*

But perhaps the most remarkable case of statechurchism, is that of Artaxerxes Longimanus. This monarch's preference for the Judaic faith was neither dubiously nor timidly exhibited. On the contrary, he exceeded all previous enactments in its favour. He completed what Cyaxares II., Cyrus, and Darius Hystaspes had only imperfectly essayed. They had aided in the reconstruction of the temple at Jerusalem; but the various edicts of Artaxerxes really contemplated no less an issue than the reconstruction of church and state among the Jews. In the first instance Ezra was appointed hattirshathat in succession to Zerubbabel, and now note the terms of his royal commission

"Artaxerxes, King of Kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time.

"I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites in my realm, which are minded of their own free-will to go up to Jerusalem,

go with thee. For as much as thou art sent of the King, and of his seven counsellors, to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God which is

* "Surnamed Longimanus, because his right hand was longer than his left. He was the son of Xerxes."-Plutarch in Artaxerx. Cf. Herod. lib III., 88-160. Themistocles was his courtier Nehemiah his cup-bearer; and Esther his queen. He was the Ahashuerus of the Book of Esther.

+ Hattirshatha-a Persian word, always with the article, -Ezra ii. 63., Nehem. vii. 65.,- -a royal deputy or governor.

in thine hand; and to carry the silver and gold which the King and his counsellors have freely offered unto the God of Israel, whose habitation is in Jerusalem-that thou mayest buy speedily with this money bullocks, rams, lambs, with their meat offerings, and their drink offerings, and offer them upon the altar of the house of your God, which is in Jerusalem. And whatsoever shall seem good to thee, and to thy brethren to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, that do after the will of your God. The vessels also that are given thee for the service of the house of thy God, those deliver thou before the God of Jerusalem. And whatsoever more shall be needful for the house of thy God, which thou shalt have occasion to bestow, bestow it out of the King's treasure-house."

"And I, even I, Artaxerxes the King, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, (west of the Euphrates) that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require

of

you, it be done speedily, and to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of wine, and to an hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much. Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven-for why should there be wrath against the realm of the King, and his sons."

"Also we certify you, that touching any of the Priests and Levites, Singers, Porters, Nethinims, or Ministers of the house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom upon them.”

"And thou Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God, and teach ye them that know them not."

"And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of thy King, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to the confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment."*

Nor was this the last instance of Persian state-church legislation. Other equally important epistolary mandates were issued by Artaxerxes subsequently to the death of the venerable "scribe,"-mandates requiring the support of Judaism by enforced taxation-the taxation, be it remembered, of Parthians, Medes, Assyrians, Armenians, and many other pagan populations. But yet, it may be asked, was such legislation just? Was it equitable? Was it right that idolaters should be taxed for the sustentation of Judaism? Right, that, in addition to the support of their own religionism, they should be compelled, coërced, into the support of an establishment, in whose privileges they had no participation; and against whose dogmas and rituals, they entertained the most settled and determined opposition? Again, it is asked, was such an arrangement equal? The anti-state-churchman would answer most emphatically in the negative. But what was the judgment of the inspired penman? Strangely different, it is true.

* Ezra vii. 10-27.

ror Ezra thus speaks of the decree of Artaxerxes :"Blessed be the Lord of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this into the King's heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem; and hath extended mercy unto me, before the King, and his counsellors, and before the King's mighty princes."* And Nehemiah, in like manner, contemplating a subsequent act of favour granted by the same imperial monarch, is recorded to have exclaimed:" and the King granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.”+

And now it remains to be shown, why pagan monarchs like Pul, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Darius the Mede, Cyrus, Darius Hystaspes, and Artaxerxes Longimanus, may interpose their royal authority in matters of religion, and not Constantine or Theodosius. It must be admitted there was nothing special in the circumstances of these rulers, with the exception, perhaps, of the illustrious Cyrus. They had not like Moses received any special authority to legislate on questions of conscience. They were under no special theocratic supervision. It remains, we repeat, to be shown, why if a succession of Assyrian and MedoPersian Kings may give practical expression to their statechurch principles and convictions, not only with impunity, but with the distinct approval of Jehovah,-it should be wrong to imitate their example upon the part of a Latin emperor, a Russian czar, a German prince, or an English king. It remains to be shown how a policy which has received the sanction of an Ezra and a Nehemiah, has come

* Ezra vii. 27-28.

Nehem. ii. 8..

66

to be metamorphosed into a political monstrosity which it has become a sacred mission" to denounce. Pray, how comes it to pass, that the virtues of one age are the vices of the next? The truths of the one, the errors of the other? What is there, we demand, in this last epoch of mundane history, which can make it so much too wise, and too enlightened to cherish with reverence institutions, which have come down to us with the sanction of a venerable and hoary antiquity?

But it may be asked, is not the evangelical system, with its stern, inornate ethics of self-sacrifice, essentially antagonistic to an ostentatious hierarchical and politicoreligious organization? In a word, is not the pure spiritualism of the New Testament repugnant to state relations? Most assuredly, not. Look at the practical sanction, which was given by Christ and his immediate followers to the constructive principle of state-churchism. He was not, in any true sense, a nonconformist. The then national church of the Jewish people, was in many respects corrupt,-comprehending, as it did, the Pharisee with his formalism, and the Sadducee with his scepticism. But yet, it is not a little remarkable, that, in the very face of these notorious facts, our Lord saw no reason for any act of ecclesiastical separatism. He created no schism. He preached no Dissent. But upon the contrary he remained during his whole earthly life attached to the Jewish communion.* In brief, our Saviour attended the public

* Luke iv. 16. κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς αὐτῷκτλ.