Christianity necessarily involves corruption, and precludes the possibility of purification.—I do not now speak of what may be contained in a book, as the articles of what is called the national creed. These may be correct and scriptural. I speak of the state and character of the Church, as composed of persons. In this respect, it is impossible that what is national should ever be pure. When we speak of a Christian nation, and when a Church, in any considerable degree, comes to be identified with the civil community, the idea of purity is out of the question.-But this is not the full amount of the evil. Its consequences are worse than itself. A most extensive and ruinous delusion comes thus to be practised upon the souls of men; that, namely, which arises from the spread and prevalence of nominal Christianity. Apart from the entire absence of scriptural authority in their support, and their contrariety to the fundamental principles of the "kingdom which is not of this world,”—this has ever appeared to my mind the grand practical mischief of religious Establishments; a mischief such as no alleged benefit can go near to counterbalance. The idea of a nation of Christians, in the sense in which the phrase is now used, is one which has no exemplar in the New Testament; and it is one which deludes and ruins souls by thousands. My firm conviction is (and I speak it, not in the heat and haste of controversial discussion, but with calm deliberation and intense regret) that national Christianity, in which is necessarily involved the admission to Christian privileges, of multitudes whose Christianity consists of nothing but the name, and their accidental residence in a Christian land,-is chargeable with a more extensive destruction of souls, than any other extraneous cause whatever, which, it is possible to specify.—When "the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch," the designation was one which marked a definite class of persons, who were separated from the world,—and distinguished by a peculiar faith and a peculiar character. They were the same as the disciples, the believers, the saints. But with us it is far otherwise. Christianity is now a

geographical term. The mass of the community, living with certain bounding lines, are Christians, merely because they are not Mahometans, not Pagans. They would resent it as an insult, were the designation refused them; while yet the application to them of some others of the primitive appellations of the followers of Jesus, would be resented as a greater insult still, or perhaps would be stared and laughed at, as a thing utterly incongruous, and, by the very force of contrast, irresistibly ludicrous,-a thing to which there was not in their minds even the remotest pretension! What thousands and tens of thousands there are, who, from courtesy to the religion of their country, sit down at the sacramental table, or kneel for the bread and wine at the Episcopal altar, who have not one correct conception of the Gospel, or one solitary feature of the spiritual character which the New Testament represents the faith of it as producing-I say again, I know not any one thing, that, in a country like ours operates with a greater "latitude of ruin" than the prevalence of nominal Christianity;-by means of which men are led away from the spirituality, and sacredness, and definite distinctiveness, of a Bible profession, and made to rest in the name without the thing, the form without the prayer, the outward observance without the inward grace. And the evil is inseparable from every national system. It is an evil which the power of custom may prevent many from duly considering; but which it is not possible that any spiritual mind can consider with light

ness.

I am aware, that, on the general subject of this evening's discussion, a wide field lies still before me,-embracing almost all the questions of political expediency and civil right. But, if I have succeeded in the attempt to discover from the Scriptures the mind of God, I feel myself authorized to say to all who would argue on such grounds.- "I am not careful to answer thee in this matter."-Political views of the question have their importance: nor am I at all disposed to under-rate it. But such views, I freely con

fess, sink in my mind into comparative insignificance, beside the great spiritual aspects of it;-its bearings on the interests of the Church, and thus on the glory of God and the salvation of men.

By the ground which I have taken, I feel myself also released from the necessity of touching on not a few points of another description. It is a question, for example, who is to determine the religion, or the particular form of the religion, to be established? Is it the majority of the community, or is it the civil magistrate himself? My plan of discourse renders it unnecessary for me to undertake the task of pointing out the difficulties of the former hypothesis, and the monstrous and all but infinite absurdities of the latter. It is a question, again, which divides the friends of Establishments themselves, whether the supposed right of the civil magistrate is general, comprehending all religions, or whether it is limited to the true religion only? Among the pious abettors of national Christianity, the latter is the more prevalent opinion,-namely, in the words of a justly esteemed ecclesiastical historian,* that "nothing can justify the magistrate in establishing a false religion: "—and if so, then neither can he be justified in establishing any false form of the true. Assuming this ground, though in my mind it seems inconsistent and untenable, yet, hypothetically assuming it, I would simply remark, that, supposing it, Christianity that is, established, and supposing the doctrinal articles of the chartered creed pure and scriptural, yet the very principle of every Establishment is at variance with the great lessons of the Bible in reference to the spiritual nature of the kingdom of Jesus. The fact itself, of an Establishment, thus embodies and teaches a falsehood, communicating a wrong impression to the minds of the entire community. If therefore, it be true, that there can be no right to establish what was false, then there can be no warrant for any Establishment at all, inasmuch as every

* Milner1

such institution involves in its very nature a testimony about the kingdom of Christ which is essentially erroneous: and the error is one of transcendant magnitude, and most pernicious operation.

On the principle I have laid down to myself, of a fearless adherence to the mind of God, as conveyed in the precepts and approved examples of his word, I rise superior to every timid and unworthy apprehension of injurious consequences.. Consequences are his, obedience ours. His will can never

be at variance with his cause. On the contrary, the closer our adherence to the one, the greater will be the prosperity of the other. This is our only safe ground. If we have departed from it, we cannot return to it too quickly. If in aught that regards the advancement of the interests of his kingdom, we have been proceeding upon wrong principles, the sooner we resume right ones the better. And so far from regarding with lightness, as some do, the subject of this night's discussion, it has long appeared to me that, after right views of the Gospel itself, correct conceptions of the nature of the Gospel Kingdom hold the next rank in importance. They are necessary to the true enjoyment of its spiritual privileges and blessings; and they are necessary to our direction in the formation and prosecution of every scheme for its advancement.

On the influence of the opposite systems, respectively, of which we have been speaking, in the maintenance and dissemination of Christianity, it is impossible to enlarge. Those who take the high ground, that an Establishment is the only effectual means of preserving religion in a country, would do well to weigh their words; lest, if they cannot make out a clear warrant for such an expedient from the divine oracles, they expose themselves to the just imputation of "charging God foolishly," as having omitted to prescribe, in the statute-book of the kingdom, the sole method of effectually securing its preservation and progress.Suppose we grant that there is no natural demand for the article of "pure and undefiled religion," or, in the words.

of one whose name I hold in affectionate veneration,* "that the appetite for religious instruction is neither so strong nor so universal as to secure an effective demand for it; -we have to observe in reply,-first, That the demand is one which will not force :-secondly, That Establishments do not properly supply the article, but only the persons that undertake to supply it; "the bounty being bestowed, not on the actual production, but on the mere promise of pro. duction, without the least security that the stipulated article shall be actually produced: "t-thirdly, That there exists in all Establishments, though in greater and less degrees, a melancholy tendency to the deterioration of the article, a tendency arising from obvious causes, which your time will not permit me to enumerate-and evinced by facts, sufficiently notorious, even in the North, but more especially in the South, on which it would be not less painful than invidious to dwell :-and, lastly, Granting that we must proceed on a system of aggression, and of carrying the truth to those who are indisposed to seek it, and pressing it on a reluctant attention; the question still remainshow is this to be done? Is there no way of doing it, and doing it efficiently, but by legal Establishments and compulsory assessments ? Who that reads his Bible-who that looks at the early history of the progress of the Gospel, can venture to say so? Is it not specially strange, that any, who are for leaving the supply of the temporal exigencies of men to the unfettered influence of the charities of the human heart, should have so little confidence to repose in the expansive liberality of Christian benevolence of love to the Redeemer, and of zeal for his glory and for the salvation of souls ?-What is there which Christianity has ever been capable of effecting by these principles, which she is not capable of effecting still? Why should we doubt it? Let the scriptural standard of these virtues be resumed.

Dr. Chalmers.

† Conder on Nonconformity, vol ii., p. 553.