are:-"1. A clergy, or an order of men secluded from other professions, to attend upon the services of religion.-2. A legal provision for the maintenance of the clergy:—and, 3. The confining of that provision to the teachers of a particular sect of Christianity."* Now, we might certainly be justified in insisting that our ideas of an Establishment should be formed from the examination of such as, in different times and countries, have actually existed; in which case, we should, perhaps, find a warrant in the average of facts, for taking Warburton as our standard more than Paley. But, although the modified view taken by the latter might, in some points, be found to differ not a little from what actually presents itself in the institutions, past and present, of different countries; yet, I am quite content to assume it as correct in my present argument. We do not feel it at all necessary to the validity of our reasonings, that we should take the highest and most obnoxious view of what constitutes an Establishment, as if we harboured a secret suspicion that, under a more restricted form of the system, we could hardly stand our ground in opposing it. For, in truth, our argument is not with one Establishment or with another, but with the general principle of them all. We readily grant, that the evils of them, inherent or concomitant, are far from being equally aggravated under every form in which they exist; and, were we called upon to specify the least objectionable, we should have little hesitation in assigning the decided preference to that of our own country; we mean, of course, not England, but Scotland. But with such comparisons, we have at present no concern. Our sole object is to ascertain Bible principles, and to show that, with these principles all Establishments, from their very nature, are at variance.

Our object, I have said, is to ascertain Bible principles. I am solicitous, before proceeding another step, to impress this upon your minds. It is not that we are unwilling to argue the points in controversy on the grounds of political

* "Mor. and Pol. Phil.," book 6, chap. x.

justice and expediency, or afraid that on these grounds we might not be able to make good our positions; for we are thoroughly satisfied of the contrary:-neither is it merely because such reasonings are multiform, and have assumed so great a variety of shades and aspects, that, to take any thing like a satisfactory survey of them would far exceed the limits of a single discourse; for, though this is true, we might have got over the difficulty by giving a series of discourses instead of one:-nor is it only because such reasonings, having in them much of what is political, statistical, and secular, are less befitting the pulpit and the house of God; although this would certainly weigh not a little against their introduction here: it is simply because we consider a direct and primary appeal to the sacred oracles as our only legitimate course. Were we desirous to ascertain the consistency of any measure proposed to us with our allegiance as British subjects,-how should we proceed? Should we set about balancing considerations of abstract expediency or practical tendency, and derive our warrant to adopt and prosecute it from the result to our own minds of such reflection? Should we not rather have immediate recourse to the constitution and laws of our country, to discover, by an examination of these, whether there was any thing, in their essential principles or their special enactments, with which the proposal was at variance; and, if we found there was, abstain from acting upon it? If this would be our manifest duty as subjects of an earthly government, is the duty less obvious or less imperative upon us, as subjects of the kingdom of Christ? If he has given us a statute-book, containing the constitution and laws of his kingdom, ought not that book to be our guide-our only guide-in every matter of which it treats? What else can we have to do, but to ascertain the principles and directions which are there authoritatively laid down? There is one difference between the supposed analogous case, and the one from which we draw our inference; but it is one from which the inference derives only additional strength. In the analogous case, we should be at liberty to

speculate on the propriety of the laws themselves; we might find fault; we might propose, and endeavour to procure, their amendment, or even their repeal. But in the latter case, where the constitution and laws are divine, such liberty is out of the question. Whatever this book dictates as truth, it is ours without gainsaying to believe; whatever it enjoins as duty, implicitly to obey. I have many times been astonished at the manner in which our present subject has been discussed. Persons who on other occasions have pleaded, and pleaded ably, for an appeal on all religious topics to the one standard of faith and conduct,-"to the law and to the testimony," have, on this, confined themselves to principles of expediency, and calculations of political. economy, with hardly an allusion to the Bible, any more than if no such document were in existence. We protest against this. Having, as we profess to believe, the word of God in our hands, we hold nothing to be more preposterous in principle, or more presumptuous in practice, than having recourse to any other source of information or ground of decision. It ought to be settled in our minds, as a principle of selfevident truth, from which, in no instance, is deviation admissible, that expediency and the will of the Lord are invariably coincident; and that, how plausible soever the reasonings by which the prescriptions of human wisdom may be recommended, nothing is, or can be expedient, that is inconsistent with the intimations of that will. The maxim of the Apostle" If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise,"* has reference, as appears from the connection in which it stands, not so much to the duty of an humble and implicit submission of the understanding to divine doctrine, as to the renunciation of all self-devised means for effecting divine ends, and especially for the building up of the Church of God. O for more, amongst the professed subjects of Jesus Christ, of this lowliness of mind, this abjuration of their

own fancied and vaunted wisdom, this unhesitating acquiescence in the decisions of a wisdom divinely superior-the wisdom of Him whose "understanding is infinite!" The very first step towards the real amelioration of the Church, and the successful advancement of her interests, must be a return to original principles, the unreserved surrender of the mind to divine counsels, the relinquishment of the creature for the Creator, of man for God. There cannot be a more flagrant insult to the Most High, than the fancy that we can improve upon his plans by devices of our own. In their theoretical statement, and even in their first operation, our alterations might have the appearance of improvements; but, like the changes which, in the plenitude of our foolish wisdom, we might also at times be disposed to introduce in the administration of his providence, the promising appearance would uniformly turn out but a temporary illusion-all proving ultimately detrimental. Let us hold it as firmly as any axiom in moral science, that no divinely sanctioned principle, or rule of conduct, can ever, in its legitimate operation or observance, be productive of ultimate evil; but that then only we are in the way of safety, and honour, and true prosperity, when, like Caleb, we are "following the Lord fully."

It is not an uncommon sentiment, however, that the original constitution of the primitive Church was not designed to be permanent, but was adapted to the circumstances of its early condition, and left to be accommodated, in subsequent times, to such changes as might arise in its situation and prospects. In reply to every such allegation, we have only leisure to ask, in the first place, Has the great Head of the Church, in any part of the inspired record of his will, given us even the remotest hint of such an intention? Where is the sanction for such innovating interference ?— with whom is this sanction lodged ?—to what extent does it reach? Unless the divine permission can be pointed out, or something can be shown in the constitution of the Church which implies or necessitates it, we cannot but pronounce

every liberty of the kind a profane usurpation, an intrusion into the province of Christ himself. But neither can the permission be produced, nor any such necessity established. The idea, indeed, of the necessary accommodation of ecclesiastical institutes to varying circumstances has had its origin entirely in misconceptions of the nature of the Church of Christ. Had the meaning of our text, and of New Testament representations generally, been understood and kept in mind, the thought of such necessity could never have suggested itself. What was the state of the fact even in what Paul calls the "beginning of the gospel ?" There was, in the very times of the Apostles, a vast extent of country, throughout which organized societies of the faithful, called in the New Testament Churches, were formed; and this wide territory embraced no inconsiderable diversity of external situation and of civil polity. Was there, then, in those days any accommodation of the constitution of the kingdom of Christ to this diversity? And if there was no such thing then, is not this simple fact sufficient to show that there is no need for any such thing now? The peculiar nature of this kingdom continues the same in all ages, and in all places, and under every form of civil government. Its subjects everywhere are those who have been born again, and "chosen out of the world." Their spiritual character and their spiritual relations are altogether unaffected, in their great distinctive features, by variations, however wide, in local situation and climate, in national manners, and in the institutions and forms of political society. It follows, therefore, that the same statutes which are suitable for a part of the subjects of the kingdom, must be equally suitable for the whole, without distinction of place or time. The same laws will answer the same descriptions of character. The same ordinances will cherish the same spiritual principles and affections. The same moving and regulating powers will impel and direct the same machinery. The same cement will hold together the same materials. If, indeed, the Church is made to embrace entire civil communities, composed of the most heterogeneous