country or elsewhere. We object to Church Establishments under every phase and form, whether Popish or Protestant; we therefore object to the English Establishment. A few of the reasons which induce us to do so we will now state.

1.-CHURCH ESTABLISHMENTS ARE UNSANCTIONED BY, AND OPPOSED TO, NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING.

We find no recognition, either directly or indirectly expressed, of the principle of Church Establishments in the Christian Scriptures. This is a fact of no slender significance. If it be the will of the Divine Founder of Christianity that His Church should be allied with the State, why has He not said so? Why is all mention of it omitted in that Book which is the only legitimate and authoritative rule of faith? How is it to be accounted for that there is no statement, no intimation, no hint contained in the New Testament, that Christ's Church should be affianced to, and brought under the control of the State? What explanation can be offered? Can we suppose that there would have been this total silence on the subject if the Church's Founder really intended that the alliance in question should take place? Would not such a supposition be supremely absurd?

The Church of Christ was constituted and organised, as every New Testament reader knows, without the intervention of the civil power. The patronage of the State was neither sought nor desired. When the Lord Jesus was called upon by Pilate to define His position in relation to existing governments, He distinctly and emphatically declared, "My kingdom is not of this world." From the fishermen of Galilee He selected His first ministers, and made them fishers of men. After His resurrection He said to the twelve, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." The heralds of salvation went forth, trusting in no arm of flesh, relying on no earthly power, but depending entirely on the Master's promised help and presence, and "preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by signs following." The results were most astonishing. "The word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed." The religion of Christ increased and spread on every hand with amazing rapidity; so much so, indeed, that in a comparatively brief space of time, the partizans of Cæsar, startled and alarmed,

made the astounding admission that the preachers of Christianity had "turned the world upside down." These extraordinary achievements were effected without any support, any sanction, any countenance whatever from earthly governments, and in spite of much opposition and persecution. Is it not evident then,-as evident as anything can be, that the alliance of Church and State receives no sanction from the teaching of Christ-no sanction from the New Testament account of the formation and constitution of the first Christian churches, the calling and ordination of the first Gospel ministers, and the spread of Christianity in its earliest days? Can anything be clearer than this? And does not this show as with a sunbeam that Christ never intended His religion to be identified with, and subjected to, the control of worldly governments?

It may be pleaded that, as all civil governments were opposed to Christianity at the period to which we have referred, it was not likely that our Lord would, under such circumstances, attempt to connect His religion with the State; but that this does not prove the union of Church and State to be in itself improper, or that Christ did not intend such union to become an accomplished fact at a future time and under more favourable conditions. This mode of reasoning, which we have repeatedly heard from advocates of Church Establishments, has certainly an air of plausibility, but that is all. It contains, in our humble judgment, no solidity and no force. All the probabilities of the case are, we contend, dead against the supposition which constitutes the gist of the argument, viz., what Christ would have done under more favourable circumstances, and what He intended should be done when a suitable opportunity occurred. There is not a sentence, not a word, ascribed to our Lord in the New Testament that can by possibility be construed as favouring such a theory. How is this? If He had intended His religion at a future period to be allied with the State, what an easy matter it would have been, and as natural as easy, for Him on some suitable occasion to have given an intimation that such was His purpose. But instead of this He did just the contrary. We have already quoted the memorable declaration made by Him before Pilate "My kingdom is not of this world." Our Lord adds, "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto Him, Art thou a king, then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I

into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."-John xviii., 36, 37. If these words do not constitute a full and decided disclaimer, on the part of the Lord Jesus, of all assumption of worldly power, and a standing proof and protest that His kingdom is entirely spiritual in its nature, and can never, at any time, be amalgamated with the world, there is no meaning in language. The subsequent conduct of Pilate evidently shows that he so understood our Lord's confession. How else, indeed, could it be understood? We must therefore be excused from attaching any weight to the before-named hypothetical argument-if argument it can in any sense be designated-of State Church defenders. The fact admitted, as assuredly it must be, that there is no recognition whatever of the principle of a Church Establishment in the New Testament, it will not, we imagine, be easy to escape from the conclusion that State churches are in direct contravention of the nature and design of the Christian religion, and opposed to the will of its Divine Founder.

But we shall probably be reminded that though there is nothing in the New Testament favourable to Church Establishments, the case stands very different with respect to the Old Testament; that we there find an example of the union of Church and State, instituted by God Himself, and, therefore, Church Establishments are not to be condemned. But why should our friends take us to the Old Testament, and to the system which existed under the Jewish economy? Are we to read the Scriptures backwards, and return to Judaism? Are the advocates of Church Establishments prepared for the consequences involved in their own argument, as applied to other matters? We grant the premises stated that there was a union of Church and State under the Jewish economy; but we deny in toto the conclusion, as applicable to the Christian dispensation. We deny that there is any proper analogy between the state of things which existed under the Jewish dispensation, in the respect named, and the Church Establishment which exists either in our own or any other country, whether Protestant or Popish. We contend that our friends of the Establishment are not entitled to argue from the one to the other. It is impossible to do this with any consistency. The Jewish system, as has frequently been observed, was a Theocracy. Under that system the Church was not merely allied to the State; it was identical with it; and Jehovah was the Lawgiver, the King, the Judge. He was the fountain of all authority. Legislation and Administration were alike

in His hands. "The laws," observes the late Dr. Wardlaw, "both of Church and State-or rather of the nation in its twofold capacity, as the Church of God and a civil community

-were all divine, all from God Himself. The judges and the kings were not legislators. The laws were in the Pentateuch -in the inspired books of Moses. If any changes were introduced, it was by immediate divine intimation. The judges and kings had no authority whatever to enact a single statute of their own, or to abridge, enlarge, or in any way alter those which had been laid down; no authority to innovate on any one article, either of the principles or the practices of the prescribed constitution." This was the order of things which obtained under the Jewish Theocracy. Is it the same in State Churches now? Where is the analogy? Echo answers, where ! Then are we not only to go back to Judaism, but to put fallible, erring men in the place of the infallible and all-wise God? Will any defender of the alliance between Church and State venture to advocate a system involving such unwarrantable presumption? Yet this must in effect be done, if there be any value in the argument drawn from the Jewish economy, as in favour of Church Establishments under the Gospel dispensation. How much wiser and better to allow that Judaism was only designed to be temporary and typical, and that it has been superseded by a dispensation of greater simplicity, spirituality, and glory, under the authority, direction, and headship of the Lord Jesus. This is the light in which the subject is presented by the writers of the New Testament.

But the Old Testament is further pressed into the service of those who advocate the union of Church and State. There are several prophetic passages adduced in favour of such union, and this is often done with as much apparent confidence as though these passages would settle the question for ever. The one that is perhaps the most frequently quoted, and on which the greatest reliance seems to be placed, is the following:-" And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers; they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord."Isa. xlix. 23. We frankly confess that we are not sufficiently acute to discover anything at all in this passage about the union of Church and State, or that has any bearing whatever on the question. If there be any such meaning in the passage, it is too deep and hidden for our powers of penetration to discover it. To us the meaning simply appears to be that

kings and queens shall become the disciples of Christ, submit to his authority and rule, and employ the influence of their high position for the advancement of His kingdom and the promotion of His glory. The passage imports not the interposition of royal power, under a State Church system, but "the subordination of royal hearts, the subjection of royal discipleship." This is its natural, obvious, unforced meaning. It contains nothing that gives a shred of support to the Church Establishment theory. Precisely the same may be said with respect to the other passages alluded to. Not one of them affords the slightest countenance to the union of Church and State.

II. CHURCH ESTABLISHMENTS SET UP A FALSE STANDARD OF RIGHT AND WRONG IN MATTERS SPIRITUAL, AND INTERFERE WITH THE PREROGATIVES WHICH BELONG TO CHRIST AS THE HEAD AND KING OF HIS CHURCH.

The kingship of Christ, in things spiritual, was the subject of prophecy long before the advent of Christianity. This, we suppose, will not be disputed. In the New Testament the same character is unequivocally given to Him, in harmony with what had been predicted. He Himself claimed it, as we have seen when before Pilate, and the pen of inspiration, wielded by an Apostle, designates Him the "Head of the Church." In His Church He is the Supreme Ruler, the source of all power and authority. "It is His to ordain laws; to raise up and qualify ministers; to govern, protect, punish, and reward." "One is your Master, even Christ." This is the uniform teaching of the New Testament. And that book never acknowledges any kingly interference in matters pertaining to the Church save that of the Lord Jesus. In State Churches it is quite otherwise. They are under another headship. The Church of England exists, as an Establishment, by Act of Parliament, and the Queen is its "Supreme Head." We beg pardon; the phraseology will be more correct if we say "Supreme Governor." When the "Act of Royal Supremacy," passed in Henry the Eighth's reign, was enacted in the time of Elizabeth, the title of "Supreme Head" was changed into that of "Supreme Governor." But still the thing itself remained the same; and so, it is perfectly clear, "good Queen Bess" understood it. She had the power, and she did not scruple about using it. She threatened to "unfrock" refractory bishops, and actually degraded an archbishop-Archbishop Grindal-because he happened to express

re