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

characters, under the common designation of Christians,then the necessity of change and accommodation cannot but be apparent and felt. But if the Church is regarded as composed of spiritual men,-men who, though in the world, are not of the world,—the same constitution of government which was adapted to its spiritual character in the days of the Apostles, will be no less suitable for it now. This leaves. us with only one question- What was the apostolic constitution of the Church? That is our only safe, our only legitimate model; and in determining it, approved example and explicit precept are of the same authority. Wherever we find the former, we in effect find the latter; unless we are prepared to admit that the Apostles either enjoined what they did not intend to be practised, or saw practised, with their approbation, what they had not enjoined.

وو

I cannot pass from this part of my subject without an observation or two on the importance of such inquiries. It has many a time, I am aware, been over-rated; and it always is over-rated, when aught that is external is either substituted for what is internal, or is contemplated in any other light than as a means to an end. But the propensity to underrate it is still more prevalent. It is the fashion of the times to make light of it; and all who bend their attention to it, or write or talk about it, are set down as mere "tithers of mint, and anise, and cummin; '-a rather unfortunate allusion, it may by the way be noticed,-inasmuch as while the Saviour says of "the weightier matters of the law," "These ought ye to have done," he immediately subjoins, even as to this contemned tithing,—" and not to leave the other undone."* But seriously; the constitution of the Church, though not an end, is a means to an end. The end is its own spiritual edification, along with the advancement of the great interests of divine truth, the glory of the divine Name, and the salvation of a guilty world. The Church was instituted for these ends, and her constitution was adapted by divine wisdom to their attainment. In all other cases we estimate * Matt. xxiii. 23.

the value of the means by the magnitude of the end. So should we here. Contempt of the end is involved in contempt of the means. We value highly a good system of civil government. But the value we attach to it is not on its own account, as a mere matter of skilful arrangement, and regular subordination, and political display; it is for the sake of the ends which government in civil society is intended to answer, which are felt by all to be of the highest temporal consequence, -the security of person, property, liberty, and life, and the promotion of general comfort, prosperity, social confidence, and happiness. We value the means, because we value the end; and we esteem that scheme of government the best, and appreciate it accordingly, which is in theory best adapted for working out these ends, and whose practical efficiency corresponds with its theoretical excellence. Why should Christians, while they are so sensible of the value of good government in the State, smile at the very mention of the order and government of the Church, as if it were a matter quite unworthy the serious regard of a devout and spiritual mind? Whatever our divine Master has reckoned it worth his while to command, it must surely be worth our while to obey: and they who are not aware of the intimate relation between the constitution of the Church and her spiritual, which is her only true prosperity, must be very ignorant of the tendencies of general principles, and must have glanced over the pages of her history with a strangely unobservant eye. These externalities, we are often told, are not religion. Granted. But are bread and water of no value, because they are not life? If they contribute to sustain life, then life is the measure of their value and in like manner, though outward institutions are not religion, yet, if they contribute to promote religion, religion becomes the measure of their value.

When I expressed my surprise at the manner in which the question of Establishments has sometimes been discussed, I did not intend to allege that no appeal was ever made, in their behalf, to the Bible. The appeal has been made; and we are now to consider with what success. It is very rarely

that we meet with attempts to press the New Testament into their service. The argument most commonly resorted to is derived from the Old, and is briefly as follows :-There was a national Establishment of religion among the Jews :—that Establishment, all believers in revelation grant, was instituted by divine authority:-in the principle of the thing, therefore, there can be nothing wrong:-and why, then, may not a Christian nation imitate the example, and give to the religion of Jesus Christ the privilege that was given to Judaism? I waive, for the present, all comment on the objectionable and mischievous phraseology of a Christian nation, and go directly to the consideration of the argument. To the question, then, Why may not the example be imitated? I would reply by observing

In the first place, because, unfortunately, such imitation is, in the nature of the thing, impossible.—It is a case that comes not within the range of the imitable. The only imitation possible must be on the part of God himself. He must repeat his own act. The Jewish constitution was a theocracy, in which Jehovah assumed to that people a special relation, a relation which he never sustained to any other portion of our race, the relation of their King,-himself conducting the administration of their government, by a system of supernatural interposition, and immediate manifestation of his presence and authority. Who but Jehovah himself can imitate this? He must select another Abraham,-make of his seed a nation,-separate that nation to himself as a peculiar people,—and, regarding the community, collectively considered, as his Church, institute for it the ordinances of an exclusive worship, as well as prescribe for it its civil constitution and laws. To talk of imitation, in a case so thoroughly peculiar, or to call that imitation, in which the very essence of the thing imitated is of necessity wanting, is the height of absurdity. It must be God's doing, not man's. The Jewish was a temporary system, instituted for special ends; and, these ends being once accomplished, it was never meant to be, and it never indeed can be,