Sixthly, but is such a separation, as is contended for, practicable, even if it were proved to be desirable? We venture to think that it is not. We see not how in any case there can be found a basis of national policy at all where there is an entire disregard of all the sanctions of religion. But the separation is rendered more difficult still wherever Christianity exists. So extensive are the obligations, so powerful the principles of the religion of Jesus, that where these are felt it will be found utterly impossible to disregard their influence even in the ordinary transactions of civil life. The ruler, if a Christian, will not feel himself at liberty to disregard the motives and the interests of religion in the discharge of his official functions, neither will the subject, either in the choice of his rulers or in his obedience to the laws. The very existence of the Christian church in a land must render it impossible to legislate and act in the same way as if it had no existence there. In short, things civil and religious are so closely interwoven in the circumstances and very constitution of man that to effect an entire separation between them may safely be pronounced chimerical, impossible if it were attempted and foolish and wicked in no ordinary degree if it were possible. It is easy to say, in opposition to the whole argument maintained on this subject, that Christ did not call in the aid of the civil power in support of His Church at the commencement, that it flourished notwithstanding, and in spite, too, of bloody persecutions during the primitive ages, and that, from the time of its alliance with the state, its purity and prosperity began to decline. The case assumed in the latter part of this statement is, as has been often shown, not matter-of-fact. The corruptions of the Christian Church, as already hinted, were in existence long before the time of Constantine, and the decline of her prosperity can be traced distinctly to other causes than the countenance extended to her by that distinguished individual. And as to Christianities having been established at first without the aid of the civil power, this circumstance would form an unanswerable objection to anyone who should maintain that religion could not exist or prosper without the aid of the civil magistrate. But this, be it remembered, is not our opinion. The question is not whether religion can exist without national support, but what is the duty of nations toward the religion and church of Christ? And, if her primitive prosperity without the countenance of the State is to be pleaded as a valid reason why the Church should always remain in the same circumstances, might we not, with equal propriety, contend that there should be no such thing as a course of preparatory education required of ministers? Nay, that it is desirable that the civil authorities in a land should not simply let religion alone, but that they should persecute it with all their might. as it was by means of unlearned men and amid fire and blood that the church in that age prospered and flourished. What the head of the church may choose to do for her protection and support in extraordinary circumstances, and in order to subserve the purpose of setting in a clearer light her spiritual independence and divine vitality, can form no rule of procedure in other circumstances. It is not for us to know the times and the seasons which the Father hath put in His own It is our duty, while we observe with devout adoration the workings of His providence, to take as our guide the dictates of His holy and infallible Word. Nor does it become us to prescribe to God the manner in which the expression of His will in any case shall be conveyed to us. The want of a direct precept can form no valid objection in the matter under consideration any more than in other cases, such as infant baptism and the Christian Sabbath, for which no direct injunction can be pleaded, and whose obligation is admitted on much the same sort of grounds as these on which the duties of nations to encourage and aid the true religion is supported. Such are some of our reasons for maintaining that it is the duty of nations, in virtue of their moral subjection to Messiah, to have respect to the interests of His Church. The grand basis of this obligation, we beg to remind our readers, is the moral supremacy of Christ over the nations. From this, as we have already seen, springs the duty of extending their countenance and support to His Church. The other arguments may be regarded as corollaries from this great principle or axiom. Indeed, both the church and the state being placed under the mediatorial dominion, being, so to speak, only different moral provinces of the same king, separate departments of one vast moral empire, it is not easy to conceive of them being so irreconcilably opposed as to be incapable of subsisting in close and friendly alliance with one another. The titles King of Saints and King of Kings imply nothing contradictory. They are inscribed on the same escutcheon, they sparkle on the same diadem, and apart from the prejudices engendered by party contentions, one should think that they can call up on being named no feeling of incongruity. Let us not then be found guilty of attempting to put asunder what God has joined together. It is impossible, in connection with the duty of nations toward the Church, not to lament that the kingdoms of the world have been so little careful to select the true religion as the object of their fostering care. The continental nations have, for the most part, extended their favor to that Church which is the mystery of iniquity, and which is emphatically anti-Christian. They have given their power to the beast. Instead of favoring the chaste spouse and bride of Christ, the kings of the earth have taken to their embrace the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, and by so doing have furnished the enemies of all alliance between church and state with a plausible, though ill-founded, objection. By our own nations it is deeply to be lamented. Civil countenance has been extensively given to the same false and pernicious system, both in the colonies and in Ireland. The Protestant establishment of England itself is, to a considerable extent, an establishment of error, being essentially prolatical and otherwise loaded with a burdensome mass of unscriptural and superstitious ceremonies. Even the Presbyterian establishment of Scotland, insofar as the creed and government of the Church were prescribed by the State at the Revolution settlement and ordained because agreeable to the wishes of the people rather than founded on the word of God, and inasmuch as a decidedly Erastian power is both claimed and exercised over the church, particularly in the appointment of her ministers, is highly objectionable. Both the church and the state, it ought ever to be borne in mind, in entering into alliance for the purpose of securing the mutual advantages which such an alliance is calculated to subserve, are bound in duty to Christ to have respect at once to the character of the ally with whom they unite, and to the nature of the alliance that is formed between them. Both of these, character and nature, are indispensable to a legitimate and useful alliance. Neither must the state on the one hand confer support on error and superstition, nor the church on the other enter into association with an immoral and anti-Christian power. And even supposing the state and the church to be both what they ought to be, care must be taken that the union formed between them be not such as involves an encroachment of the one on the prerogatives of the other. It must be such as is perfectly consistent with the spiritual independence of the Church, such as leads her in the free and unfettered enjoyment and exercise of all the privileges and immunities that belong to her by the grant of her glorious and divine head. How far this rule has been violated with regard to the existing establishments of our land, it is not our present object to inquire or to show. But it certainly becomes the friends of these institutions to consider whether much of the opposition with which they are assailed, and by which their very existence is threatened, may not arise from this source, and whether, for their stability and security, a thorough searching into every defect, an unsparing reform of every abuse, a complete purgation of every evil, may not be the course which true policy, as well as fidelity to Messiah the Prince, would seem to dictate. It is the existence of these abuses, they may rest assured, that has given weight and influence to the objections of their opponents, and we would, with all possible earnestness, counsel their speedy and complete rectification. It is certainly much to be regretted that a certain class, in their zeal against great and undeniable evils, have permitted themselves to be carried beyond this legitimate object of assault, and have assailed a glorious and scriptural principle. For this they are undoubtedly to be blamed. But it concerns those of the other class to bear in mind that the whole blame does not rest with their opponents. Not a little of it is chargeable upon themselves for countenancing and perpetuating those abuses of a good principle which have brought the very principle itself into danger and disrepute. And having called upon the one party to attend to an immediate and thorough reform, who would earnestly and respectfully entreat the other to restrict their opposition to the evils in question? They will find here ample employment for all their artillery. In this department, while they conduct their warfare like men breathing the spirit of the gospel and seeking the interest of truth, let them spare no arrows. But, O, let them beware of pointing a single shaft against the sacred principle of Christ's moral supremacy over the kingdoms of the world. Let them shrink from entertaining a sentiment or maintaining a theory which would go to pluck from the head of Immanuel the crown of the nations and to blot from his escutcheon the resplendent title King of Kings and Lord of Lords. There are those who occupy neutral ground, who are connected with neither the one party or the other, who stand aloof from existing establishments on account of what they conceive to be wrong in them. and who yet feel themselves bound to contend for the principle that nations ought to have some respect for religion. Such we would recommend to keep their ground firmly and to turn to good account the influence their peculiar position enables them to exercise. They may find it difficult to steer clear of taking a side in a controversy which is waged with much fierceness, but let them be persuaded that by doing so they must impair their usefulness. At once their duty and safety are to stand still. Not that we mean that they should stand still in idleness or unconcern, but that they should continue to occupy the ground to which they believe those who have erred on the one side and on the other must ultimately come. Let them contend earnestly for the truth of the great principle, the adoption of which, in its purity, is, they are persuaded, to bless in the end both the Church and the nations with contentment, peace, holiness, and glory, and let them hold up to the view of all the banner of Christ's crown and covenant that both civil and ecclesiastical societies may come under its protection and do homage to the King in whose name it is unfurled. By identifying themselves entirely with the one or with the other class of combatants, they must give up something for which it is important they should strive and can only subserve at the best the interests of a party. But by holding fast the position they now occupy, they may be of service to the general cause of the Redeemer. The friends of truth, the subjects of him who is king in Zion, must stand prepared to surrender the applause of man whose breath is in his nostrils, must value above everything the approbation of the Almighty, and aim at all times at being able to say in sincerity, We serve the Lord Christ. by taking a decided stand on their own proper ground, without being moved from it by the dread of singularity, and without suffering themselves to be swallowed up in the devouring vortex of party strife or of latitudinarian indifference, their very position of apparent neutrality will carry in it a distinct and palpable testimony for the truth as it is in Jesus. Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good. Wherefore, take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. Behold, I come quickly. Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. This ends the selection from Messiah the Prince by William Symington, which is part of the compilation of articles from some of the best Christian minds in history and published under the title Church and State the Biblical View by Stillwater's Revival Books and read by W. J. Mancaro. Stillwater's Revival Books offers classic Reformation, Puritan, and Covenanter and homeschooling resources free and at great, great discounts at our website, www.swrb.com. Our address is 4710-37A Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6L3T5. Ask for our complimentary discount catalog containing Calvinist materials if you do not already have it. When you go to our website, www.swrb.com, be sure to sign up for the Super Specials email offers that have tremendous discounts on even above and beyond our regular discounted prices.