Essay on the Union of Church and State. By BAPTIST WRIOTHESLEY NOEL, M.A. Second Edition, with Corrections. London: 8vo., pp. xii., 604. Price 12s. Cloth.

benevolence, and liberality, and others still more for eminent piety. Most wisely in many instances, and most conscientiously I doubt not in all, have the present government administered their ecclesiastical patronage.

it, or, at least, to see such portions of it as may suffice to give a general insight into its character. The estimation in which the author has long been held, the respectability of his family connexions, the certainty that high ecclesiastical offices were open to him, and the calm dignity with which, at the dictate of conscience, he has renounced his position as one of the established clergy, have caused such a demand for the volume, that all the copies of both editions were disposed of before they were ready for delivery. The intrinsic value of the work would of itself incline us to enrich our pages with quotations from it, but we are the more disposed to present our readers with extracts, as its publishers are not, at the present moment, able to supply the book to hundreds who are cager to purchase it.

The Preface affords a beautiful specimen of the spirit in which Mr. Noel writes, and in which all religious controversy ought to be conducted.

"As in the following work I have frankly attacked the union between the church and state, I feel constrained to bear my humble testimony to the piety and worth of many who uphold it. I have stated without reserve the influence of the system upon prelates; but how many instances occur in which men raised to the most ensnaring honours have successfully resisted their temptations! Of those prelates with whom I have the honour to be acquainted, some I admire for their simplicity,

to the establishment as I am in quitting it. Of many of them I am convinced that they surpass me in devotedness to Christ. Worthy successors of Romaine and John Venn, of Newton, Cecil, and Thomas Scott, of Robinson and of Simeon, and, remaining conscientiously in the establishment, they will, as I hope, have the respect and affection of all good men. May they enjoy increasing comfort and usefulness to the end of their ministry! While I

condemn a state prelacy, I honour each pious

prelate; while I mourn the relations of godly pastors to the state, I no less rejoice in their godliness. The reasons for separation appear to me clear; but I do not expect others to think as I do. In claiming my own liberty of judgment, I learn to respect theirs. To remain in the establishment with my views would be criminal; with theirs it is a duty.

"If, by any of my expressions, I have unnecessarily wounded the feelings of any Christian brother, I ask him to forgive me. If I have unconsciously fallen into any exaggeration, I deeply deplore it. Throughout the work I have made a clear distinction between evan

gelical and unevangelical clergymen; between those who preach the gospel and those who do not preach it. No spurious liberality, no fear of censure, should obliterate the distinction; yet many, doubtless, who are not ranked among the evangelical party, who do not support their institutions, and who do not usually act with them, may be converted and faithful ministers of Christ." pp. v.-vii.

In the Introduction, after showing that the Lawfulness of the Union between Church and State must be determined by reference to the word of God, Mr. Noel defines the terms Church, State, and Union. In the following

6. All persons throughout the world baptized in the name of Christ; e. g, the visible church catholic.'

"All these six meanings of the word are contrary to the original meaning, and are wholly unscriptural. It is not once used in scripture in any of these senses.

"Besides these, it has three other meanings.

1. It was originally used to express an assembly of the citizens in the Greek republics. When the legislative assembly was summoned by the town-crier, it was called an ċkkλŋoía, a church. In this sense the word is frequently used by Thucydides, Xenophon, Demosthenes, and other writers. And in this sense it is used in the 19th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. A crowd having assembled in the theatre at Ephesus to maintain their idolatry against the doctrine of St. Paul, it is said by the historian, that the ikkAnoia, or church, was confused; upon which the town-clerk urged them to restore order, declaring that every matter might be determined in a lawful è««λŋoía, or church; with which words he dismissed that riotous iKkAnoia, or church.

2. It being the word commonly used to express an assembly of citizens, it was thence adopted by the apostles to express an assembly of Christians; the Christian sense of the word growing naturally out of its civil sense. Each Christian congregation is, therefore, in the New Testament called an è««λŋσía,—an assembly, a church. The congregation of poor persons at Philippi was called the church, or assembly, of that place. The poor congregation at Thessa

lonica was so termed. A small congregation which met in Cenchræa, the port of Corinth, was called the church, or assembly, of Cenchræa. A small assembly which met beneath the roof of Priscilla and Aquila in or near Rome, was called the church in their house. Philemon

had a church in his house; and when Paul spoke of the Christian congregations scattered over a country, he always termed them the churches, or assemblies, of that territory. Thus

we read of the churches of Judea, the churches of Galatia, and the churches of Macedonia; but never of the church of Judea, the church of Galatia, the church of Macedonia; because the Christians of a single town formed one assembly, but the Christians of a country many assemblies." pp. 6-8.

General considerations which condemn the union between church and state are then adduced. In showing that it is condemned by history, Mr. Noel

says,

"The Greek legislators, wishing to secure for the republic the greatest military force by means of the most complete social unity, forbade dissent from the popular superstition. A man who disbelieved the power of fictitious and corrupt deities was thought to be a bad citizen, and was as such condemned. Draco punished dissent with death; Plato would have it denounced to the magistrates as a crime; Aristotle allowed but one established worship; and Socrates was sentenced to death as a nonconformist. In the Greek republics, the union between the state and the religion was so complete that the rights of conscience were wholly disregarded. Men did not inquire what was true, but what was politic. The republic must be a great unity for attack or defence, and the religious independence which would break that unity must be exterminated.

"Heathen princes had yet more powerful motives than republican magistrates to unite themselves strictly with the priesthood. Despotic rulers have ever sought to extort from their subjects all possible advantages for themselves, and for this end to retain them in the most complete servitude. They have chiefly depended on their armies; but the fears and the hopes excited by superstition have been too obvious a support not to be largely employed. Well paid soldiers have been their first instrument of power; their second has been a wellpaid priesthood. Priests have lent to despots, in aid of their selfish designs, the portents and the predictions of superstition; and despots have, in return, invested the superstition with

splendour, and punished nonconformity with death. Heathenism presented no obstacle to this union. The superstition being a corrupt invention offered nothing which was disagreeable to corrupt rulers; and the vices of rulers were not uncongenial to an equally corrupt priesthood. Nebuchadnezzar exalted himself when he compelled his subjects of every creed to bow down to his golden idol; Belshazzar, amidst his revels, felt no objection to praise the gods of gold and silver;' and it seemed to Darius excellent policy to establish a royal statute that no prayers should be offered to any god but himself for thirty days. The infamous Tarquin could, without any inconvenient restraint upon his passions, build temples to Jupiter; Caligula and Nero felt no remorse at their wickedness excited by the fulfilment of their functions of supreme pontiffs; and, on the other hand, the Brahmins of India found nothing in their vedas and purannas which made them blush at the vices and the tyranny of the rajahs by whom they were enriched. By the aid of the superstition the despot fortified his tyranny, and by the aid of the despotism the priest gave currency to his falsehoods. Thus the union of the state and the priesthood was an alliance of force and fraud. Neither party was strong enough to rule alone. But when the priest preached for the despot, and the despot governed for the priest, both the more easily kept their feet upon the necks of the people; and made the universal degradation subservient to their greatness.

"When the churches began to be corrupted by the increasing wealth of their ministers, this pagan union of the state with the priest hood was extended to them; and emperors with the Christian name sought the aid of a corrupt Christian priesthood, as heathen emperors had sought the aid of augurs and of heathen priests. Constantine, who first openly protected the Christian churches, can scarcely be supposed to have done so from religious feeling. The progress of Christianity had been very considerable. If, before this reign, the Christians did not amount to more than one twentieth part of the population, as asserted by Gibbon, still this number of avowed Christians, at a time when the profession of faith in Christ exposed them to martyrdom, indicates that a much larger number were secretly convinced of its truth. Licinius, the rival of Constantine, could not, by his heathen zeal, raise any popular enthusiasm in his support; and if we had no other proof of the numerical extension of professed believers, we may infer it with certainty from the recorded habits of the clergy. 'During the third century,' says Mosheim,

the bishops assumed in many places a princely authority; they appropriated to their evangelical function the splendid ensigns of imperial majesty. A throne surrounded with ministers exalted above his equals the servant of the meek and humble Jesus; and sumptuous garments dazzled the eyes and the minds of the multitude into an ignorant veneration for their arrogated authority. The example of the bishops was ambitiously imitated by the presbyters, who, neglecting the sacred duties of their station, advanced themselves to the indolence and delicacy of an effeminate and luxurious life. The deacons beholding the presbyters deserting thus their functions boldly usurped their rights; and the effects of a corrupt ambition were spread through every rank of the sacred order.' The splendour and ambition of the clergy manifest clearly that the Christians were become a powerful body, whom Constantine would desire to attach to his cause, and their number renders it very probable that policy was the earliest ground of his Christian profession. His conduct to the Christians was strictly in accordance with his interests; and it is very probable that the protection with which he distinguished them may, in the first instance, have originated in his policy.' But if it began in policy, political considerations would still more powerfully urge him to continue it. He had learned, no doubt, from the disturbances continually excited by Licinius, that neither himself nor the empire could enjoy a fixed state of tranquillity as long as the ancient superstitions subsisted; and, therefore, from this period, he openly opposed the sacred rights of paganism as a religion detrimental to the interests of the state. On the other hand, it is too plain that he was an irreligious man. It was in the year 313 that he published the edict of Milan, by which he proclaimed universal toleration, and secured to the Christians their civil and religious rights. But, in the year 325, he ordered his rival, Licinius, to be strangled; and the same year in which he convened the Council of Nice, was polluted by the execution, or rather murder, of his eldest son. 'It is not disputed that his career was marked by the usual excesses of intemperate and worldly ambition: and the general propriety of his moral conduct cannot with any justice be maintained.' After his conversion to Christianity, he still continued, as supreme pontiff, to be the head of the religion of heathen Rome, and thus continued to be invested with more absolute authority over the religion he had deserted, than over that which he professed. But, as he had been the head of the heathen priesthood, it seemed to him right that he should make

himself equally the head of the Christian priesthood. He, therefore, assumed a supreme jurisdiction over the clergy.

"One of the earliest objects of his policy was to diminish the independence of the church. For which purpose he received it into strict alliance with the state; and combined in his own person the highest ecclesiastical with the highest civil authority. The entire control of the external administration of the church he assumed to himself. He regulated everything respecting its outward discipline; the final decision of religious controversies was subjected to the discretion of judges appointed by him; and no general council could be called except by his authority. Though he permitted the church to remain a body politic distinct from that of the state, yet he assumed to himself the supreme power over this sacred body, and the right of modelling and of governing it in such a manner as should be most conducive to the public good. Thus he exercised at once a supremacy over the heathen and the Christian priesthoods. He was the chief pontiff of heathenism, and the chief bishop of the Christian church. And this state episcopate he exercised many years before he was baptized, and long before he was a member of the church he was its summus episcopus, and only a few days before his death received from Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, the ceremony of baptism. "The consequence of this union between an irreligious prince and the clergy, who were already much corrupted, was lamentable.

At

the conclusion of this century there remained no more than a mere shadow of the ancient government of the church. Many of the privileges which had formerly belonged to the presbyters and the people were usurped by the bishops; and many of the rights which had been formerly vested in the universal church were transferred to the emperors and to subordinate magistrates. The additions made by the emperors and others to the wealth, honours, and advantages of the clergy, were followed with a proportionable augmentation of vices and luxury, particularly amongst those of that sacred order who lived in great and opulent cities. The bishops, on the one hand, contended with each other in the most scandalous manner concerning the extent of their respective jurisdiction; while, on the other, they trampled upon the rights of the people, violated the privileges of the inferior ministers, and emulated, in their conduct and in their manner of living, the arrogance, voluptuousness, and luxury of magistrates and princes. This pernicious example was soon followed by the several ecclesiastical orders. The presbyters,

VOL. XII.-FOURTH SERIES.

in many places, assumed an equality with the bishops in point of rank and authority. We find also many complaints made of the vanity and effeminacy of the deacons. An enormous train of superstitions were gradually substituted for genuine piety. Frequent pilgrimages were undertaken to Palestine and to the tombs of martyrs. Absurd notions and idle ceremonies multiplied every day; dust and earth brought from Palestine were sold and bought everywhere at enormous prices, as the most powerful remedies against the violence of wicked spirits. Pagan processions were adopted into Christian worship, and the virtues which had formerly been ascribed by the heathen to their temples, their lustrations, and the statues of their gods, were now attributed by the baptized to their churches, their holy water, and the images of saints. Rumours were spread abroad of prodigies and miracles; robbers were converted into martyrs: many of the monks dealt in fictitious relics, and ludicrous combats with evil spirits were exhibited. A whole volume would be requisite to contain an enumeration of the various frauds which artful knaves practised with success to delude the ignorant, when true religion was almost superseded by horrid superstition.' The number of immoral and unworthy persons bearing the Christian name began so to increase that examples of real piety became extremely rare. When the terrors of persecution were dispelled,-when the churches enjoyed the sweets of prosperity, when most of the bishops exhibited to their flocks the contagious examples of arrogance, luxury, effeminacy, hatred, and strife, with other vices too numerous to mention,-when the inferior clergy fell into sloth and vain wranglings, and when multitudes were drawn into the profession of Christianity, not by the power of argument, but by the prospect of gain and the fear of punishment,-then it was, indeed, no wonder that the churches were contaminated with shoals of profligates, and that the virtuous few were overwhelmed with the numbers of the wicked and licentious. The age was sinking daily from one degree of corruption to another; and the churches were thus prepared for that fatal heresy which, at one time, seemed to threaten the extermination of evangelical doctrine throughout Christendom.

evangelical doctrine; and the whole world groaned and wondered, says St. Jerome, to find itself Arian. The tyranny of Theodosius restored the orthodoxy of the churches, but could not revive their piety; and from that time, in union with the state, they continued to be so corrupt, that at length the profligacy, covetousness, fraud, and arrogance of the clergy generally, from the pope to the obscurest monk, so revolted the conscience and the common

sense of Europe, that in the sixteenth century it burst from this oppressive and degrading yoke." pp. 34-43.

Though Mr. Noel has evidently desired to confine himself to his avowed

subject, The Union of Church and State, yet, in discussing the principles of that union, he has occasionally made observations which afford some insight into his sentiments on kindred topics. It appears to us, that he perceives the unscriptural character of diocesan episcopacy, and that he also sees that the baptism of infants accords more fully with the system which he is abandoning than with the genius of New Testament Christianity. Without expressing himself positively against the baptism of all children, he indicates hesitation respecting the propriety of baptizing any, while he condemns pointedly the general practice of pædobaptists. Thus he says,―

"Since the law of God requires that the churches have godly pastors, that no one be baptized without a credible profession of repentance and faith, that the gospel be preached to every creature, that all Christians should act as brethren, and that Christ should be supreme in his own house,-if the state ordain that parishes should receive ungodly pastors, prohibit Christ's ministers from preaching the gospel in parishes wherein the ministers are ungodly, compel by legal penalties parochial ministers to admit improper persons to the sacraments, and demand for the crown a supremacy which is inconsistent with the supremacy of Christ, then the churches must render to God the things which are God's, and refuse obedience to the state. To avoid which collision, the churches should be separate from the state; and, while paying to it all secular obedience, should be free to accomplish, without its control, the whole law of Christ." p. 144.

And again :

The churches being thus appointed by Christ to exercise self-government, which is essential to their fidelity, purity, and vigour, have received also divine instructions respecting the discipline which they are to exercise. Here let us notice only two main points, the admission and the exclusion of members. Respecting the first, they are instructed by our Lord and his apostles, to admit no one into churchfellowship by baptism except upon a credible profession of repentance and faith.

"It is, therefore, the will of Christ that none but believers shall be baptized, that the churches may be associations of saints and faithful brethren.' tized, they must be the infants of saints and And if any infants are to be bapfaithful brethren who heartily dedicate them to God through Christ, and will train them up for him." p. 190.

The "IP" in the preceding paragraph is expressive; and we are inclined to think that it is inserted rather for the sake of others than as indicative of his own views; for our author says again,—

"A church ought to be an association of saints and faithful brethren, and all admitted into the association ought to afford, by their conduct and profession, reason to hope that they are so too. None, therefore, are to be baptized but those who profess to repent and believe in Christ. Such is Christ's order; but the church has received another order, by canon 68, which is as follows:- No minister shall refuse or delay to christen any child that is brought to the church to him on Sundays or holydays to be christened; .and if he shall refuse to christen, he shall be suspended by the bishop of the diocese from his ministry by the space of three months.' This canon, passed by a synod of dignitaries and proctors, would not bind the pastors of churches unless it had been confirmed by the crown; but the assent of the crown has made it law, and it has thus changed the church from an assembly of saints and faithful brethren' into a congeries of the whole population of each district. Swarming myriads from Marylebone, St. Pancras, Shoreditch, and St. Luke's, bring their myriads of children to be christened without the remotest idea of dedicating them to God, or of training them for God. These become members of the church, till the church becomes not merely the world, but comprises the most disreputable part of the world; its members living without worship, without the bible, with