the duty of the civil magistrate to take order that the church of Christ be supported throughout the commonwealth."

It would be an insult to the understanding of the reader to proceed to show that the church in these authoritative declarations from time to time asserted the duty of the nation, within whose bounds she exists, to give her the means of accomplishing the work assigned her by her Head. She laid this down as a principle in her Confession and Testimony, and those within her pale that call it in question, are recreant to truth that they have bound themselves to maintain. Let no Covenanter utter or write a sentiment at variance with a truth so clearly and strongly maintained in the standards of the church.

It is necessary, however, to show that this position is sustained by the word of God. We are not of those who believe that the church can bind the conscience in matters of either faith or practice, by her mere declarations. Unless these are founded on the Scriptures, they are without authority, and should be set aside. Let us see then what is her warrant from the law and testimony.

It will not be questioned that the entire expenditure of money in the erection of the temple was from the national treasury. David made large preparation for it in the latter part of his reign. (See 1 Chron. 22.) To this preparation he alludes, chap. 29: 2, and to show that this was official preparation, he specifies in verses 3 and 4 what he had prepared of his own proper goods, i. e. from his private resources. Now, if it is not the duty of a nation to contribute from its treasury money to promote the religious services of God, David was in this guilty of official corruption and malversation. But we may be sure that he had the approval of God in what he did. It was the crowning glory, as it was the closing act, of his administration.

The building of the temple was the great work by which the fame of Solomon was spread abroad and perpetuated. Will any one say that this was not legitimate national work? that Solomon was guilty of usurpation of the powers of his kingdom, by making this use of its treasures?

Let us see now what was done by heathen princes, for a similar object. In Ezra, 6th and 7th chapters, we find two decrees by two kings of Persia respecting the repairing of the temple at Jerusalem. We quote from chap. 6: 8, part of the edict of Darius: "Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king's goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered." Again in chap. 7:21 we find a similar edict of another ruler: "I, even I, Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily." And that this was from God appears from verse 27, "Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, who hath put such a thing as this into the king's heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem."

Scripture history has an important use, besides to give information of the facts recorded. The facts themselves are for our instruc

tion and direction. What God approved of nations doing at one time he approves of nations doing at every other time in similar circumstances. The relation of the nations to the church sanctioned by divine authority is a permanent relation, unaffected by differences of time or locality. Nations, who refuse now to aid the church as David and Solomon, and Darius and Artaxerxes aided her, are derelict of a duty that God requires of them, and are thereby filling up the cup of his wrath against them. "The nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish, yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted." Is. 60:12. Scripture predictions and promises sustain incontrovertibly the position we defend. We refer to some of these, without quoting them. Psalms 68: 29, 30, and 72: 10; Is. 49: 23, and 60: 12; Rev. 21, 24: 26. Let any one read these and similar portions of the word of God, without prejudice, and then say if he can, that a nation is not bound to contribute from its treasury to the support of the church.

But it may be said, suppose this is true; is it good policy to excite prejudices against the measure we are endeavoring to push forward, by advocating an amendment to the constitution so exceedingly unpopular? We wish to be honest, assured that in the long run it will be found that "honesty is the best policy." We are willing, like Paul, to catch with guile, but it must be honest guile. We have no objection to sugarcoat the pill to make it less distasteful, but we cannot go the length of denying that the pill is there, though that might be required to induce the patient to take it. We do not believe, moreover, that the truth on this subject, if plainly presented, would encounter the opposition apprehended. It requires no extraordinary discernment to see that every dollar expended in making men more moral and more religious will save many times that sum expended in punishing them, for crimes that grow out of the want of religious culture. The immense burden of debt lying on the nation, the result of the want of proper teaching on the subject of human rights, is a practical argument that should convince of the truth of the adage, "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure."

And it should not be overlooked, that the divine blessing, without which our efforts will fail, cannot be expected, if any part of the truth on the point in question is suppressed or concealed. The church is too dear to Christ, and her rights too sacred, to give any hope that he will countenance any measure of state reformation, that does not aim at placing her in the position which he has destined she shall occupy. The mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains and exalted above the hills." So intimately is the honor of the church connected with the glory of the Head, that any neglect of what is due to her is dishonor cast on him. It is not strange that the men of the world look with contempt on the church, when her professed friends are ashamed to advocate her heaven-derived claims for national recognition and support.

There are two objections to the position which we maintain, that require a brief notice:

First: It is objected that the endowment of the church by the state, is at variance with the scriptural plan of the support of the

ministry. 1 Cor. 9: 7-14, and other similiar places, are produced to show that it is the divinely ordained plan that ministers should be paid by those to whom they preach. We entirely agree with this application of the passage. But there are many other ways in which money is needed by the church besides paying the salaries of ministers. Houses of worship are to be built, students of theology are to be educated, and the poor are to have the gospel preached to them. The principle of remuneration for services rendered, that runs through the above cited passage, cannot be brought into application in these cases. And in regard to salaries, after the minister has received his share out of the state treasury, there will still be an opportunity for exercising the virtue of private beneficence.

Again it is objected: that it would supersede institutions in the church appointed for this very object. Now we agree that the church is furnished with all the appliances needed to accomplish the end of a spiritual organization. She needs a treasury and officers to hold and disburse her funds. And these she has by appointment of her Head. These she will have, too, when endowed by the state. Now, however, she, from necessity, has to finance as well as to disburse a work foreign to her spiritual nature. Her members act in these matters in their civil capacity, and hence it is, that the church has not power to compel them to give as God has prospered them. The right of the church to do this is a point that has been often discussed, but is not yet settled. We believe that the church has this power; not on the ground that the voluntary mode is the divinely appointed way of supporting the church-for the very idea of voluntaryism is at variance with coercion-but on the ground that the church has a civil claim on her members to support all her schemes when the nation neglects its duty, just as she has by divine appointment on the nation itself. Let her call to account those who refuse to give as God has prospered them, and deal with them as violators of the law, not as ecclesiastical merely, but as moral and civil; just as she would call to account any of her members who had stolen or broken the Sabbath. It is time that she would let such unworthy members know that they can no more starve out their minister, or paralyze the efforts of the church to advance the cause of Christ, with impunity, by their niggardliness, than they can plunder the church's treasury.

Moreover, the objection we are considering proves too much for the objector. It would forbid the nation to support the poor, because the church has deacons to take special care of that class of persons. We presume no one will question that to make provision for the poor is the duty of the state, and when this is effectually done, that the church is relieved of this duty.

We have just received the April number of the Covenanter (Ireland), and read with interest the article on "Religious Endowment." We endorse all that is said in the article. The writer is dealing with a monstrous perversion of the doctrine that we advocate, and we trust that his well-aimed blows will aid in hastening the overthrow of the oppressive establishment in Ireland, and the withdrawal of the "basilicon doron" that has closed the eyes and sealed the lips of hundreds of Presbyterian ministers to England's shame and guilt.

UNION BETWEEN UNITED AND REFORMED PRESBYTERIANS. FROM an article in the March number of the Evangelical Repository, with the above caption, we make the following extract:

"For our own part we do not know of any reason why these two branches of the church might not be organically one, just as speedily as the negotiations can be conducted. We will be allowed to say further, that, in our judgment, the Reformed Presbyterians should take the lead in this matter. We made overtures to them on the subject of Union some years ago, and our present Testimony was prepared with the designated expectation that it would be acceptable to that church. We are certainly willing to meet them yet on any proper terms. Could not the brethren in the Reformed and United Churches in Pittsburgh and vicinity come together, and as speedily as possible make arrangements for a convention? We who are at a distance will not inquire, when we get into the convention, who originated the movement."

It is a little difficult at times to know exactly who are meant by Reformed Presbyterians-whether we, or our New Side brethren, or both. Supposing both are included in the above, we have a few remarks to make in connection with it. Before so doing, we wish to state that, except only our own, there is no branch of the church in whose success and prosperity we more rejoice, or with which we would more willingly be connected, than the United Presbyterian. We were glad to witness the consummation of the Union between the Associate and Associate Reformed Churches. In our opinion, an unnecessary breach was healed, and, in some respects, a decided advance was made. We would rejoice still more, to see another Union between all the psalmsinging churches satisfactorily consummated. Knowingly, we will do nothing to prevent it. If it be thought best that a convention as proposed above, be held in Pittsburgh or vicinity, any of our congregations will cheerfully grant the use of its house of worship.

There are, however, certain difficulties in the way of Union which, at least, should be stated. If they can be removed, and the way made clear, then "the two branches of the church" not only "might," but also should, and speedily will, "be organically one." In this article we propose, briefly, to mention some of the difficulties which at present prevent a Union between the Reformed Presbyterian, O. S., and United Presbyterian Churches. We do so the more readily, because the question is frequently asked, "why are these two churches not one?" and the answer almost invariably is, "there is no reason." The differences we mention relate exclusively to the application of principles, or to practices.

I. In regard to Civil Government. The Reformed Presbyterian Church refuses to incorporate with any government that does not acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as Prince of the kings of the earth, and whose constitution and laws are not in accordance with the word of God.

There is an opinion in some quarters that our practice and profession in this respect are at variance-that notwithstanding all our declarations, our members use the elective franchise and are not censured.

"We should do," said a member of a sister church, a few days ago, when conversing about secret societies, "as you Covenanters. Every one knows your members in the large cities vote, and no notice is taken of them." A writer in the Christian Instructor of February 8, uses this language, in reference to members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church: "There is at present a great desire on the part of a certain class, to get away from the anomalous position they have maintained toward the government, and still be consistent with their former selves." We have simply to say in regard to every insinuation of inconsistency in this respect, there is no foundation for it. In the city as well as the country, our members refuse to use the elective franchise. If any are known to violate this law of the church, they are dealt with by the session. Our object in striving to have the constitution of the United States amended, is not "to get away from our anomalous position," but to comply with the divine will, and thereby advance the best interests of this land. We are content to keep our position of dissent, striving consistently to work a change, until God in his providence shall make our efforts successful. However much we may differ among ourselves on some subjects, we are united on this. So far as known to us, there is not an exception among either the ministry or people. Any one present at the last meeting of Synod, who paid attention to what was said and done, had satisfactory evidence of this. Now our United Presbyterian brethren, while agreeing with us in theory, to a great extent, do not think, that to be consistent, it is necessary to refuse to own allegiance to a government not so constituted. Consequently, they vote and hold office. In this respect the two churches are directly opposite.

II. In regard to the Matter of Praise. The Testimonies of both churches in this respect agree. Both affirm, that the book of Psalms should be used in the worship of God, to the exclusion of all human productions.. Our Testimony expresses the belief of our members. There is entire agreement here, and no wish in any quarter for a change has been expressed. This cannot be said of the United Presbyterian Church. Its Testimony does not express the belief of all its members. Some of them have publicly argued and written in favor of a change. "Some of our brethren," says a writer in the United Presbyterian of March 24, who is opposed to the plan, "propose as a basis of Union on the subject of psalmody, a faithful version of the book of Psalms, and also versions of all the other parts of the other Scriptures appropriate for praise in worship, to the exclusion of sectarian and uninspired songs." "I believe," says an elder, in the Christian Instructor of April 11, "it would be dishonoring God more by refraining from joining in that exercise (singing in churches where human psalmody is used), than to do so when attending." "If you give us the privilege to sing these old psalms as long as we live, what more do we want," said a member of that church, a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention. "This convention has made progress," said another. All that is asked of us, is to let our brethren sing their songs, and they will let us sing our songs.' "The U. P. Church," said a third, "has adopted eighty-one new versions, so she is thus far advancing

66