logical tribunal, becomes inevitably involved in all the bitter controversies of the church, and may be expected to play on in the religious drama, until the last scene closes with a general auto da fe!

Now there is one thing about this theory which makes it less dangerous than it would otherwise be, namely that it refutes itself. It need only speak out its views distinctly, in order to utter a sentence of self-condemnation. For it is surely self-evident that it demands a natural and moral impossibility, as well as a complete sacrifice of all religious fidelity. Such a disrup tion of the social and moral, from the religious nature of man as it requires, cannot be conceived of, apart from the most violent injustice to his whole being. Man cannot be a servant of God as a man, and an atheist as a citizen. His religious and social nature being both derived from God, they can both find their true life only in Him. The two inseparately interpenetrate each other, and cannot prosper in a political divorcement.

The theory under consideration assumes that Religion and Civil Government issue from totally different sources. This is its grand mistake. Under the influence of this fundamental error, the advocates of the theory get more widely out of the way, as they advance in their argument. Religion and Civil Government on the contrary have both but one origin, flow from the same divine source. They are twin sisters of celestial birth. In reference to Religion this will of course be admitted as the only rational view of its origin. But this view is also the only proper and secure ultimate basis of Civil Government. However variant the forms of Government may be, accordingly as the peculiar circumstances out of which they may temporally have sprung may differ, Government itself is as really the result of a divinely implanted constitution in the human race, as is Religion. For just as one of the two primary facts upon which the existence of Religion among men rests, is man's natural capability of knowing, loving, and serving God, (the possession of which most clearly indicates the highest design of man's creation), so the deepest and last reason which can be assigned for the existence of Civil Government, is to be found alone in that social and moral nature with which the Creator has endowed man, and which cannot thrive or ripen to full development excepting within its genial sphere. In our country indeed this is generally admitted, though under a different form, when it is affirmed, as the broad foundation of all free governments, that all men are created with certain and equal inalienable rights, thus appealing, for the righteousness of the claims urged, to the

expressed will of the Creator. No sooner therefore is this admission made, than the view for which we are contending follows as a necessary inference. Men in their combined civil capacity cannot divest themselves of the responsibilities and duties which devolve upon them as individuals. If they have faith in God at all, if they ever cherish hearty reverence for Him, they cannot lay aside these strongest and holiest feelings of their souls, just then when they are about to engage in one of the most momentous and solemn duties they can ever be summoned to discharge. But if they cannot consistently do this, and should never be asked to do it, surely they must be allowed to give their constitution and laws so much of a religious character as will indicate, though in a very general way yet unequivocally, whether they are a Christian or a Pagan people, worshippers of the Sun or of Him who made it.

Civil Government therefore can no more divest itself of its divine genealogy and obligations, than can the intelligent and moral agents constituting it get rid of their's. However closely it may confine itself to the legitimate sphere of its political duties, yet as even the politics of such a people cannot utterly exclude Religion, or prosper independently of its help, so it cannot be inconsistent for Government to discharge its civil offices with conscientious reference to its religious responsibilities.

It is by no means denied hereby that the duties of Civil Government are pre-eminently political. There can be no objection even to admitting that they are exclusively so, if by exclusively be understood the shutting out simply of all that can be excluded without detriment to the true political interests of the State. But we must protest against the inference often drawn from this premise, viz: that Government may not at all meddle with mat iers which concern Religion. And surely the advocates of this view cannot be in earnest, when they attempt to sustain it by such theology as is taught in the quotations made on a previous page! Since however it is the best that is offered, let us examine it somewhat more minutely.

"Civil Government," it is said, "is intended for the regulation of social man, for the promotion and security of human happiness here on earth." A very exalted and rational view of the great design of political institutions. But for this very reason it must exclude the inference which it is intended should be drawn therefrom. On the contrary so long as religion remains the purest and highest source of social happiness, and so long as its principles continue to be the preserving salt of human society, so long must Civil Government seek in some way to propitiate

her favor, and secure the blessings of a perpetual abode of Religion in its midst. Or would the advocates of the opposite view persuade us that Religion has nothing to do with social man, or with the promotion and perpetuation of human happiness on earth! It would almost seem so from the tenor of the second period in the above quotations. It affirms that Government" is intended for this world, not for the next;" therefore again can have nothing to do with matters involving religion! And why this? Because Religion has nothing to do with men's temporal or terrestrial relations? For aught that appears to the contrary, this is the doctrine taught. But assuredly no christian writer could advocate such views!

Again it is admitted that it is the duty of Civil Government to "protect us in the enjoyment of our personal rights and property." Now one of the holiest and dearest rights of a christian man, or a christian community, is to avow their faith in God, and their submission to His revealed will. This constitutes for them the highest blessing of civil liberty. But if Civil Government secure to them these rights, it must of necessity allow them the exercise of their religious prerogative in their civil relations, and thus become unavoidably involved in matters of religion.

So again when it said that the business of Civil Government is with our temporal interests, that it should regulate the duty of man towards man, and punish offences against society; unless Religion is denied all participation in these things, it must be granted, that these duties of Civil Government, instead of forbidding its association with Religion, really demand that it should in some way recognize it, and legislate with reference to its established principles.

But we are reluctant further to pursue a theological path so crooked and tangled as this. Neither does the case require it. For until it is shown that civil society can divest itself of the religious character and responsibilities of its individual members, or that God has nothing to do with moral agents in their civil or national capacity, it may be triumphantly maintained, that Civil Government cannot and should not be kept wholly asunder from Religion. And still further, until it is demonstrated, that a political organization can dispense with all moral regulations, or that it may devise and adopt some other moral code than that derived from the sacred books of Christianity, it must be conceded, that by mainly adopting the principles of this code, it unavoidably commits itself in favor of that Religion to which the code belongs. So that in whatever aspect of the subject we may select, we receive the same impressions. The very idea of

Civil Government as a political institution, involves it with Religion in some form or other. No political surgery can sever the bonds uniting them without at least fatally maiming the former, if not periling its very existence.'

Another objection to this view, and an additional reason for requiring Civil Government to keep itself entirely separate from Religion, is supposed to be found in the inseparable difficulty of maintaining a proper position in reference to matters of relig ious faith and practice. Even if the propriety of making some general acknowledgements were yielded, it is contended that Government could not remain with this, but would find itself gradually yet irresistibly impelled onward to something more. For however general and liberal the admissions first made might be, it is affirmed that they would be the entering wedge of more special and particular concessions. Thus the Government would be, slowly perhaps but surely, implicated in favor of the religious tenets of some particular denomination of the land, and thereby give it the first impulse to political ascendency. And inasmuch as all history unites in testifying to the aggressive spirit of ecclesiastical organizations, and mournfully exemplifies their thirst after political influence, and their frequent abuse of it when it has once been obtained, political prudence is supposed to dictate the expediency of forestalling the evil by checking first attempts.

The misfortunes and misdoings of the Church, in connection with the political speculations, in which the force of outward circumstances, or the unwise ambition of her more influential leaders, have heretofore involved her, have indeed afforded her enemies, or such as were still more ambitious in another sphere than her aspiring sons, abundant opportunity for declamation and reproach. And of course those who desired to make out a case in their own favor at the expense of the interests of Relig ion, would not feel called upon to state any of the advantages resulting to the state and to humanity, from these political exploits of the Church, but rather hold them up as always and unmixedly evil. It would not be hard however to find, in the same histories which tell us of the disasters brought upon the State by its political combinations with the Church, evidence showing on the one hand, that the condition of the State might

'See Burlamaqui's "Nat. and Polit. Law," (Nugent's translation) vol. I. P. 2, Chap. II and VI.

Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws," B. 24, 25, 26.

Vattel's "Law of Nations," B. I, Chap. 2, and 12.

have been still worse but for this combination, and on the other that the Church, even in its meekest and most spiritual times, suffered indescribably more evil from the State than ever she inflicted upon it. Neither should all the blame be cast upon the Church, if cunning politicians, finding their usual foot-hold failing them, craftily betook themselves to her foundations, and by a skilful appropriation of the material there obtained, erected a politico-religious fabrick, of which they might have the supreme command, and so retrieve their ruined fortunes.

And yet we are free to admit that the evils of national ecclesiastical establishments cannot be easily exaggerated. Our sympathies are strongly with those who hold them in hearty abhorrence. The disasters, both for Church and State, which have been connected with them in ages past, are a clear indication of the mind of God concerning them, and practically prove, that Christ will not have His kingdom to be of this world. Above all the Church has nothing to gain, and every thing to hazard from such combinations. So long as society remains in its present mixed and imperfect condition, Civil Government and the Church are not prepared for the consummation of those nuptial joys in which they are destined to be ultimately united.

All this however may be admitted without involving assent to the objection now under review. This objection is based upon an oversight or denial of a well-defined and generally admitted fact, in reference to the relation subsisting between general religious principles, and religious organizations, based upon these principles, and constituted by those agreeing in faith, for their maintenance and propagation. It is assumed that this relation is so intimate, as that the holding of religious principles must necessarily and hastily lead to the formation of religious societies. But this is a manifest fallacy. How many in every community, who hold to the existence of God, acknowledge the divine authority of the sacred scriptures, and in a word assent to all the cardinal doctrines of Christianity, who yet are never led to unite even with already existing religious societies. But are they, or are they thought infidels or atheists on this account? Assuredly not, however heartily it may be regretted, for their own sakes, that they persist in their refusal to do more than merely assent intellectually to the main principles of the christian creed. Or are persons of this description supposed to be committed to any denominational interests, because they avow such assent? Does their acknowledging these general and selfevident christian truths, convert them into Presbyterians, or Episcopalians, Reformed, Lutherans or Methodists? By no

VOL. II.NO. IV.

21