all," ver. 20. This payment of tithes is clearly stated as having taken place in connexion with what the latter had done as a priest; so that under the patriarchal religion we have an undoubted instance of the union of the civil and ecclesiastical powers in the same person who as priest received tithes from the patriarch for his support.

But will not the full and fair inference be the propriety of uniting the civil and ecclesiastical functions in the persons of Christian kings? Now, supposing it does go to prove that such an union may take place without a breach of propriety, this is quite immaterial to the argument, which rests upon the fact of the regal and sacerdotal offices being combined in Melchisedek. It is recorded without the slightest intimation of blame; and the apostle founds upon it an argument for the pre-eminence of the priesthood of Christ over that of Aaron and his son, Heb. vii. Is it possible that such an argument could have been used, and that Christ would be declared "a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek,”" if it had been wrong in Melchisedek as a king to interfere in matters of religion? We may surely then infer, that it is right in the magistrate to take care of the things pertaining to religion.

2. Abraham "must have been a man of no trifling possessions, who had three hundred and eighteen servants born among his property

whom he could entrust with arms, Gen. xiv. 14; it implies that he had many not born in his house, but bought with money; some also, doubtless, were old; some were women and some children; these together make a considerable tribe. In fact, Abraham appears to correspond exactly to a modern Emir; to possess many of the rights of sovereignty in no small degree, and to be little other than an independent prince 1." But this prince exerted his authority in respect to the moral and religious conduct of his dependents, which is assigned by the Almighty as the cause for selecting him to be the vehicle of blessings to mankind. "Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. FOR I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord," Gen. xviii. 18, 19; comp. ch. xvii. 26, 27. Here then is an example of interference in matters of religion by the ruler of a considerable body of people; and that too, in the patriarchal age, which could not be affected by the Jewish peculiarity; an example set by the father of all who believe, both Jews and Gentiles, and approved by the Almighty, who states it as the reason for blessing him. If this does not, it is

1 Calmet, Dict. in voc. Abraham.

difficult to say what can form a Divine sanction of the principle of a national Establishment.

Again, the Almighty declares that Abraham "will command his children and his household after him;" which means, as Dr. Gill expounds them, that he will command "not his own children only, but his servants also, all in his family; lay his injunctions on them, use his authority with them, give them all needful instructions, and take such methods with them, as would tend to propagate and preserve the true religion after his death." What plan he chose to accomplish this purpose is not stated, but it would have been consistent with that purpose, and therefore lawful, if he had provided them with regular and competent teachers. His descendants, however, were imbued with the same spirit, and acted in the same way; for we find Isaac charging his son not to take a wife of the idolatrous daughters of Canaan, and Jacob ordering his household to put away the strange gods from among them, and to accompany him to Bethel for the purpose of erecting an altar unto the true God, Gen. xxviii. 1; xxxv. 2, 3. Noah also offered sacrifice, and was a preacher of righteousness; and Job declares idolatry to be "an iniquity to be punished by the Judge,” xxxi. 28. I do not dwell on these cases because of the difficulty of shewing the Divine approval of them, which is necessary to the validity of

the argument; but Melchisedek and Abraham are indisputable instances in the patriarchal age of rulers using their authority in support of religion, and that, too, with the Divine approbation 1.

3. A national religion was established among the Jews; with them Church and State were incorporated, formed one system of polity, and this by the especial appointment of the Almighty; hence a civil establishment of religion is not morally wrong. God cannot be the author of sin, nor can he expressly appoint what in itself is evil. If an Established Church were a thing absolutely unlawful, or in its own nature inconsistent with spiritual religion, he would not have instituted such a precedent. To assert the contrary would be to impeach the Divine wisdom and holiness; and it is of vast importance to be assured that institutions of religion are not abstractedly a moral evil.

But are we not further warranted to infer that they are, in the judgment of God himself, the most effectual provision for securing the ends both of society and of religion? An in

1 The reasoning under this head will be stronger when the Hebrew is correctly rendered; "For I esteem him, because that he will command (give strict orders and instructions to) his children and his posterity, so that they will keep the way of the Lord." The Hebrew scholar will at once see that this is the literal translation; see Rosenmüller, Schulz, Schumann,

ידער and Cocceii Lex. ed. Schulz in ,למען Noldius in

stitute which was best calculated to uphold the spiritual welfare of the Jewish people, should seem to be equally so in a Christian nation. In a moral and religious view the cases are parallel; both, however differing in ritual and externals, having the same end in view-the worship of the one true God; and if the union of the civil and ecclesiastical powers contributed to it in the one instance, why not in the other? Outward means and agencies are as indispensable to the propagation of religious truth under the Christian as under the Mosaic dispensation; and is it not presumption to suppose that erring man can substitute any better or more effective than those which were chosen by Omniscience?

Besides, the fact of a Divine appointment implies a continuance, unless it is afterwards abolished by the same infinite Power by which it was at first ordained. The Jewish polity, in which God allied his visible Church with the civil power was from heaven; and can we be justified in rejecting a similar alliance under the Gospel, without an equally undeniable warrant from heaven? The counsels of the Most High are immutable, and without some declaration to the contrary, what he has once certainly ordained must continue to be for ever binding. But the system which he once established of an union between the State and his visible Church, he has never expressly declared should cease; of its abrogation the Scriptures afford no evi