CHAP. XVII.

REFLECTIONS ON ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISH

"BU

MENTS.

UT what right had Theodofius to make his religion that of the ftate? Ought not every perfon, in this matter, to be left to his own confcience? Is it not a violation of the right of private judgment to impofe religious fentiments on the fubjects of any government, and therefore can Theodofius, or others who have acted like him, be cleared of exercising tyrannical authority ?"

There was a time, when the fallacy of fuch notions would have been seen through with lefs difficulty at prefent, the tide of popular opinion runs ftrong in their favour, and it becomes more neceffary to examine their foundation. Moreover, the characters of many of the brightest and best Chris tians are so interwoven in this question, and the determination of it so much affects the honour of the divine operations in the propagation of Chriftianity, that the reader, I truft, will be difpofed to receive thefe reflections with candour and attention, however defective they may appear to him in fome refpects, or inadequate to the folution of feveral difficulties, which may be conceived to belong to this intricate fubject.

I fhall take for granted, that the gospel is of divine authority, and ought to be received, on pain of condemnation, by every one, who has the opportunity of hearing it fairly propofed, and that a man ought no more to plead the pretences of confcience for rejecting its fundamentals, than for the commiffion of murder, theft, or any other criminal action. The reafon is, because its light and evidences VOL. II.

P

do

do fo unquestionably carry the impreffion of divine goodness and divine authority, that wickedness of heart, and not weakness of capacity, must be the caufe of the rejection of it by any man. I fend thofe, who are inclined to dispute thefe pofitions, to the many proofs given of them by the best evangelical writers in all ages, and above all to the Scrip tures themselves, which every where declare, that "he that believeth not the Son fhall not fee life, but the wrath of God abideth on him *." If the reader bear these things in memory, he will find some of the most specious objections to ecclefiaftical eftablishments overturned.

For, few perfons will, I think, difpute the principle of general expediency and utility, as directly applicable to this important fubject. Has not every ftate a right to ordain what it judges conducive to its prefervation and the good of fociety? And, for thefe purposes, is any thing to be compared with right religion and the fear of God? What fhall hinder then, but that the ftate has the fame right to make laws concerning religion, as concerning property, commerce, and agriculture? Is it not a great miftake to feparate religious confiderations from civil? And while you attempt to do fo in theory, will it not be found impoffible in practice. And thould not laws be always made for practice, and not for mere fpeculation? The more the governors feel the importance of religion, (I speak not now for the next life, but for this) the more concerned will they be to establish it. They must do so, if they regard the temporal good of their fubjects.

Then, briefly, these three confiderations, namely, ift, the clear evidences by which Chriftianity is fupported, 2dly, the importance of its doctrines,

*John iii. the end.

and,

and, 3dly, general expediency, appear to me to fupply materials for an argument in favour of ecclefiaftical establishments, which admits of no fatisfactory answer. Thus: the gofpel is of divine authority; its fundamentals are revealed with fo much clearnefs, and are of fo much confequence to the interests of mankind, that they cannot be rejected without great wickedness of heart; even the wrath of God is declared to abide on him who believeth not the Son. Under thefe circumftances, will any man, who thinks it the duty of the fupreme power to confult the good of the community, believe it a matter of indifference, whether fuitable forms of prayer and thanksgiving, or in fhort, whether a convenient and well-digefted Liturgy* founded on the genuine principles of revealed religion, be compofed for publick ufe, and alfo whether proper perfons and places be provided by the ftate for the worfhip of God and for the inftruction of the people?

But befides thefe general reasons for a national establishment of true religion, there are other confiderations relative to the fame subject, which merit our attention.

It is certain, that from the earliest ages, and under patriarchal government, when holy men were favoured with divine revelations, governors taught the true religion, and did not permit their fubjects to propagate Atheism, idolatry, or falfe religion. Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob || governed their fami

lies

;

* In fuch undertakings, the general aim, undoubtedly, ought to be, not to gratify this or that party in unreasonable demands but to do that, which moft tends to the prefervation of peace and unity in the church; the procuring of reverence and exciting of piety and devotion in the publick worship of God; and the ta king away of occafion from them that feek occafion of cavil, or quarrel against the liturgy of the Church. See the preface to the Book of Common Prayer.

+ Gen. xviii. 19. Gen. xxviii. 1.

|| Gen. xxxv, 2.

lies in this manner; fo did Noah before them *. As families grew into nations, the fame practical ideas prevailed. At length when it pleased God to felect one nation for his fervice, the fame fentiments refpecting church-establishment continued, whether kings, or judges, or priefts, were in poffeffion of the executive power. I am aware that the Jewish government was a THEOCRACY, and that it has therefore many things peculiar to itfelf; but fo much perhaps may fafely be inferred from its constitution, that it is lawful for the fovereign authority to direct in matters of true religion. It is hardly to be conceived, that God would interweave into his theocracy, what in its own nature is unlawful.

Nor is this argument, which depends upon the general adminiftration of ecclefiaftical affairs in the Jewish theocracy, much weakened by any conclufions that may be drawn from particular inftances of divine interference and direction which occur in the hiftory of the fame theocracy. When the Jews are ordered to extirpate the Canaanites, and when Agag is hewed in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal, thefe are occafional inftances of divine vengeance exercised against iniquity: we may readily admit, that fuch inftances form no lawful precedents for governments to follow, while we maintain, that a mode of ecclefiaftical administration ordained by God, and continued for a long series of years, cannot poffibly be an improper example for religious magiftrates to imitate. However, in contending for the lawfulness of fuch imitation, I would by no means be understood to include all the particular actions or measures of Jewith governors in ecclefiaftical matters: the reafons of these actions or meafures may have long fince ceafed to exift. In this argument I have respect only, in general, to the principal

* Gen. ix. toward the end.

cipal feature of the Jewish conftitution, namely, the unquestionable authority, which the magiftrate poffeffed in ecclefiaftical regulations: a very remarkable fact which I recommend to the ferious confideration of thofe Diffenters from our churchestablishment, who do not hesitate to pronounce the interference of the civil magistrate in the religious inftitutions of a nation to be always unlawful.

If these reasons and examples be well weighed, it will hardly be doubted, but that when the Gofpel was preached among the Jews, if their Sanhedrim had received it, they would have had a right to make it the established religion of the nation. They might have faid, and they probably would have said, This religion is true and divine; the people cannot reject it without rejecting, in pofitive wickedness of heart, the authority of God himself: the doctrines of this religion are of the utmoft importance it is therefore expedient, that it fhould be fupported by the ftate, and we are countenanced in this conclufion by the example of our ancestors.

And in regard to fuch modern nations, as profefs to believe the Scripture-hiftory of the Jews and of Jefus Chrift, it may fairly be afked, what are the peculiar circumftances, that fhould render it improper for the governing powers to feel the influence of the fame reafons and examples? Can any good argument be invented to prove, that, in the momentous affair of religion, they ought not to be actuated by the grand principle of general expediency, when, in matters of lefs confequence, they evidently fhew themselves to be to actuated, and no one difputes the propriety of their conduct?

If an inferior flate fhould fear the difpleasure of a fuperior one in its neighbourhood, which might have fufficient ftrength to deftroy it, will any man

P 3

deny