regulation; have raised funds for the support of their institutions;—all which they will continue to do. Whether they can be legally said to be establishments, or not, they are so to all intents and purposes; nor is it within the reach of parliamentary enactments to prevent it, without a violation of civil and religious rights.

Such societies or religious institutions arise by an inevitable process in Christian nations; but to some one the magistrate may give the preference, and annex to it certain temporal privileges. It is this which constitutes the civil establishment of religion; and, by consequence, his right to do it is the real principle involved in the dispute. By "right" is meant a Scriptural right, a right on Christian grounds; and by the terms "magistrate," "civil ruler," "governor," "sovereign," "prince," &c. are designated that person or persons, whoever they may be, to whom the legislative power is intrusted, and from whom all subordinate powers, authorities, offices, and appointments, are derived. And in the following discussion they are always spoken of as invested with power, as acting in their public capacity. That in their private capacity they may and ought to encourage religion, no one denies; but the controversy is, whether they are authorized to adopt any methods of civil administration for the maintenance and promulgation of Christianity in the land.

The question at issue, then, has no relation to

any particular kind of civil support. Governments may sanction different kinds of Church polity, but whichever is adopted by them for the spread of religion, and the performance of sacred offices among the subjects, it is essentially an ecclesiastical establishment. What means are or are not Scriptural belongs to a future stage of the inquiry. Our only concern at present is, whether a government is warranted by the word of God to exercise its powers in matters of religion if it is not, a legal union of any kind between Church and State cannot be lawful; if it is, then comes the inquiry as to the Scriptural mode of exercising this power. Hence the real ground of controversy, in reference to this part of the subject, is, not whether this or that establishment be more effective, not whether this or that be more Scriptural in its constitution, but whether the State, as a State, is permitted, by the word of God, to employ any means for the inculcation of the truths of Christianity: in other words, whether the civil governor has a right, on Scriptural grounds, to adopt and sanction, by the authority with which he is invested, any plan for disseminating religion among the people. This is the simple question; and if it can be satisfactorily answered in the affirmative, the principle of an ecclesiastical establishment must be conceded. Let us, then, in the first place, examine what has been advanced in opposition to it.

II. 1. Ecclesiastical establishments, it is said, are human ordinances, and as such are condemned by Christ's declaration, "In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of me," Matt. xv. 9. But our Lord is here speaking only against such traditions and commandments as "transgress the commandment of God," v. 3. and "make the commandment of God of none effect," v. 6. He does not forbid the observance of such human institutions as do not transgress the law of God; and before this text can be applied against Church establishments, it must be first shown that they are inconsistent with that law. Till then it is wholly irrelevant.

2. From our Saviour's words, "The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant," Matt. xx. 25-27, it is argued that he forbids all interference of civil governors in things of a religious nature; and that no one can have authority or jurisdiction over another in such matters is further urged from ch. xxiii. 8-11: "Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no father upon earth; for

man your

one is your

Father, which is in heaven.

Neither be ye

called masters; for one is your Master, even Christ." See Luke xxii. 25, 26 1.

Let it first be inquired how far the argument, if pushed to its legitimate conclusion, will carry us. The words of our Lord are not accompanied with any limitation to spiritual matters; the language is general, and, if understood in its general sense, it may be applied to civil governors, and so made to sanction the notion of that liberty and equality which never did and never can co-exist with social order. It may be understood as forbidding the authority of princes over their subjects, of parents over their children, of masters over their servants, which is enforced in positive terms in other parts of the New Testament. Nay, in the unrestricted sense, every kind of religious instructor must be included. If we are to "call no man father upon earth" without reservation, we must renounce the guidance of any earthly teacher; we must neither lend our minds to his instructions nor submit our wills to his admonitions, and so render null and void the whole order and appointment of spiritual pastors and masters.

Of necessity, then, some exceptions must be annexed to the universality of the language used by our Lord; as is fully admitted by the dissenters, Gill, Henry, Doddridge, as well as by

See part ii. chap. iii. § ii. 1.

C

the most eminent foreign commentators; and has ever been acknowledged in practice by nonconformists themselves. With them are ministers, deacons, committees, treasurers, trustees, secretaries, who "exercise authority over them." It may differ in extent from that of rulers over a national church; but in both it is equally an exercise of power; and if the one is forbidden by the language of our Saviour, the other must. At any rate, it must be understood with some exceptions; and therefore it must be proved that the authority of a church establishment is not one of them, before it can be justly appealed to in opposition.

In the first of the cited passages the expressions" whosoever will be great among you," and "whosoever will be chief among you," imply a species of superiority and pre-eminence of some over others in the church. His urging also his own example, who was their Lord and Master, together with the occasion which gave rise to the discourse, plainly show that his drift was, not to denounce church government, but to repress the spirit of envy and worldly ambition, and to impress upon their minds that the dignity of Christians does not arise from the possession of lordly power and authority, but from the services they render to others, even as the Son of man came not to exercise temporal dominion, but to serve others1.

1 Christian Expositor, in loc. See Campbell's note,

"Non