on the example of the Jewish church-of all precedents the worst adapted, and of all arguments, when examined, the weakest. This strange example would, indeed, appear to possess the singular anomaly of drawing its illustrations from actual discrepancies; and of being selected for points of comparison and agreement which did not hold good, rather than for those which did. The Jewish church possessed that which alone can make a religion national, and disobedience to its laws a crime—infallibility. To pretend to this attribute where it has no existence, is impious; and to impose a form of religion on a people without it, is equally tyrannical and absurd. But let us just see how this boasted parallel stands :

The Jewish church (as one with the state) was a theocracy, with a present Deity for its head; who was not only its special lawgiver, but its daily adminis

trator.

The Jewish church, in all its ordinances, ritual, offices and ceremonies, was specially and minutely constituted by God himself.

The Jewish church, if in doubt or error, could not, otherwise than wilfully remain long in either; having the privilege of consulting God himself by Urim and Thummim, and by the mouths of the prophets.

The Jewish church had a specially appointed priesthood; who offered sacrifices for the sins of the people.

Under the Jewish economy, there was no such thing as human legislation, either in church or state: the entire code of both civil and ecclesiastical polity, being minutely arranged and fixed by God himself.

In the Jewish church, neither judges, kings, nor priests, were either legislators or interpretors; every thing being prescribed for them: their office was thus that of executors only, without authority to add, rescind, alter, comment, or abridge, in any case whatsoever.

The church of England is incorporated with an earthly monarchy, with a fallible prince for its acknowledged head.

The church of England holds its ordinances, ritual, offices, and ceremonies, on the appointment of kings, queens, and parliaments.

No national church being now in possession of this privilege, no such church can give any security that it is not founded in error, or that it may not fall into it; and so impose error rather than truth on its members.

No national Christian church, either has, or can have, a priesthood in the proper sense of the term: Christ himself being the only priest of his church; who is perpetually employed in presenting the one great sacrifice before the throne for the sins of his people.

Modern national churches, like modern states, in their entire constitution—in all their laws, orders, forms, and institutes, are purely the creation of human legislation.

In modern national churches, kings and parliaments have taken upon them to add, alter, annul, to modify and model, to make and unmake at pleasure; and what havoc they have made with the church let history tell while the hierarchy, bound to the chariot-wheels of the state, have, in their respective countries and ages, ranged through every shade of interpretation-Popery, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism, and Anglican Protestantism.

If the Jewish church had been designed for our imitation, surely it would have been permitted to us, or at least left possible for us, to imitate it; but this is now impossible. At any rate, its prominent features would have been such that they might have been retraced; but they are obliterated. Its essential helps and resources, would, in some mode, have been preserved; but these have all been taken away. Or, if it had been the design of the head of the church, that the model of the Jewish church, should, in any modification, or to any assigned extent, be taken as that of the Christian one, is it conceivable, that in a matter on which, as Mr. M'Neile asserts, such important results have hung, and are still pending, no directions should be given, not so much as an intimation; nothing even conditional or hypothetical: that while in almost every other case, personal, or relative, in which the Christian can be concerned, minute instructions are given; in this one of primary moment, a perfect silence should be maintained by every writer in the New Testament? The supposition is not only incredible, but implies nothing less than a daring accusation of culpable omission or oversight on the part of those writers.

But, however impracticable the imitation may be in every thing which rendered the original distinguished and effective, Mr. M'Neile has found out what he considers a parallel case to justify imitation notwithstanding. The analogy between the Jewish kings and our Saviour,* as both furnishing examples of what can be imitated only in part-the office of the one, and the obedience of the other-is, like some other of the lecturer's analogies, specious in sound, but faulty in substance. Jesus Christ, Mr. M'Neile asserts, has left us an example of obedience, which, although we cannot imitate perfectly, we are bound to imitate as far as we can. So, likewise, the Jewish kings furnish us with a pattern of the kingly office, which it is the duty of Christian kings to follow, although the imitation must necessarily be "defective in degree," and "essentially different in kind." Here is the analogy; and now for the discrepancies.

The perfect and sinlesss obedience of Christ, although unattainable in our present state, we are commanded to strive after.

The imitation of the obedience of Christ, however varying in degree, is, in those things enjoined on us for imitation, still and ever possible in kind.

In the imitation of the obedience of Christ, that which is not attainable, de

There is no command to Christian kings to strive after an imitation of the executive functions of the Jewish kings in whole or in part.

The kingly authority of the Jewish monarchs is divested of all legitimate imitation, inasmuch as such imitation must, even in the words of Mr. M'Neile himself, be "not only defective in degree," but "essentially different in kind."

In the imitation of the Jewish sovereignty, the loss of the things taken

*Lect. iv. p. 71.

tracts nothing from the character and away (inasmuch as the right exercise of quality of that which is.

In our endeavours to follow the obedience of Christ, a way is provided by his atoning merits, and through faith in his blood, by which sincerity is taken for perfection.

that sovereignty, in all its parts, depended on them) renders hopeless and daring all imitation of what may be supposed to remain.

In our imitation of the functions of the Jewish kings, no means are pointed out, or intimated, by which the loss of all those peculiarities and privileges which alone can render those functions either imitable or possible, are to be made good.

The parallel is thus seen to fail in such essential particulars, that we are inclined to wonder how a practised rhetorician could venture upon it.

A saving clause is generally introduced into this exposition of the duties of Christian kings, to the effect, that the religion to be established must be the true religion. But who is to be the judge of this? This, although the very marrow of the question, is almost uniformly left untouched by writers on establishments. The argument, with its dependencies, stands thus:

It is the duty of the civil magistrate to provide and establish a religion for his people.

But this religion should be the true religion.

But that is true to him which he believes to be true.

Therefore, he would do wrong not to establish that one, whatever it may be, which he so believes to be true.

This statement of the question admits of no abatement. It is true in every part, or the whole is false. But then to meet the thickening embarrassments of the case, another saving clause is introduced. It is the Christian religion alone which comes within its provisions: and then, as Hooker says "The care of religion being common unto all societies politic, such societies as do embrace the true religion have the name of the church given unto every of them for distinction from the rest; so that every body politic hath some religion, but the church that religion which is only true."* Or, as in another place, with surpassing naïveté, he observes-" If magistrates be heads of the church, they are of necessity Christians; if Christians, then is their head Christ."+

But then, the question as to what form of Christianity is the true form, is no less a difficult one than the preceding. Nor is the mode of determining this point less unsolved. The Papist, no less than the Protestant; the Socinian, no less than the Trinitarian; the Arminian, no less than the Calvinist, appeal to the same standard; and each one believes his faith to be the true one. Mohammedanism does not differ more in its creed from Socinianism, the lowest grade of nominal chris

*Book viii. Ch. i. Sect. 2.

† Ibid. Ch. iv. Sect. 7.

tianity, than this does from Popery. Nor, in simplicity of worship, and principles of church government, does Congregationalism differ less from diocesan Episcopacy, than this does from Judaism.

The difficulties of the case then, are by no means removed, scarcely even lessened, by saying that it is the Christian religion alone which comes within its rules. The arbitrary monarch, if indifferent, and the perplexed one, if conscientious, will equally be in danger of making a wrong selection, and of establishing error instead of truth.

To review the question. The Jewish government, both in church and state, was throughout that of a theocracy; betwixt which and any subordinate and less privileged form there can be no parallel. That high-priest could not err, otherwise than wilfully, either in doctrine or practice, who, besides the written law, extending to every particular both of his own office and of the people's requirements, had the living oracles of God to go to. Nor, in like manner, could that prince err, otherwise than wilfully, who possessed the same advantages of general and special direction. And if, together with his kingly office, he was made responsible for the maintenance of the appointed sacrifices and form of worship, this also was by virtue of a specific ordinance, which at the same time gave him precise instructions as to every point of duty; and, in case of doubt or emergency, he had the prophets at hand to consult; from whose mouths also, in case of lapse, he might expect admonition and correction. He had, in fact, an infallible authority to appeal to; which as long as he regarded, he was himself virtually infallible—an advantage not possessed then, or since, by any other monarch, or by any other ruler either in church or state. It is incumbent, then, on any prince or hierarchy assuming the same powers as the Jewish, and claiming also to establish a church on the same model of mixed kingly and priestly government, to show their possession of the same rights and privileges, by the same specific and prescriptive authority: without which their oracles must be fallible, and their pretensions vain and presumptuous. This most especially relates to the assumption of ecclesiastical supremacy by the civil magistrate. What supernatural power is now given to kings to discern the will of God in their church headship, or what is, or is not true religion? What is there now to preserve them from establishing a false one?. The mad attempt to act, without this supernatural power, just as they did who possessed it, has produced more ill-will, animosity, confusion, and intestine strife, in so-called Christian states, than all other causes put together. But experience brings no lesson here. The office is still to be personated, though the credentials are wanting; and despite the historical fact of successive sovereigns imposing different creeds on the same people; and despite the astounding inconsistency existing under our own eyes, of a Protestant sovereign establishing Popery in one part of his dominions, Episcopal Protestantism in another, and Presbyterianism in a

third-we are still to be told, that our consciences are, or ought to be if they are not, at the disposal of the chief magistrate; whose duty it is to establish a religion of which he is to be the ultimate and sole responsible judge.

Nothing can sanction the national establishment of a particular form of religion, but the certainty of its being unquestionably right and true in all its parts—of its being, in fact, the true religion and nothing else. But as all establishments, however dissimilar or contradictory, are pronounced by their adherents to be the true religion, it is obvious, that the only course left to an impartial inquirer is to ascertain which of them, or whether any of them, is indeed that which it professes to be, and (which is neither more nor less than the fundamental principle of dissent) to bring their respective claims and pretensions, their doctrines and their practice, to the touchstone of Scripture. Popery has been tried by this test, and found wanting. Anglican Episcopacy has also been tried by this test, and in the opinion of a very large proportion of the protestant world, has also been found wanting. Not to the same degree it will readily be granted: but the question of error, as opposed to truth in religion, is not one of degree. All such error is dangerous, and all tampering with it is sin; and the conscientious man, who sees no other alternative but that of sanctioning it by his compliance, or of withdrawing from the society which inculcates it, will not long hesitate which he is to do. The English Episcopalian, commonly but little read in ecclesiastical history or the arguments of dissenters, and accustomed to hear his church eulogized as the only true protestant church, and the only church having apostolic credentials, is startled, and perhaps angered, at being told, that in the judgment of multitudes of intelligent protestants, this church retains, yet unreformed, many of the corruptions and abuses of the church from which she descended; and on account of which, if the fiery trial were to be renewed, many would be found who would think it as incumbent on them to go to the stake, as the Marian martyrs did to seal their testimony against transubstantiation and image worship.

Nothing, then, can justify the setting up a particular form of religion as a national form, and calling upon all the subjects of that nation to unite in it and to support it, but the possession of infallibility on the part of those who take upon themselves to act. In any other case, the imperfection of human judgment, and the corruptions of the human heart, will render the escape of such establishment from a free infusion of errors and abuses a thing next to impossible.

The dissenter, then, who objects to the principle of national religious establishments on these grounds, is entitled to some better answer than the senseless clamour about the true church, and the sin of schism: and, in separating from the church of England on account of its existing errors and unreformed abuses, he does no more than the whole