« ElőzőTovább »
over the consciences of his adult children. No absolute authority, therefore, to enforce their attendanco at any particular place of worship, or subscription to any particular Creed. But indisputable authority to procure for them such religious instruction as he decms fittest,* and to recommend it to them by every means in his power; he not only has authority, but is under obligation to do this, as well as to establish such disciplines and forms of worship in his house as ho deems most convenient for his family: With which they are indeed at liberty to refuse compliance, if such disciplines appear to them clearly opposed to the law of God; but not
* Observe, this and the following conclusions depend entirely on the sup. position that the Government is part of the Body of the Church, and that somo pains have beon taken to compose it of religious and wiso men. If wo choose, knowingly and deliberately, to composo our Parliament, in great part, of infidels and Papists, gamblers and debtors, we may well regret its power over the Clerical officer; but that we should, at any timo, 80 compose oor Parliament, is a sign that the Clergy themselves have failed in their duty, and the Church in its watchfulness ;-thus the evil accumulates in re-action, Whatever I gay of the responsibility or authority of Government, is therefore to bo understood only as sequent on what I havo said previously of the necessity of closely circumscribing the Church, and then composing the Civil Government out of the circumscribed Body. Thus, all Papists would at once be rendered incapable of share in it, being subjected to the second or most severe degree of excommunication-first, as idolaters, by 1 Cor. v. 10; then, as covetous and extortioners, (selling absolution,) by the samu text; and, finally, as heretics and maintainers of falschooda, by Titus iii. 10, and 1 Tim. iv. 1.
I do not write this hastily, nor without carnest consideration both of tho difficulty and the consequences of such Church Discipline. But either the Bible is a superannuated book, and is only to be read as a record of past days; or these things follow from it, clcarly and incvitably. That wo live in days when the Bible has becomo impracticable, is (if it be so) the very thing I dcsire to be considered. I am not setting down theso plans or schemos as at prosent possible. I do not know how far they are possible; but it sconis to me that God has plainly commanded thom, and that, therefore, their ima. practicability is a thing to be meditated on.
• without most solemn conviction of their being so, nor without deep sorrow to be compelled to such a course.
But it may be said, the Government of a people never does stand to them in the relation of a father to his family. If it do not, it is no Government. However grossly it may fail in its duty, and however little it may be fitted for its place, if it be a Government at all, it has paternal office and relation to the people. I find it written on the one hand," Honor thy Father;" on the other,—“Honor the King;” on the one hand, -“Whoso smiteth his Father, shall be put to death ;"* on the other," They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” Well, but, it may be farther argued, the Clergy are in a still more solemn sense the Fathers of the People, and the People are the beloved Sons; why should not, therefore, the Clergy have the power to govern the civil officers ?
For two very clear reasons.
In all human institutions certain evils are granted, as of necessity; and, in organizing such institutions, we must allow for the consequences of such evils, and make arrangements such as may best keep them in check. Now, in both the civil and ecclesiastical governments there will of necessity be a certain number of bad men. The wicked civilian has comparatively little interest in overthrowing ecclesiastical authority; it is often a useful help to him, and presents in itself little which seems covetable. But the wicked ecclesiastical officer has much interest in overthrowing the civilian, and
vicked men are concerned, therefore, it is better that the State should have power over the Clergy, than the Clergy over the State.
Secondly, supposing both the Civil and Ecclesiastical officer to be Christians; there is no fear that the civil officer should
under-rate the dignity or shorten tho serviceableness of the minister; but there is considerable danger that the religious enthusiasm of the minister might diminish the serviceablencss
be written by some one who had a life to give to its investi. gation; it is one of the inost inelancholy pages in human records, and one the most necessary to be studied.) Therefore, so far as good men are concerned, it is better the State should have power over the Clergy, than the Clergy over the . State.
This we might, it seems to me, conclude by unassisted reason. But surely the whole question is, without any need of human reason, decided by the history of Israel. If ever a body of Clergy should have received independent authority, the Levitical Priesthood should; for they were indeed a Priesthood, and more holy than the rest of the nation. But Aaron is always subject to Moses. All solemn revelation is made to Moses, the civil magistrate, and he actually commands Aaron as to the fulfilment of his priestly office, and that in a necessity of life and death : “Go and make an atone ment for the people.” Nor is anything more remarkable throughout the whole of the Jewish history than the perfect subjection of the Priestly to the Kingly Authority. Thus Solomon thrusts out Abiathar from being priest, 1 Kings ii. 27; and Jehoahaz administers the funds of the Lord's House,
ment Money, the Ransom for Souls (Exod. xxx. 12).
We bave, however, also the beautiful instance of Samuel uniting in himself the offices of Priest, Prophet, and Judge; nor do I insist on any special manner of subjection of Clergy to civil officers, or vice versd; but only on the necessity of their perfect unity and influence upon each other in every Christian Kingdom. Those who endeavor to effect the utter separation of ecclesiastical and civil officers, are striving, on
the one hand, to expose the Clergy to the most grievous and most subtle of temptations from their own spiritual enthusiasm and spiritual pride; on the other, to deprive the civil officer of all sense of religious responsibility, and to introduce the fearful, godless, conscienceless, and soulless policy of the Radical and the (so called) Socialist. Whereas, the ideal of all government is the perfect unity of the two bodies of officers, each supporting and correcting the other; the Clergy having due weight in all the national councils; the civil officers have ing a solemn reverence for God in all their acts; the Clergy hallowing all worldly policy by their influence; and the magis. tracy repressing all religious enthusiasm by their practical wisdom. To separate the two is to endeavor to separate the daily life of the nation from God, and to map out the domi. nion of the soul into two provinces—one of Atheism, the other of Enthusiasm. These, then, were the reasons which caused me to speak of the idea of separation of Church and State as Fatuity; for what Fatuity can be so-great as the not having God in our thoughts; and, in any act or office of life, saying in our hearts, “There is no God.”
Much more I would fain say of these things, but not now: this only, I must emphatically assert, in conclusion:That the schism between the so called Evangelical and High Church parties in Britain, is enonigh to shake many men's faith in the truth or existence of Religion at all. It seems to me one of the most disgraceful scenes in Ecclesiastical history, that Protestantism should be paralyzed at its very heart by jealousies, based on little else than mere difference between high and low breeding. For the essential differences, in the religions opinions of the two parties, are sufficiently marked in two men whom we may take as the highest representatives of eachGeorge Herbert and John Milton; and I do not think there would have been much difficulty in atoning those two, if one could have got them together. But the real difficulty, nowa
days, lies in the sin and folly of both parties : in the supercili. ousness of the one, and the rudeness of the other. Evidently, however, the sin lies most at the High Church door, for the Evangelicals are much more ready to act with Churchmen than they with the Evangelicals; and I believe that this state of things cannot continue much longer; and that if the Church of England does not forthwith unite with herself the entire Evangelical body, both of England and Scotland, and take her stand with them against the Papacy, her hour has struck. She cannot any longer serve two masters; nor make curtsieg alternately to Christ and anti-Christ. That she has done this is visible enough by the state of Europe at this instant. Three centuries since Luther—three hundred years of Protestant knowledge—and the Papacy not yet overthrown! Christ's truth still restrained, in narrow dawn, to the white cliffs of England and white crests of the Alps ;-the morning star paused in its course in heaven ;—the sun and moon stayed, with Satan for their Joshua.
But how to unite the two great sects of paralyzed Protestants? By keeping simply to Scripture. The members of the Scottish Church have not a shadow of excuse for refusing Episcopacy; it has indeed been abused among them; grievously abused; but it is in the Bible; and that is all they have a right to ask.
They have also no shadow of excuse for refusing to employ a written form of prayer. It may not be to their taste-it may not be the way in which they like to pray; but it is no question, at present, of likes or dislikes, but of duties; and the acceptance of such a form on their part would go half way to reconcile them with their brethren. Let them allego such objections as they can reasonably advance against the English form, and let these be carefully and humbly weighed by the pastors of both churches: some of them ought to bu at once forestalled. For the English Church, on the other