FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

SERIES III.

VOL. V.	B E T H A N Y, VA., DECEMBER, 1848.	NO. XII.

      My dear Clarinda--NOT to hold you in suspense,--if, indeed, it be to you a matter of suspense,--I must distinctly state the capital error in the Magna Charta of Great Britain, so pregnant with evil to the government and the nation. But you anticipate me, and point to that article which says, "The King of England joins to the dignity of Supreme Magistrate that of Head of the Church." This being constituted HEAD OF THE CHURCH, "gives him power to convoke national and provincial Synods, who, under his approbation, establish dogmas and discipline," and also authorises him to appoint the chief ecclesiastical dignitaries. Thus the King or Queen Monarch of Great Britain is, in fact, made the visible and efficient Head of the Church of England, presumed to be the Church of Christ. He is, therefore, as much a spiritual as a civil Monarch. This assumption constitutes him a Protestant Pope--as true and real as he of Rome, though with a jurisdiction more limited in territory and in spiritual supervision. He does not, indeed, profess to be infallible; but only acts as though he was. He virtually enacts all the dogmas or doctrines, as well as discipline of the church, and creates its church dignitaries, and sometimes inflicts severe penalties on the refractory and disobedient. He appoints officers--civil, military, and ecclesiastic--and is thus aggrandized with all the honors of a spiritual and political Prince--a greater than Melchizedeck; for he was only King of Salem and Priest of the Most High God; but the Monarch of England is Prince of both Peace and War, and creator of sacerdotal dignitaries. All this, too, he may constitutionally become at the age of eighteen years. This power is granted to him and is retained to him on the ground of his being Head of the State. So that the supremacy of the Church is contingent on the supremacy of the State, and held in virtue of it by constitutionol authority. Henry VIII, rival of the Roman Pontiff, assumed this headship, and, despite of the increased light of [661] Protestantism, it is yet retained as firmly as the crown in the person of the reigning Monarch.

      This association of political and ecclesiastical supremacy in the person of a Monarch, in virtue of fleshly lineage, without regard to intellectual, moral, and religious qualification, is so far behind the progress of the age, in the esteem of saint and sinner, that no one of much reflection can think of its long continuance. Besides the enormous revenues of the Church of England, now greater than all the revenues of the Popedom of Europe, (though these in some countries, as in Spain, are double the imposts and revenues of the political government,) have become so onerous and unendurable as to excite not only hatred against the prelatic officials, but also against the civil government itself, that not merely tolerates it, but solemnly and powerfully supports and sanctions such enormities. The ecclesiastic revenue of some two Archbishops, and, till lately, of but some four and twenty Bishops, amounted to an annual tax on the industry of the subjects of the crown to more than eight millions sterling, or forty millions of dollars per annum. I call it tax because it sequesters so much of the national wealth, and therefore throws upon the people burthens intolerably grievous. This both Christian and Infidel regard as a superlatively unrighteous burthen, because they receive for it no spiritual nor temporal equivalent. The sermons and services of these Prelates and their Clergy are commonly regarded as of no salutary advantage to soul, body, or estate. The Christian portion of the community prefer to select their own Pastors and to minister to their wants; while a great majority of mere parishioners look upon the whole establishment as a solemn mockery of religion, or as a legalized system of robbery and oppression.

      Now the tendency of things under such a system is to depreciate, to undermine, and ultimately to demolish not only the ecclesiastic despotism itself, but that political despotism that supports it and incorporates it with itself. This, indeed, all history attests. Hence the Hierarchy and the present Monarchy are regarded as inseparable by a large portion of the people; and as soon as they feel themselves possessed of power, is by them doomed to one common destruction.

      But from the indications of past history, and from the usual course of things in human experience, the incongruity and glaring absurdity of making a youth of 18--a male or a female--head of the church and supreme arbiter or dictator of scriptural doctrine and Christian discipline, so as to make one opinion orthodox and another heterodox; and this institution divine, and that human, according to [662] his or her notions, or according to the dictation of some interested counsellor or ecclesiastic, is so revolting to human prudence and discretion, that we cannot imagine how such institutions can be endured by any people any longer than they have not power to repudiate them. Indeed, these old relics of less enlightened and less favored ages, are, from present indications, annually becoming more and more obnoxious to the vengeance of oppressed millions, who are asserting, and will still more loudly assert, their own rights and the wrongs of the despotism that has impoverished and degraded them.

      Queen Victoria, as a woman and a Queen, is as respectable and popular as any woman in her station could be. But as the head of the church, as creator of Bishops and Archbishops, and as supreme arbiter of Christian faith and Christian discipline, when dogmatically propounded, who could either respect or admire her? She has her Theatre, and is much better qualified, to be head of that and of the pastimes of the nobility and gentry of the island, than to be head of Christ's church. The inconsistencies and contradictions in these assumptions becoming annually more and more apparent, are, indeed, most abhorrent to a Christian's conscience and moral feeling. The head of Christ's church the patron of the fashions and amusements of the world! First at the altar, the theatre, the toilet, and the court, and first in all the pomps and pageants of the age! What an inconsistency! What an insult to the Author and Founder of the Christian Institution!

      It may, indeed, yet be a question undecided amongst the wise men and those better acquainted with the internal and suppressed spirit of the dissidents of all orders of the empire than I am, or could possibly be. Whether the growing disaffection to the English hierarchy by remonstrance through the press and the liberties of public discussion, be able to create and develope a public opinion so strong and so efficient as to abolish it without violence and a bloody revolution. If I were to judge from two indications that seem to be manifest to all spectators and auditors of passing events, I should incline to the more acceptable opinion, that it can be effected by the triumph of reason and truth, without blood and carnage. These, and the constant yielding, more or less, to popular opinion on the part of the government, and the consequent increasing boldness and courage of remonstrants and petitioners in urging their demands. The more the government yields, the more it has to yield; and the more the people gain, the more they are likely to demand. Add to this constantly growing tendency of things for almost half a century the recent revolutions and commotions of European governments, and [663] one might hope that possibly, for once in the annals of the world, a great nation might be wise to give up old encroachments and usurpations at war with the enlightened morality and policy of the age.

      But yet the history of the past furnishes not much encouragement for such an honorable movement on the part of those in power. Men part with power as they part with life. Its charms, its magic potency, what heart of man can resist? History furnishes but a few, a very few, illustrious examples of this kind; and of these not a moiety are free from ambiguity and all suspicion.

      But England is a nation sui generis, a nation of its own modelling. The freedom of Englishmen is but a shade behind our own in all that pertains to the tongue and the press. I heard but one political speech of one of the candidates of Yorkshire for a seat in Parliament. It was delivered in Huddersfield, and was as bold in its review of some critical portions of English history, and as strong against the aristocracy of the empire as any speech I have heard in America against any alleged encroachment upon the rights of the people,

      In giving his views of the extent of that reform for which he would pledge himself to his constituents, if elected, he said, in sense and meaning,----'Gentlemen, I am willing to push the question of reform to the very centre of the aristocracy of this empire. I think the time is almost come when even the titles by which our nobles hold their rich baronies, or rather baronages, should be thoroughly canvassed. They have long since ceased to pay the consideration on which this kingdom was partitioned among them by the Norman Conqueror, William, as many of you know, and all may know, who will be at the pains to examine the subject. I say, William rewarded his particular friends and distributed his realm amongst his nobles and distinguished chiefs on certain conditions. Amongst these the most essential are now and long have been unfulfilled. The Barons accepted the grants from the King on condition that they would, out of the tenantry of these estates, raise certain proportions of soldiers and be at all the expense of training, arming, clothing, and satisfying them for their services in fighting all the King's battles, and in preserving the safety and integrity of his kingdom. Such was the King's liberality, preceded indeed by an unprecedented rapacity.¹ Thus tyrannically were [664] superseded the old and venerable Barons of England and most of their prelates and dignified clergy, by a new race of Norman chiefs and Norman prelates, whose tenure was based upon the sword of William and their allegiance and support of his throne. According to the records in Doomsday Book, during his reign he had the whole kingdom surveyed and distributed amongst his nobles.

      But only a few years passed away, and one or two short reigns, till these Barons had ingenuity to legislate themselves out of their obligations to pay the consideration on which their estates were conceded them; and to roll off themselves upon the nation at large the expense of all national wars. I think, then, gentlemen, the time is almost come when this matter should be examined, and that either the Barons should pay the expenses of our wars, or give back their estates to the nation.'

      Certainly this is bold enough for America, said I to myself; and it is an English assembly of enlightened subjects, and within hearing of some of these self-same Barons, these words of a candidate, who came within some twenty or thirty votes of being elected, could be heard with acclamation, amidst cries of Hear! Hear! this people cannot complain on the ground of a restrained liberty of speech.

      Free discussion seems to me to be as much the order of the day in Britain as in the United States. Still there may be more constructive abuse of speech under that government than under this.

      But the great question is, Whether the hierarchy of England shall fall by the tongue or by the sword. Fall it must; because it cannot be sustained by argument; because it has become obnoxious to all religious dissenters; because it is hated by all, sceptics and infidels; because it is an outrage against the King of Kings; and especially because its overthrow is foretold and delineated by the pen of Inspiration.

      It was overthrown in America by all the means named, except that of a predicted end. All these means are now conspiring against it in the Old World. It, therefore, seems to me most probable that the sword must be unsheathed before this PROTESTANT MAN OF SIN shall come to his end. He is a part of the Magna Charta of Great Britain, and a change of so essential an item in that document is not to be expected but through a revolution.

      That the three estates of that empire--King, Lords, and [665] Commons--will, in full assembly met, sever the State from the Church, and demonstrate their conviction that "Christ's kingdom is not of this world," would be one of the most improbable political events that I could imagine. I do not, indeed, say, in this age of revolutions, that such an event is impossible; but I do say that it is superlatively improbable.

      These downy, pampered Bishops, Archbishops, and Primates, feasting on a quarter of a million of dollars per annum, neither will nor can die easy in any way of dying we can imagine--naturally, politically, or ecclesiastically. They are, indeed, as I believe from Daniel and John, doomed to a violent end. But we must leave the event to future developement and proceed.

      I am not far from subscribing to the following views of John Wesley, which I quote from the "Gospel Banner," on this unnatural and monstrous union of Church and State:--

      "I have long been convinced, from the whole tenor of ancient History, that this very event, Constantine's calling himself a Christian, and pouring the flood of wealth and honor on the Christian church, the clergy in particular, was productive of more evil to the church than all the ten persecutions put together. From the time, that power, riches, and honor of all kinds, were heaped upon the Christians, vice of all kind came in like a flood, both in the clergy and laity. From the time the Church and State, the kingdom of Christ and of the world, were go strangely and unnaturally blended together, Christianity and heathenism were so thoroughly incorporated with each other, that they will hardly ever be divided till Christ comes to reign on earth."

      In Scotland, Presbyterianism in one form sits near the throne; but not being fed at such a sumptuous board, does not exhibit so much of the epicure as the prelatic brotherhood of England. Still the sword temporal and the sword spiritual are both employed by the "High Kirk o' Scotland," as the case may be, and have done good service in maintaining her high and royal position. She believes that Kings and Queens may, in a spiritual sense, yet become nursing fathers and mothers to the church, and yet feed her with royal dainties. She, therefore, perseveringly prays for the speedy arrival of that glorious age. She seems not yet to have learned that this promise began to be fulfilled eighteen hundred years ago, when the Gentiles were brought into the church of Christ. Kings and Queens then and since have raised multitudes for the kingdom of the Messiah--not, indeed, intending it, but nevertheless effectually doing it.

      But leaving the Church and State position of Great Britain, I must just advert for a moment to the condition of her laboring and [666] effective classes. But this I must make the subject of another letter.----Your affectionate Father,

[The Millennial Harbinger, Third Series, 5 (December 1848): 661-667.]