THE CHURCH-AND WHAT IT IS.

(Continued from page 299.)

CONSTANTINE at the commencement of his reign, A.D. 306, ruled over only the most western parts of the Roman empire, but he gradually conquered his rivals, till, A.D. 325, he became sole master of the Roman empire both in the East and the West, and built a new city as the capital of his empire, called after him, Constantinople. He is usually called Constantine the Great, but like all others to whom this epithet has been given, he could not claim that of the good; his greatness is rather the consequence of his temporal success and prosperity, arrived at through much oppression, injustice, and bloodshed. Had he not been successful in his ambition he would rather have been called a tyrant. However, it is not our province to enter into a detailed account of the life of this Emperor, but, as the State patronage of the outward Church commenced with him, we must make some reference to his deeds, for by this connexion of (what is usually called) Church and State, the real Church of Christ has been materially affected, both for good and evil, but much more for the latter than for the former. Constantine seems to have imbibed his father's views of religion, which were a rejection of Polytheism, and a toleration of the Christians, without, however, a reception of their views; he seems to have been, in modern language, a Deist (i.e.) acknowledging one God, but not receiving the Bible. In the year A.D. 312, he contended with his rival Maxentius, for the possession of Italy. Maxentius was a great persecutor of the Christians, but Constantine their professed friend, and this much influenced the contest.

During his march into Italy, Constantine asserted that he had a dream, in which he was admonished to take the cross for his banner. Towards the end of his life he gave unto Eusebius, the Bishop of Casarea, a further account-viz., that a luminous cross appeared in the heavens, in the sight of his whole army, with this inscription, “In hoc vince," (i.e.) "By this conquer." Eusebius states that Constantine swore to the truth of this account, but he does not tell us that he heard it from any other source, and had it been seen by the whole army there would have been so many witnesses that would have seen it, that it would not have needed Constantine's oath to have confirmed it; I therefore consider it to be a fiction of Constantine's brain. His dream seems to be most probably true, but it does not therefore necessarily

follow that it was from God. When we call to mind the superstition and base idolatry connected in after ages with the sign of the cross, and the infamous lies and cheats of which Helena the mother of Constantine was guilty of, in pretending to discover at Jerusalem the true cross on which our Saviour suffered, as also, the nails that fastened him to it; it does not seem at all probable that this dream would be from God; it would, however, be much more probable that the whole was a device of the devil.

Persecution had completely failed in utterly destroying the followers of Christ, and the devil seems to have changed his tactics and by a flood of prosperity to attempt to accomplish that which adversity had failed to do. Constantine never seems to have known anything of true and vital godliness, even after this pretended vision and dream, he did not at once profess himself a Christian, and even after he had so professed himself, and presided at councils of Bishops, he deferred his baptism until signs of death drew nigh, and then he was baptized by his favourite, Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had strongly imbibed the Arian views (i.e.) he denied the essential Divinity of our Lord and Saviour. Constantine's moral life will not stand investigation, and there seems every reason to suppose that his reception of Christianity was merely on political grounds. After conquering Maxentius in Italy, he jointly with Licinius, published the famous edict of Milan, by which full toleration was given to persons of all religions, whether Heathen or Christian, but to this perfect toleration Constantine did not long adhere, as he very soon persecuted many of those called heretics, as also the Pagans. From this important document published A.D. 313:—

"Having long since perceived that liberty of religion ought not to be withheld, but that every one who hath a mind and will of his own on the subject should have the privilege of acting therein according to his own predilection; we have given orders, that all men, Christians in particular, should be permitted to retain the creed of their respective religious persuasions. But, soon after the decree, granting the said permission was published, with the names of many different sects clearly specified therein, it so happened (accidentally perhaps) that some of the parties alluded to drew back from their previous profession. When therefore, by good fortune, we, Constantine and Licinius, emperors, had come to Milan, and had taken into consideration all matters which bore on the prosperity and comfort of the community; among other matters which promised to be in many ways important to all, or rather first and foremost of all, we resolved to settle those which involved the reverence and worship of the Deity (i.e.) that we would grant both to the Christians and all others a free choice to follow whatever religion they please, that so the Deity or Heavenly Being (whatever it is) may be propitious, both to ourselves and all our subjects. These things, I repeat, we resolved fully to intimate to your prudence, in order that you may be aware that we have thus granted to the

Christians a free and absolute liberty of exercising their religion; and this liberty (as your excellency observes) is absolutely granted by us, not only to them, but all others also who wish for it, have the privilege allowed them of following their own religious profession; and it is evidently conducive to the quietness of this our time, that every one should have this privilege of choosing and exercising whatever religion he pleases; and we have ordered it so, that we might not seem in the least to disparage any mode of religious worship whatever."

By this edict, also the buildings and other property belonging to the different Christian societies were ordered to be restored.

Licinius after this revived in the Eastern part of the empire the persecutions against the Christians with great bitterness, this led to a war with Constantine, in which Licinius lost his life (A.D. 324) and thus Constantine became sole emperor. From this time Constantine not merely tolerated, but became professedly their warm advocate and friend; he built Churches and endowed them, and by one of his edicts in favour of the Christians, he made the Church to be heir to those martyrs who died without relations. His mother Helena, was also most active in building churches and hunting after pretended relics, and this gave rise to the greatest superstition. Constantine in taking Christianity under his patronage, did not, I conceive, at first form any settled plan how far the State was to interfere in the government, &c. of the Church; political motives seem mainly to have influenced him. Observing as he must have done, the great influence that Bishops and Ministers in general exercise over their flocks, he sought to enlarge this influence, or rather to make it conform to the gradations and subordinations of the civil government, he therefore established metropolitans and patriarchs, and occasionally moved Bishops from one see to another; the lordly supremacy that had been making such rapid strides for some time past amongst the professed ministers of Christ, caused an easy admission to be given to these fresh innovations. Ministers who cared more for the fleece than the flock were but too ready to seek the patronage of the State, and so to seek the honour that cometh from man and not from God. The result has clearly shown that the devil gained more by what is called the establishment of Christianity than he did by his persecutions against it.

At first Constantine seems to have confined his interference to the settling of disputes and the calling of Councils, leaving the internal government of the Church to the Church itself; but circumstances continually arose in which it became doubtful whether the cause was civil or ecclesiastical; this led, especially in after ages, to a constant antagonism between the two parts of Church and State, and the results have varied in different countries.

It would seem here necessary to say a few words with reference to establishments in general; no doubt there are many evils connected with them, and it is not very difficult to mark out their glaring defects. However, except with persons of most extreme opinions, it seems to

me, more a matter of degree and extent, rather than whether there should be an Establishment or not. Let us suppose a case. A ruler of a kingdom becomes decidedly a converted character; we grant such cases are very rare, but still they are not impossible or improbable. As a child of God, he seeks to live according to the word of God, and the Holy Scriptures become his delight, and his councillers (Ps. cxix. 23). Is such an one justified in taking the Bible as his guide in his family and private life, and yet to throw it aside when he enters on the duties of government and public life? Is it not said, "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people?" It would seem then to be inconsistent for those professing to be Christian rulers, publicly to tolerate or allow that which the word of God plainly forbids; for instance, idolatry. On the other hand, when it is remembered that religion is a personal thing, and that in this respect to our own master, we stand or fall, I think that professedly Christian rulers have no business to interfere with a man's private opinions, nor to force him in the slightest degree, to comply with doctrines or views that his mind, understanding, and heart, do not acquiesce in. For instance, I would not interfere with any man setting up an image of Baal in his own house or chapel, and worshipping it there; but should he attempt to set it up in any public or prominent place, so as to offend the eyes or ears of others who abominate such idols, I would most decidedly have him stopped by the rulers.

Again, the observance of the Lord's day as a day of rest, seems clearly to be gathered from the Scriptures, to have been the practice of the early Church, and for many reasons it seems to be most desirable, and the Christian ruler is perfectly justified in so far insisting on the observance of it, by those who do not allow its obligation, that such shall not unnecessarily annoy those who desire its observation. The true Christian believes it to be the especial (though not the only) day on which the Lord is pleased by the foolishness of preaching, to gather out and feed his sheep, and therefore he especially desires its observance ; "This is the day the Lord hath made, we will rejoice and be glad in it" (Ps. cxviii). Most of those Christians who are opposed to our Church Establishment, are advocates for the observance of the Lord's day; and therefore, so far, they allow the interference of State in matters of religion, but the Jew, Turk, Heathen, and Infidel, would call it an interference. I think also, that in a few other instances it might be shown that it is the duty of the State to interfere, but I readily admit that in many, yea, in very many instances, the State has interfered, and does still interfere, where it never ought to have done.

I have heard it argued, that a government ought to rule, not in the principles of the Bible, but on those of social humanity; this sounds very well, but I would ask where are we to find the principles of social humanity? Is it not a fact, that in this land where the Bible is more circulated than any other, we enjoy more liberty than any other land? Are we then to discard the Bible, the only source of truth, and take a

chaotic mass of unknown principles? we have indeed cause to say, From all such views, good Lord, deliver us.

The subject of endowment does not seem to me necessarily to be connected with an Establishment, for on the one hand, many churches not connected with the State have an endowment, and on the other, were all the endowments belonging to the Church of England to be taken away without any other alterations being made, the Church of England would still remain the Established Church of the country.

Endowments whether within or without the pale of the Established Church, are stipends left by different individuals for the support of a succession of ministers in any particular place; and in many respects I cannot but view such endowments as contrary to the principles and constitution of a Christian Church, as set forth in God's Word. One thing is quite certain, that they have utterly and woefully failed in attaining that for which they were given-viz., the perpetuating the Gospel in any particular place. Witness the Countess of Huntingdon's chapels, for were she now on earth, she would utterly discountenance and discard, most of the ministers who have got possession of the chapels she founded. The gold has indeed become dim.

The great evil of endowments is the inducing persons, for filthy lucre's sake, to take upon themselves the office of the ministry, whether Churchmen or Dissenters, and thus to live unto God, whilst they profess to be inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon themselves this office. One of the greatest evils connected with endowment which has also been ingrafted upon our Missionary Societies is this; a certain number of places must be supplied with ministers; ministers we must have; if we cannot get good ones we must put up with bad ones (i.e.) in plain words, if God is not pleased to raise the sufficient supply of labourers, we will go to the Devil and take those he sends; and the practical results seem very much to be the same as in the times of Elijah the prophet, and in his days there were 850 false prophets to one true prophet. The above remarks apply equally to Dissenters as to Churchmen. It was remarked by one of the best of our Bishops at one of the last May meetings, that what we wanted was not money, but right-minded men, and that such he could not find. When the Lord

hath a work to accomplish in any place he will raise up the right men to do it, and make a way for them in his Providence, and having separated them to a work to which he has called them, he will say unto them as he did to Paul, "Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace, for I am with thee, and no man shall set upon thee to hurt thee, for I have much people in this city." Some may perhaps ask the writer, how it is with such views he remains in the Establishment? his reply is simply this, he sees many practical evils without an Establishment, and therefore, although he sees many evils connected with our present Establishment, yet he protests against the excesses, and would cheerfully hail a reformation of them. The Lord has placed and blessed him where he is, and he desires not to move until the way is made