviii. 15-17.

and discipline, and to secularize the ministers of religion. Waiving recourse to the argument a priori, which might fairly be urged on the ground of the natural and

inevitable bearings of the case, we have only to consult that most unexceptionable witness, history; and inquire what have been the consequences of the unhallowed and incongruous union of civil and ecclesiastical affairs, and the truth of our position will be indubitable. While Christianity was left to her native energies, to convince and convert the human mind, unbefriended, nay, frowned upon by the princes and great ones of the earth, she retained all the purity and loveliness of her immaculate Author; her own heaven. -descended principles shone resplendent in the lives and deaths of her confessors and martyrs; but no sooner did the principalities and powers of this world lay their unhallowed and officious hands upon her, than they fashioned her to their own taste, and Ichabod, or thy glory is departed, was written on her front. They found her doctrines too pure and holy to suit their purposes of secular aggrandisement; her charities too extended to second their views of selfish ambition; and hence, as it was found impossible to reconcile the malign and erring passions of the heart to the standard of pare Christianity, it was resolved to corrupt the standard of duty by reducing it to a level with the corrupt propensities of mankind. And what could present greater facilities for the purpose than the transfer of ecclesiastical discipline to the secular power? By making the church an engine of state policy, it became the easiest thing in the world for her civil rulers to suppress or adulterate doctrinal truth, as their interests or inclinations might dictate; and an avenue was thus opened for the admission of error in a thousand forms.

When Constantine, in the beginning of the fourth century, made Christianity the religion of the Roman empire, by subjecting her institutions to secular influence and control, he laid the foundation of that progressive deterioration and debasement of the Christian system which ultimately issued in the daring assumptions of the papacy. It is a most complete and triumphant refutation of the claims of ecclesiastical establishments, to inquire where would popery have been, with all the curses it has entailed upon the church and the world, but for the weakness and wickedness of man in attempting to compromise the pure and spiritual religion of the New Testament with the carnal and ambitious aims of worldly potentates? We grant that partial heresies had appeared in the church long before its connexion with the civil power, and even in the age of the apostles; but they had ever been kept in abeyance by the force of truth, and in all probability would soon have been extin

guished, but for this satanic scheme of corrupting and undermining the very citadel of truth.

This monstrous and adulterous coalition

of church and state has inflicted upon the former a night of a thousand years, during which the light of pure and undefiled religion became buried, and almost extinguished beneath the rubbish of human tradition; and we are convinced the gospel can never reassert its primitive power, or obtain universal ascendancy, till so unnatural and unwarrantable an alliance be dissevered whereever it exists. By subverting Christian discipline at a period when the church had only just ceased to be distinguished by miraculous powers, it became easy to debase and corrupt its doctrinal purity; and although the reformation in the sixteenth century restored the supremacy of the scriptures, and the events which preceded and accompanied it, gave such an impetus and expansion to the human mind, as effectually to preclude all chance of the reascendancy of papal superstition, where the light of truth had once shone, we have to lament that the reformed churches were not generally restored to their primitive discipline. The views of the more stern and uncompromising reformers were overborne by their too temporising colleagues, the reformation was consequently partial and incomplete; it merely touched the doctrines, without amending what was scarcely of less importance, the discipline of the church; and to look no farther than the Protestant establishment of this empire, we behold as the result, a system semi-papal and semi-protestant; a strange medley of things sacred and profane; a protestant creed, blended with the ecclesiastical polity of the mystic whore of Babylon; and the spiritual energies of the reformed church prostrated and paralyzed by her secular alliance and patro

nage.

The whole system has an inevitable tendency to debase and secularize the character of the clergy. The tree produces most luxuriantly, and is known by its natural fruits. As well might we expect to "gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles," as to find laborious usefulness and ardent piety, the general and prevailing character of a ministry thus appointed. Men full of faith and devotion must ever form the exceptions--and formerly they were too frequently very rare exceptions-to the majority of the national clergy; and their appointment will generally be found to have been to the smaller livings, or those charges over which the system of secular patronage has least control, and occasionally to have been

owing even to the interest of dissenters.* While the civil power, secular interest, and private patronage, retain the disposal of ecclesiastical preferment, the foundations must be out of course, and the church corrupted at her very fountains; and the words of our excellent poet will most faithfully characterize the body of the clergy:

Except a few with Eli's spirit blest, Hophni and Phinehas may describe the rest." And this must be the case for two very plain reasons; i.e. 1st. That as men may possess very suitable talents and qualifications for the conduct of political affairs, who are altogether morally unfit for membership with, much less to interfere in the discipline or government of, a Christian church, the exercise of the latter power by the civil authority deprives the church, which is subject to such influence, of all guarantee for the purity and devotedness of her ministers, and exposes her to the certain intrusion of a vast number of unqualified and unregenerate men into the sacred office.

As is the civil power which appoints them, such for the most part will be the character of the bishops; and as are the bishops, such to some extent will be the clerical body; but as the episcopal power of the English church is greatly limited by the canons, and secular patronage, the purity of the bench, though it might effect much, could by no means preserve incorrupt the inferior ramifications of the priesthood. The character of the bench and the clergy must take its colour from the fluctuating integrity and manners of the court, and the other lay

As is reported to have been the case in the appointment of that pious and excellent clergyman, the late Rev. Legli Richmond. "At that period there were neither so many evangelical clergymen, nor so many evangelical patrons in the church of England, as there are now; and hence to dissenters the church was occasionally indebted for some of her best ministers, and they for their personal promotion. Indeed, we have understood that some opulent dissenters have purchased benefices in the church for the very purpose of conferring them upon good men, and, by this means, saving so much of the power of patronage from that prostitution and abuse which too frequently characterize its exercise and we have heard that Turney was obtained in this way, and with this view there is something truly noble in such generous conduct; but, at the same time, surely there must be something wrong in the system which can admit of or require such interposition. If the benefice in question was thus snatched from misappropriation by private benevolence, it would seem from recent occurrences, that even this expensive generosity may be exercised without conferring permanent advantages upon that church for which it is put forth. There would seem therefore to be some constitutional defect in the system itself; and until that be attacked by those who alone have ability to reach it, all external applications, how well intentioned soever, can afford nothing but temporary palliatives. As the circumstance of a number of Mr. Richmond's parishioners having formed themselves into an independent congregation since his

71

patrons of the church; the avenues are thrown open to ecclesiastical corruption; and formality, irreligion, and infidelity, spread with fearful contagion amongst all ranks of the community. And thus, to use the language of the pious and exemplary clergyman mentioned in the note, in a letter to his son, "The national church groans and bleeds, from the crown of its head to the sole of its feet, through the daily intrusion of unworthy men into its ministry. Patrons, parents, tutors, and colleges, are annually pouring a torrent of incompetent youths into the church, and loading the nation with spiritual guilt. Hence souls are neglected and ruined; bigotry and ignorance prevail; church pride trinmphs over church godliness; and the establishment is despised, deserted, and wounded. Shall you and I deepen these wounds? Shall we add one more unit to the numbers of the unworthy and traitorous watchmen on the towers of our British Jerusalem? God forbid. And I will not hesitate to say to you, that, honoured and happy as I should feel in being permitted to see you a faithful preacher of righteousness, adorning the gospel, which you would proclaim to others; yet without this (personal religion) I would rather a thousand times see you a mason, or in the humblest capacity in life."+ Hence, as the church was not restored to her primitive and scriptural discipline at the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the worm still lies at the root, which, as Bishop Hobart says, cramps and paralyzes her vigour, and blasts her spiritual prosperity; but

death is well known, and as he himself seems to have suffered much during his last days from distressing apprehensions, "that all would be confusion in his parish after his removal," we need offer no apology for looking at the fact, according to the different suppositions, that it seems to admit of by way of explanation. But further, it would appear, that the preaching of the gospel by the evangelical clergy, instead of being what Legh Richmond, almost with bis dying breath, pronounced it, the best mode of preaching, in order to promote the interests of the church, because the least likely to make dissenters, is precisely that which will make them in the end, unless an alteration take place in the very constitution of the estab lishment as regards the appointment of parochial ministers. They do not intend it, but it is not the less true, that while they are teaching the people to love the gospel, they are inevitably infusing into their minds something of the spirit of dissent; a spirit which springs from the fundamental maxims, that every man is to place the essential before the ceremonial; that he is bound to do this for himself, because of himself he must give an account to God; that as to all external institutions, the apostolic declaration holds good-" The kingdom of God is not meat or drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost ;" and that, therefore, these must be secured, whatever else may require to be sacrificed or forsaken."-Eclectic Review, August, 1829.

Grimshaw's Life of the Rev. Legh Richmond.