mers, and the warm heart from which its colouring is principally derived, have necessarily contributed to render the scientific form of his conclusions less accurately discernible than it would have been had he written more apathetically. His lectures on Church establishments teach that Christianity is the sure foundation of order and prosperity; that the efforts of individuals, without aid from government, are insufficient to bring it within reach of the whole population; that the territorial division of the land into manageable districts, with a general cure of souls over all persons within each, is the most efficient method of giving to Christianity an universal influence: that such division cannot well be carried into effect but by a Church of one given denomination. Again, with respect to the religious tenets within which a government may choose its national establishment, he contends that the Church should be wholly independent in respect of its theology*-that there should be "maintenance from the one quarter, and an unfettered theology from the other:"—but he subsequently, in effect, qualifies this doctrine. 31. He teaches that the government should determine what shall be its establishment, if possible, simply by the answer to the question, "What is truth?" but if not, then with a modified view to the benefit of the population at large.† He considers a state incompetent to enter upon the details of theological discussion, but abundantly qualified to decide upon certain broad and Lecture ii. p. 37. + Lecture iv. p. 115. leading principles. Upon the former consideration he holds them justified in selecting, or in adhering to the selection of, any one of the Christian denominations, which, being Protestant, are also evangelical; as, for example, Methodist, Independent, Baptist: he does not, however, supply any precise test for determining to what extent the epithet "evangelical" may be applicable. But, upon the latter consideration, he teaches that the State is competent, nay, that any man,* "with the ordinary schooling of a gentleman," and 66 by the reading of a few weeks," may qualify himself to decide upon the broad question which separates Protestantism from Popery, namely, whether the Scriptures be or be not the only rule of faith and practice in religion. 32. It did not enter into the purpose of Dr. Chalmers to exhibit the whole subject; but even in these propositions he has, it may be apprehended, put forward much questionable matter. He appears by no means to succeed in showing, upon his own principles, that his territorial establishment must be of one denomination: he would probably find it impossible, upon stricter investigation, so to define Evangelical Protestantism as to make it a universal criterion for the guidance of governments: it might further be argued, that he has surrendered the condition without which all others fail, in omitting from his calculation the divine constitution of the visible Church; and that, while he does not so much as inquire whether on the Lecture iv. p. 119. one side it would be easy or the reverse to reject the unevangelical Protestants, he has on the other very greatly underrated the difficulty of the questions at issue between the Church of Rome and her opponents. But no more it is painful even to indicate points of difference from a most distinguished and excellent man, who has done his subject and his country permanent service by his lucid and powerful explanations of the machinery of a religious establishment. 33. The reader will probably agree that it is unnecessary, with a view to the practical purposes before us, to enter upon any detailed investigation of two other theories of the connection between Church and State, which embody the respective extremes of opinion adopted on the one hand by Hobbes, and on the other by Bellarmine and ultramontane Romanists. They are theories of derivation rather than of connection, properly so called. According to the first, the Church and her religion are mere creatures of the State. According to the second, the temporal power is wholly dependent and subordinate. These views. are not avowed amongst ourselves. A third extreme opinion of a different kind, namely, that the magistrate has no concern with religion, is that against which the general argument of the succeeding chapters is directed. It is observed by a German author that the first of these schemes has been the peculiar danger of Lutheranism, the second of Romanism, and the third of Calvinism.* 34. Several other writers have touched collaterally * Stahl's Kirchenverfassung, Anhang i. on the subject, of whom the following are most familiar. Machiavelli treats of religion as an instrument of government, and holds it needful beyond everything else to be in the care of states.* Lord Clarendon's treatise, entitled 'Religion and Policy,' is historical. He considers that the verse of Isaiah (xlix. 23) sufficiently proves the "sovereign care, protection, and propagation of religion to be committed to Christian princes;" and proceeds to investigate the origin and progress of the papal supremacy, which, as he argues, had been the great obstacle to the full discharge of this obligation. Justice Blackstone writes briefly but rationally upon this topic as on others. His propositions are-1. That the State ought not to punish the sin of schism as such; 2. That it should protect the Church; 3. That if this can be better effected by the imposition of tests, it is not precluded from using them, since the disposal of offices is matter of favour and discretion. The object of Montesquieu, in his work on the genius of laws, is much more to exhibit the actual than to embody the ideal: De présenter ce qui est, ce qui fût, et non ce qui aurait dû être, according to his Parisian editors of 1796. He seems, however, to assume as axiomatic the doctrine of a national religion, and treats of its relations to many of the forms of life. He belonged to a school not in harmony with the spirit of the Church of Rome, but he enunciates his general opinion in these terms: Ce ne fût ni * Discorsi, i. 11, 12, Commentaries, iv. 52. la crainte, ni la piété, qui établit la religion chez les Romains; mais la nécessité où sont toutes les sociétés d'en avoir une.* Neal,† the historian of the Puritans, bears witness that a state may give sufficient encouragement to a national religion, without invading the liberties of dissidents. + * Sur la Politique des Romains dans la Religion. Vol. iv. Preface. The following are among the recent productions which touch upon the relations of the Church and the State : : Vinet's Mémoire en faveur de la Liberté des Cultes. Paris, 1826. Armstrong's Civil Establishment of the Church Indefensible. London, 1831. And Abuse of Power in the State. 1838. Smith's Letters on National Religion. London, 1833. Inglis's Vindication of Church Establishments. Edinburgh, 1833. Lorimer's Condition of Religion in the United States. Glasgow 1833. Esdaile's Connection of Civil and Religious Institutions. Perth, 1833. Sewell's Letters to a Dissenter. Oxford, 1834. Essays on the Church, by a Layman. London, 1834. De Tocqueville's Démocratie en Amérique, Vol. II. ch. ix. Paris, 1835. Visit to the American Churches. London, 1836. Rothe's Anfänge der Christichen Kirche, B. I. Wittemberg, 1837. La Mennais, Les Affaires de Rome, in the Chapters on Les Maux de l'Eglise et de la Société. Paris, 1838. Maurice, on the Kingdom of Christ, Vol. III. London, 1838. Wardlaw's Lectures. London, 1839. Angus's Voluntary System. London, 1839. Swaine's Shield of Dissent. London, 1839. Macneile's Lectures. London, 1840. Stahl's Kirchenverfassung, Anhang II. Erlangen, 1840. Hutchinson's Reasons for Conservatism. London, 1840. VOL. I. D |