^ PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 BV 631 .B76 1835 
 
 Lectures on Church 
 establishments under the 
 
 Shelf 
 
y 
 
 LECTURES 
 
 CHURCH ESTABLISHMENTS. 
 
 UNDER THE PATRONAGE 
 
 OP 
 
 THE GLASGOW 
 VOLUNTARY CHURCH SOCIETY. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE RELIEF CHAPEL, JOHN-STREET. 
 LECTURERS. 
 
 REV. W. ANDERSON. 
 DR. V^ARDLAW. REV. J. C. EWING. 
 
 DR. HEUGH. W^. JAMES BEITH 
 
 REV. D. KING. REV. A. HARVEY. 
 
 MDCCCXXXV. 
 
 GLASGOW :_JOHN REID & CO. 
 
 EDINBURGH:— JOHN WARDLAW. 
 
 DUBLIN:— JOHN ROBERTSON & CO. 
 
 LONDON :— W HITTAKER & COMPANY. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 *' OPENING OF THE CASE." — BY REV. W. ANDERSON- 
 
 LECTURES II. AND IV. 
 
 " THE SCRIPTURE ARGUMENT." — BY RALPH WARDLAW, L. D. 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 ESTABLISHMENTS UNJUST AND INJURIOUS." — BY HUGH HEUGH, D.D. 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 " EFFICIENCY OF THE VOLUNTARY PRINCIPLE." — BY REV. D. KING. 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 " ON CHURCH REFORMS." — BY REV. J. C. EWING. 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 " THE POWERS THAT BE." — BY MR. JAMES BEITH. 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 " NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY," &C BY REV. A. HARVEY. 
 
LECTURE FIRST: 
 
 UNDER THE PATRONAGE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE GLASGOW 
 VOLUNTARY CHURCH SOCIETY, 
 
 THE OPENING OF THE CASE. 
 
 DELIVERED ON THE EVENING OF FEBRUARY 27th, IN THE RELIEF CHAPEL, 
 JOHN-STREET. 
 
 By WILLIAM ANDERSON, 
 
 MINISTER or THE GOSPEL. 
 
 THIRD EDITION, ENLARGED. 
 
 MDCCCXXXV. 
 
 GLASGOW -.—JOHN REID & CO. 
 
 EDINBURGH:— JOHN WARDLAW. 
 
 DUBLIN:— JOHN ROBERTSON & CO. 
 
 LONDON :— W HITTAKER & COMPANY, 
 
Although the Series of Lectures, of which that published in the 
 following pages was the First, be patronized by the Voluntary 
 Church Society of Glasgow, yet their sanction is given in a manner 
 so general, that each Lecturer is to be understood as being almost 
 entirely alone responsible for the particular sentiments he may utter, 
 or the expressions he may employ. Besides, the present Lecture is 
 published from the press without any concurrence, in any shape, on 
 the part of the Committee. 
 
 It may be proper farther to explain, that, although the following 
 pages, the length of No. 18, are printed verbatim from the manuscript 
 from which the Lecture was publicly read, yet, afterwards, there is a 
 little diiference between what is printed and what was spoken, in con- 
 setjuenee of the Lecturer having, towards the conclusion, addressed 
 his audience, even without premeditation. 
 

 
 LECTURE. 
 
 FRIENDS AND HEARERS, 
 
 The part of the work assigned me, in 
 the projected course of Lectures, is to do little more than 
 make a statement of our objects and views, and offer such 
 explanations as seem necessary for setting our cause fairly 
 before the public. This being done, the way will be open, 
 for those who succeed me, to engage in the argumentative 
 discussion. 
 
 In the First place, then, as to our object — it is to gain 
 such a separation of Church and State, that our civil legis- 
 lators and governors shall cease, when acting in their 
 official capacity, from patronizing either one or other party 
 of professing Christians; — that they shall desist from making 
 declarations, in the name of the subjects, either of what is, 
 or what ought to be, or what ought not to be, the National 
 religion; — that they shall abrogate all existing laws which 
 make a distinction among the subjects on the ground of 
 religious opinions; — and, consequently, that they shall also 
 abrogate all laws which have for their object the perpetua- 
 tion of the endowment of what are called the National 
 Churches, with the nation's property and treasure; and that 
 they shall apply the funds thus disengaged from partial 
 services, to secular objects of universal national benefit. 
 In a word — that they shall confine their legislation and 
 government to those objects to which we are convinced the 
 ordination of God limits them, viz. the protection, regula- 
 tion, and cherishing, of our temporal interests; and cease 
 from presuming (for less than presumption we cannot ac- 
 count it when they attempt,) to help forward, by their com- 
 pulsory legislation, the spiritual ark of the Christian covenant. 
 Ne sutor ultra crepidam, we say of them ; let them keep 
 
4 
 
 to their vocation; let them be impartial, prudent, and active 
 men, at their politics; the Church of the Redeemer is 
 something much too delicate and refined for being meddled 
 with, either by their Parliamentary or Royal hands. 
 
 Such is our object, the divorce of Church and State; and 
 now, in the Second place, with regard to the means by 
 jwhich we endeavour to have our object gained — they are 
 means of peace. Our opponents employ the batton and 
 sword; the bailiff and the trooper; the fine, imprisonment, 
 and massacre in the maintenance of their usurpation; we 
 propose to bring it down by the power of truth ; by argu- 
 ments addressed to men's judgments, or if ever by appeals 
 to their passions, only to their best passions; and, even then, 
 only after we have endeavoured to enlighten their under- 
 standings. We threaten no forcible overthrow of their 
 system; we excite to no violence; we are only engaged in 
 the enterprise of such a rational influencing of the minds of 
 our legislators, and the people at large, that the abolition 
 will be effected willingly and voluntarily. As Christians, 
 we, in the name of the Church, sue for her divorce from the 
 State in the court of Scriptural argument; and, as Patriots 
 and freemen, we, in the name of the State, sue for his 
 divorce from the Church in the court of Political argument; 
 having an abhorrence of courts-martial in all their forms. 
 
 In the Third place ; The chief reasons which originally 
 induced us to enter on this work, and which continue to 
 keep alive our zeal in its prosecution, are contained in the 
 following summary, drawn up by the hand of a master, and 
 adopted as a statement of the principles of our Glasgow 
 Voluntary Church Society: — 
 
 I. " That the interference of the secular power has not 
 been appointed by Jesus Christ for the support and propa- 
 gation of Christianity. 
 
 II. " That, on the contrary, he has expressly appointed 
 other means for the accomplishment of these ends, viz. the 
 voluntary exertions, individual and combined, of the pro- 
 fessed friends of his religion, by whicii means alone, under 
 the influence of the Spirit of God, Christianity was success- 
 fully propagated in the first ages. 
 
 III. " That a departure from this simple divine appoint- 
 ment, by the substitution of legal force in its place, is in 
 itself dishonouring to the wisdom and authority of Christ, 
 and tends to produce, and has, in fact, produced, evils of 
 
great magnitude, among which the following may be enu- 
 merated: 1st, Civil governments arrogating to themselves 
 the right of judging for their subjects in matters of religion; 
 2d, Corruptions of Christian doctrine and worship receiving 
 the sanction of public law, perpetuated uuder that sanction, 
 and supported by a sinful appropriation of the national 
 resources; 3d, Opposite forms of belief and worship counte- 
 nanced and upheld by the same legislature ; 4th, The rights 
 of conscience violated, by compelling the contributions of 
 those who dissent on principle from the established sects; 
 5th, A lure held out to persons having the most opposite 
 views in religion, and not less opposite in their religious and 
 moral deportment, to unite hypocritically or inconsistently 
 in the profession of the established faith ; 6th, The subordi- 
 nating of religion to purposes of worldly policy; 7th, The 
 preventing of the progress of true religion, and the promot- 
 ing of infidelity and immorality, by this most unfavourable 
 position of the religion and Church of Christ; 8th, Ihe inflic- 
 tion of perpetual injustice on those who separate from the 
 established communion; 9th, The alienation of Christians 
 from one another by arrogant assumptions and encroach- 
 ments on the one side, and by unavoidable dissatisfaction on 
 the other; and, 10th, The weakening of civil government 
 itself, by the infusion of mischievous ecclesiastical influence, 
 by disuniting the subjects of the same empire, and by the 
 favouritism and injustice of its administration. 
 
 IV. " That the good which has been effected in Estab- 
 lished Churches by the ordinances of Christ, would have 
 been attained to an indefinitely larger amount, and with 
 incomparably less of debasing alloy, had Christianity been 
 left, as at first, to make its way by its own divine energies 
 and resources. 
 
 V. " That these evils can never be removed except by a 
 return to the original appointment of Jesus Christ, and thus 
 leaving Christianity to the voluntary support of its friends, 
 and the favour of its divine Author." 
 
 Now, my hearers, you will all allow, I presume, that, in 
 legal phrase, this libel is relevant, i. e. that the annexed 
 penalty will fall to be righteously inflicted in the judgment 
 of all honest men, if the allegations are proved to be true. 
 The leading of the proof is, as I have already explained, 
 committed to the care of those who shall succeed me, while 
 the duty devolved on me is only the opening of the case. 
 
 A 2 
 
6 
 
 Having stated, then, what is the object at which we aim, 
 what are the means which we employ for securing it, and 
 what are the reasons which make us zealous in prosecuting 
 it, I proceed to make a few observations on the general fea- 
 tures of the question. 
 
 I. I observe, in the First place, that the question is one 
 of fair and lawful discussion. This may at first sight appear 
 a trifling observation: but its importance will appear on 
 considering, that the treatment which we receive from many 
 is such, that it can proceed only from one or other, or both 
 of two assumptions — either, that the authority for the com- 
 pulsory support of the church by the state is so intuitively 
 obvious, that none but the most ignorant or wicked charac- 
 ters can call it in question; or, that since the Established 
 Church is their own church, we have no right to intermeddle 
 with its affairs, but should, if we would avoid the charge of 
 presumption, confine our attention to our own conventicles 
 and meeting-houses. 
 
 The first of these imaginations, that the propriety of the 
 compulsory system is intuitively obvious, entertained by the 
 more ignorant portion of our adversaries — some of them lords 
 and some of them ladies — we may leave to be banished out 
 of their minds by their better instructed brethren who have 
 taken an argumentative part in this controversy. These will 
 assure them, if they will honestly relate their experience, 
 that they have found the point to be not just so clear. That 
 instead of its being intuitively obvious, that William IV. as 
 king, and the Dukes of Cumberland and Wellington as lords, 
 and Mr. Peel and Mr. Goulbourn as commoners, have a 
 commission from Christ to levy money on infidels by a com- 
 pulsory tax for the support of Christian ministers, and the 
 furnishing of Christian sacraments, (I feel myself to be 
 guiltless of any improper judging of men's secret thoughts 
 when I say, that if our more enlightened opponents would 
 be candid with their weaker brethren, they would tell them, 
 that instead of having felt all this to be intuitively obvious,) 
 they have found it necessary to institute a most laborious 
 course of argument to efface the first impression, even from 
 their own minds, and liow much more from the minds of 
 their intelligent auditors, that the system is shockingly anti- 
 christian: so much so, that notwithstanding all their laboured 
 argumentation, even when they think they have demonstrated, 
 to the satisfaction of every reasonable theologian, that Cain's 
 
want of faith consisted in his not being sufficiently accurate 
 in paying his tiends, still, still the monstrous idea of an infidel 
 being taxed for the furnishing of Christian sacraments, will 
 break in on their fancied security like a ghost which has 
 been imperfectly exorcised ; so that they themselves are often 
 sick of compulsion, and would fondly demonstrate, that it is 
 all a stupid mistake, when any man supposes that the Church 
 by law established costs the nation a single farthing! At all 
 events, they will readily admit that the question is one of 
 legitimate discussion for Christian men, when investigating 
 the constitution of the Christian Church. 
 
 The other imagination of our opponents under which some 
 of them complain, is, that the Established Church being their 
 own, we have no right to interfere with it, be it ever so de- 
 fective and vicious in its principles. 
 
 We might reply, that every man who assumes the Christian 
 name comes under obligations to submit himself, to some 
 extent, to the inspection of every other Christian, in virtue 
 of the catholicity or unity of the Church of the Redeemer. 
 Accordingly, we admit the right of the members of the 
 Established Church to discuss a certain length the conduct of 
 our churches; nor are they awanting in availing themselves 
 of the privilege, wherever they think they can make it con- 
 tribute to the advantage of their own cause. In this contro- 
 versy, however, we have taken no advantage of our right 
 founded on this principle. We claim the right of exposure 
 and interference on grounds, the sufficiency of which, even* 
 the worldly part of their members may easily comprehend, 
 and on which they can plead no right of interfering with our 
 affairs. So far as these churches are Established Churches, 
 we maintain that they are as much ours as they are theirs ; 
 and instead of the presumption lying with us when we discuss 
 their demerits, that it all lies with them who would call our 
 right into question, as if these churches were theirs exclu- 
 sively. Exclusively theirs f Are they not every day called 
 national churches ? patronized by the government common 
 to us all, and endowed with wealth contributed by us all. 
 And they must be unreasonable persons indeed, if they com- 
 plain of us inquiring into the merits of institutions with which 
 the time and attention of our King and Parliament are so ex- 
 tensively engaged ; but especially on which our treasure is 
 so lavishly expended. There is more than this — much more. 
 Some of our opponents discourse with much vehemence on 
 
8 
 
 national responsibility. We also regard it as a solemn and in- 
 teresting subject, and consider ourselves in some degree 
 answerable to God for the conduct of our rulers, as being the 
 nation's servants, and particularly, for their conduct towards 
 the Church of Christ. And if we be convinced, as without 
 the least misgiving of mind we are, that any official interfer- 
 ence on their part with that Church is violatory of the divine 
 law, (not to speak of any corruptions of doctrine and discipline 
 in these churches for which, as being national institutions, we 
 are accountable,) who of the least knowledge of the operation 
 of Christian principle — who of the least portion of common 
 sense, can feel any wonder, that, under these impressions, we 
 feel highly excited in our zeal to have this national iniquity 
 abolished? And if our impressions be wrong, what is the 
 duty of our opponents ? evidently, to endeavour to argue us 
 out of our misconceptions ; v?hich just brings us round to the 
 point, that the question is one of legitimate discussion. And 
 should they say, that they have discussed the question with 
 us already, and that since we have not submitted to their 
 arguments there remains nothing for our obstinacy but to 
 endeavour to exhibit us to public detestation as the enemies of 
 the Church of Christ, they must submit to be told, that, amid all 
 the strength of their invective, the virulence of their abuse, and 
 the boldness of their assumptions, so powerless have we felt 
 any thing they have offered in the way of argument, that the 
 longer and louder they have spoken, and the more they have 
 printed, the stronger has grown our conviction of the integrity 
 of our cause. Yea, verily, our opinions were not taken up 
 so inconsiderately that we can be brought to surrender them 
 at the point of such logic as constructs arguments for the ex- 
 actions of an establishment, either on the scantiness of Cain's 
 tithes, or the abundance of Abraham's, or the persecuting 
 spirit of the Solemn League and Covenant. We must have 
 something new. We plead guilty to being troubled with a 
 most Athenian disposition in this matter. They may be 
 assured that, so far as even the appearance of argument is 
 concerned, which is calculated to move us, they have the 
 controversy yet to begin. 
 
 II. I observe in the Second place, that being so strongly con- 
 vinced as we are of the lawfulness and importance of our 
 object, no reasonable man can object to the means which we 
 employ for securing it. These means I have already stated 
 are the enlightening and persuading of the minds of the 
 
g 
 
 people and our legislators, that the abolition of the evil of 
 which we complain may be effected by a formal and deliberate 
 decree of the government of the nation. Can any thing 
 be fairer than this ? Did we use violence, — did we resort 
 to the same weapons for bringing down the compulsory 
 system with which our opponents uphold it,—, did we meet 
 force with force, — did we call upon the payers of tithes, and 
 tiends, and the annuity-tax, to resist the exaction, — or did 
 we use such mob-exciting language as that which is so 
 favourite with both reverend and lay orators on the other 
 side of the question, that they will stand by the Church of 
 Scotland, meaning thereby its national endowment, even to 
 blood and death, yea, to blood and death ! — what could 
 martyrdom do more ? — Did we pursue such a course as this, 
 we might perhaps be justly blamed. But, when the weapons 
 of our warfare are arguments, who at this hour of the day of 
 the shining of liberty shall presume to challenge our proce- 
 dure ? And should they say that our arguments are so 
 false and sophistical that they should not be employed, we 
 reply, that it is not they, but the public, who are the proper 
 judges whether this be the case or not. Before that public 
 we summon them to meet us. And if they shrink from the 
 trial, and claim a packed jury of the aristocracy and wealthy 
 of the land, under the allegation that the people are so ignorant 
 as not to be qualified for the judgment ; then we ask them, 
 Where, on their own showing, are the vaunted benefits of the 
 establishment, since it has left the people in such a state of 
 ignorance as to be incapable of deciding aright, after hearing 
 both sides of the question, on a point so very simple, — 
 whether there be either New Testament principle or political 
 justice in taxing an infidel for the furnishing of Christian 
 sacraments ? But let our opponents libel the people as they 
 may, we think differently of them ; we believe that by the 
 efforts both of the Establishment and Dissent, and under the 
 march of intellect, the popular mind has been so whetted, as 
 to be sufficiently qualified to pronounce a right sentence. 
 Besides, our civil legislators have, by the enlargement of the 
 elective franchise, declared that a considerable proportion, at 
 least, of the population, are fit forjudging on national ques- 
 tions, of which church-establishments form one. And if any 
 party are to be regarded as disqualified in the present case, 
 that party, we maintain, is the aristrocracy, who, when they 
 are in general no better qualified than even 2, Jive pound 
 
10 
 
 constituency would be in general, morally at least,* if not 
 intellectually, are, in consequence of self-interest, and violent 
 political, prejudices, placed in a much more unfavourable 
 position for giving judgment according to righteousness. But 
 we plead for the exclusion of no party. The question is a 
 national one, and we sue for a national decision. 
 
 Mark them Mere, say the opposite party : in appealing to 
 the nation, they also appeal to the infidel part of it. Well, 
 suppose we did frame a particular part of our appeal especially 
 for that class — has an infidel, I ask, no rights ? Our oppo- 
 nents know better. They are aware it would be as dangerous 
 for them to rob an infidel as a Christian. The unbeliever, 
 it is true, has no claim for a blessing on the justice of the 
 divine government, but neither has the believer. The ques- 
 tion in the present case is not about what either one or 
 other party has a right to at the hand of God ; but what, as 
 fellow-citizens, one man has a right to at the hand of another. 
 It stands declared, indeed, both in the National Covenant and 
 the Solemn League and Covenant, that the unbeliever is 
 destitute of all civil rights : but, were the rule of these instru- 
 ments applied—were the Church of Scotland faithful to her 
 own unrepealed standards, and could she prevail on the 
 magistracy to enforce them— it would go hard with not a few 
 of the most violent advocates of church-establishments. Not to 
 speak of certain Episcopalians who have signalized themselves 
 in the advocacy, there are furious infidel churchmen whom 
 the National Covenant, sworn to and executed in the spirit 
 of its framers, would give a quick compulsory conveyance 
 over the border, where the Solemn League would lay hold 
 on them, to give them a further conveyance over seas, if not 
 some punishment still more painful and ignominious. But 
 these Covenants have well-nigh played out their part, in the 
 history both of the world and the Church. They now exist 
 
 * " The corruption that is spreading through both the ex- 
 tremes of society in England, the higher and the lower, is also 
 a very dark and threatening sign." — Douglas of Cavers. 
 
 " After all, what is the higher society of England ? Accor- 
 ding to my own experience, and I have lived there in the very 
 highest, and what is called the best, no way of life can be more 
 corrupt. In England, the only homage which they pay to virtue 
 is hypocrisy. I speak, of course, of the tone of high life. The 
 middle classes may be very virtuous." — Lord Byron. 
 
11 
 
 principally as objects of antiquarian curiosity : and with the 
 exception of a very small fraction, a considerable part even 
 of which fraction would fondly reduce itself by the rule of 
 self-annihilation into the liberality of the church endowed, 
 Churchmen as well as Dissenters are agreed, that infidels 
 are possessed of civil rights, in virtue of which they may 
 lawfully interfere in every thing which is discussed and 
 decreed upon by a British Parliament. And that Church- 
 establishments are of this nature, let witness be borne by 
 the petitions for more and more money, with which our 
 opponents unceasingly knock at the door of the national 
 exchequer. Yes, let the members of the Church of Scotland 
 be told, that not only we dissenters, but those infidels against 
 whom they are bound as members of the Church of Christ to 
 raise the voice of denunciation, have both right and reason 
 in replying, — Gentlemen, you had as well moderate your 
 tone ; remember that the Church of Scotland is our church, 
 as well as yours, in so far as it is a national institution ; and 
 if it is employed for our abuse, you need not wonder, that, as 
 a free-born part of the community, we should lend all our 
 energies to have the institution abolished, with all its endow- 
 ments — as they say at Newcastle, we may do with our own 
 what we please. 
 
 Although I thus maintain, however, that, as citizens, and 
 having a common concern with infidels in defending our- 
 selves from spoliation, we would be justified in making 
 appeals to them for aid, I defy our opponents to produce a 
 single sentence from any speech made at any voluntary 
 meeting, or from any book or pamphlet any of us has pub- 
 lished, in which advantage is taken of this liberty. On the 
 contrary, I refer it to infidels themselves, if we have not 
 uniformly conducted our pleadings on principles which their 
 hearts nauseate. We have, indeed, spoken frequently, and 
 intend to speak a great deal more, of the taxing of these 
 ungodly characters for the support of Christian ordinances ; 
 but it was never in a spirit of sympathizing with infidelity, 
 but in a spirit of grief and indignation, that such foul dis- 
 honour should be done the Church of the Redeemer, that 
 her enemies could taunt her with being maintained at their 
 expense. 
 
 Nevertheless, our opponents persist in objecting — Al- 
 though you deny that you appeal to the passions of infidels, 
 yet you must allow that infidels prosecute the same object 
 
12 
 
 which you prosecute; their motives may be in some respects 
 different from yours, but still they and you are found 
 travelling in the same road ; — 'tis a most disgraceful and 
 unholy alliance. It needs not be told how frequently 
 such representations have been made, and with what power 
 our more cunning opponents have swayed them over the 
 minds of their weaker brethren and sisters, till they have 
 contrived to render us, both in character and person, objects 
 not only of detestation, but absolutely of horror. You can 
 easily conceive, my hearers, that in such circumstances it is 
 difficult to refrain from expressing ourselves in the language 
 of the strongest indignation. I am persuaded, however, that 
 to do so would serve no good purpose when speaking before 
 intelligent men. I shall therefore endeavour to give the 
 case a very temperate treatment. 
 
 When a Christian knows of an unbeliever being of the 
 same mind with him in regard of any worldly object, which 
 the question of Church establishments, so far as it is a 
 political question, undoubtedly is, he has express apostolical 
 authority, as I shall presently show, for calling on that 
 unbeliever to unite exertions with his. Although this would 
 have been perfectly lawful, however, our Voluntary Societies 
 have not judged it expedient. They have not framed them- 
 selves on such principles that infidels can consistently 
 become members. And where there may be such unhappy 
 characters who strive for the separation of Church and State, 
 and appear to fight by our side, or back us in the contest, 
 they are there uninvited, and " fight for their own hand." 
 
 Well, suppose I were engaged in an attempt to save a 
 man from being drowned, would it be requisite for me to 
 cease from the attempt because an infidel came up and en- 
 tered heartily into the attempt also ? Must I cease to be 
 merciful because an infidel is humane ? — I am on board a 
 leaky vessel, and so are you my hearers, her name is the 
 Britannia and Erin, and when I am working at the pump, 
 must I retire from it and leave the ship to sink, so far as my 
 efforts are concerned, because of the unholy alliance, when 
 some infidel on board may commence to pump also ? — Had 
 I bought a share of the Gas Company, but detected that 
 there are some infidels among the shareholders, must I 
 therefore part with my good bargain ? — Because there may 
 be infidels among the subscribers, must I abstain from 
 countenancing the Infirmary or House of Refuge ? — Because 
 
13 
 
 there raay have been infidels among the agitators for the 
 abolition of negro slavery, would I have been blameless had 
 I not agitated also? Behold the ethics of churchmen, how 
 scrupulous they be about purity of communion ! I might 
 ask a hundred such questions as the above, but, for illustra- 
 tion's sake, I shall make only another supposition. Suppose 
 that the Russian Despot should make a descent from the 
 North with a hundred thousand of his serfs, for the en- 
 thralling of our native land. Those who are so ready to 
 act the part of martyrs for the Church, would not hesitate, I 
 trust, to act the part of patriots for the State. Well, they 
 have risen and buckled on their armour, and marched to the 
 field of battle : but, oh horror ! they detect a regiment of 
 infidels in the host of their country. No, they cannot fight, 
 they dare not fight, in such company; it would be clean 
 against their principles of communion : so they must just 
 return home, and leave patriotism to the infidels and volun- 
 taries, whose principles are so lax that they can tolerate the 
 unholy alliance. — I allow, my hearers, that this represen- 
 tation is made in a spirit of sarcasm, but I at the same time 
 maintain, that it is the sarcasm of sound argument, in 
 repelling base and malicious calumny. I defy any man to 
 show the illustration is not applicable, and that there would 
 be no parallel between the supposed case of our opponents 
 deserting their country's banner, and our case, were we to 
 abstain from prosecuting the abolition of the connection 
 betwixt church and state, merely because there may be men 
 of insufficient principles who prosecute the same object. 
 
 We are not satisfied, however, with acting in this matter 
 merely on the defensive. Let our opponents be condemned 
 on their own ground. Never could the sentence be more 
 appropriately applied than to them, in reference to this 
 charge of infidel association — " Thou, therefore, that teachest 
 another, teachest thou not thyself?" Are there no infidels, 
 we ask, leagued with them in support of the endowments of 
 the church? If we are backed by all the Radicals, as they 
 call them, are they not backed by all the Tories ? And are 
 the Tories universally saints, any more than the Radicals? I 
 concede, with joy, indeed, and thanksgiving to divine grace, 
 that there are some Tories who appear to stand in the first 
 rank of the spiritual church of Christ; but I claim a like 
 concession for not a few Radicals. Here, then, the matter is 
 
14 
 
 balanced for once : and I balance it a second time, when I 
 venture all my character for candour on the declaration, 
 that the proportion of infidel, unprincipled, and profligate 
 characters, is as great among the Tories as the Radicals. I 
 would not feel I was in much danger of forfeiting my pledge, 
 although I were to say that the proportion among the first 
 party is considerably greater. Object to us, and taunt us 
 with our infidel alliance ! The assurance of our opponents 
 is unmeasurable. It were easy to collect abundance of 
 evidence similar to that afforded by a late public meeting, 
 when the chairman magnified the Church of Scotland amid 
 heathenish swearing by Jupiter, and other gods not so re- 
 spectable. 
 
 Remark, therefore, that although the account be balanced 
 on two points, there is a decided preponderance on a third 
 against churchmen's alliances. Of an infidel Radical who 
 openly avows his opposition to the national endowment, 
 because he regards the whole of the Christian faith a delu- 
 sion, and of an infidel Tory who for selfish or political pur- 
 poses declares that his conscience most powerfully constrains 
 him to support the Church of Scotland against all its 
 adversaries, when he reflects and meditates upon its spiritual 
 worth and services — of these two characters, I ask, what 
 man of integrity can for a moment hesitate which he should 
 most deeply condemn, and which he should be most ashamed 
 of as an associate? Both of them are abhorred of God; but 
 to the latter he says, with peculiar indignation, — " What hast 
 thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take 
 my covenant in thy mouth, seeing thou hatest instruction 
 and castest my words behind thee ?" 
 
 I am sure I have said quite enough on this subject for the 
 silencing of the objection about infidel associates. But I 
 must give it another paragraph, in consequence of having 
 stated, a short time ago, that I would lay before j'ou apos- 
 tolical authority for uniting even in regular association witli 
 avowed unbelievers, for securing an abolition of national 
 establishments, so far as it is a patriotic object, did we judge 
 such an association expedient or necessary. Before 1 read 
 the passage, which is contained in the 5th chapter of the 
 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, I make this explanation — 
 that the apostle lays down in it a plain distinction betwixt 
 holding intercourse with a man as a fellow-citizen, in conduct- 
 ing the affairs of this world, and fellowsliip with him as an 
 
15 
 
 acknowledged Christian brother, in the ordinances of the 
 church. 
 
 " I have written to you," he says, " in this Epistle, not 
 to associate with fornicators. Yet not universally with the 
 fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortion- 
 ers, or with idolaters, for then must ye needs go out of the 
 world. But now I write to you not to associate with him 
 if any one called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, &c. 
 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without 
 the church ? Do not ye judge them who are within it, (so 
 as to have sufficient work on your hands.)" 
 
 A writer in the Voluntary Church Magazine has re- 
 marked, that " the church party reverse this apostolic rule 
 of discipline. They omit to judge those who are within the 
 pale of their church, and busy themselves with judging those 
 who are without it." The remark maybe improved. They 
 trouble themselves little with judging either those who are 
 within their church, or those who, outside of it, aie rallied 
 round it for its defence. But they make full compensation 
 for this carelessness, by judging those who are within our 
 churches, and also those who are without them. Just let 
 any radical, when passing by, say of us, — Now, these are 
 honest men; they engage in their worship entirely at their 
 own expense, — Churchmen presently call a court«martial, 
 adjudge him an infidel worthy of execution, and then taunt 
 us with his ignominious association. I appeal to you, who 
 are acquainted with the tactics of our opponents, if there be 
 the least touch of caricature in this representation. 
 
 You will observe, my hearers, in what connection the 
 above discussion was introduced; it was in the course of 
 explaining and vindicating the lawfulness of the means which 
 we employ for securing our object. There are a few more 
 similar explanations which I would have made, had our time 
 permitted, but I find it necessary to press forward to another 
 topic. 
 
 III. Observe, therefore, in the Third place, what are the 
 views which we entertain of the Established Church, and 
 how our proceedings are calculated to affect its interests. 
 
 Under this head of explanation, I remark, First, that we do 
 not for a moment hesitate to acknowledge that that church 
 has been, and continues to be, the means of effecting much 
 good; and to express our belief and trust, that many sons 
 and daughters have been born, and are being born, and edu- 
 
16 
 
 cated for God, under her maternal ministration. — Friends and 
 hearers I although to serve a purpose against their moderate 
 brethren, similar acknowledgments were once occasionally 
 made by the evangelical party of the profitableness of our 
 churches in the service of Christ, do you ever hear any such 
 acknowledgments made now? No, no; the tottering cause 
 of compulsion cannot afford to bestow on us one candid 
 word. To allow that tliere is the least particle of good to 
 be found among us, would create suspicion against the man 
 who made the allowance, that he was a traitor in the camp. 
 Our cause being the cause of truth and justice, makes no 
 demand on ns for acting a part so disingenuous and cowardly. 
 We frankly and joyfully admit that the institution of our 
 opponents has effected, not only a measure, but a large 
 measure of spiritual good, for the Redeemer's kingdom. 
 But when their orators plead this as a reason for the con- 
 tinuance of its endowments and patronage by the state, we 
 treat the argument with contempt. Why, these men speak 
 as if they believed that tfie smile and gold of the king had 
 done it all, and that without these nothing of it would have 
 been done. Here is our principle, " that the good which 
 has been effected in established churches, hy the ordin- 
 ances of Christ, would have been attained to an indefinitely 
 larger amount, and with incomparably less of debasing alloy, 
 had Christianity been left as at first, to make its way by its 
 own divine energies and resources." On the evidence and 
 proof of this it is not my duty to enter. The task is assigned 
 to one who will execute it with much greater ability. Only, 
 I cannot refrain from remarking, that Knox and his coadju- 
 tors broke and dissipated the power of Popery, and protes- 
 tantised this country, nearly to as great an extent as it is 
 protestantised at present, when yet the Church of Scotland 
 was a Voluntary one, and before it was connected with the 
 state. And again, it had fallen back, or rather, I should say, 
 had advanced forward, to the Voluntary position, when it 
 resisted the incursion of royal Episcopacy. We admit that 
 there has been no period of its history in wdiich the Church 
 of Scotland has not effected good; but equally do we main- 
 tain, that tije days of its brightest glory, and those to which 
 we stand most indebted for benefits, were the days of its 
 Voluntaryism. And if ye refuse my testimony on the sub- 
 ject, hearken to that of Dr. Chalmers, emitted at a time 
 when his authority was more to be relied on than it is now, 
 
17 
 
 as being tlien comparatively little a man of party. In the 
 discourse preached on the occasion of laying the foundation 
 of Knox's monument, he spoke to this effect: That so long 
 as Knox contented himself with the spiritual weapon, the 
 Reformation proceeded triumphantly; but that so soon as the 
 church having wrenched the carnal w^eapon from the hand 
 of her adversary, began to wield it herself, then the Reforma- 
 tion was stayed, and began to languish. I am trespassing, 
 however, on the ground of a succeeding Lecturer, and must 
 withdraw from it, howsoever reluctantly, — 
 
 To remark Secondly, that entertaining the views expressed 
 above of the Church of Scotland, our measures cannot be 
 misapprehended by any discerning man as having for their 
 object the abolition of that church as a constituent and 
 separate section of the Church of Christ. And yet, there are 
 many who feel towards us, and speak of us, as if it were our 
 determination, that the king and parliament should so inter- 
 fere as to break up their presbyteries, synods, and assembly, 
 scatter their congregations, and command their ministers 
 silence, under heavy penalties of law; or if these ministers 
 should ever preach the gospel more, or their congregations 
 ever listen to it more, it should only be as mercifully taken 
 under tiie wings of the United Secession, or Relief Synod, 
 or Congregational Union. Is it any wonder, my hearers, that 
 when they labour under the misconception of believing that 
 we entertain such designs, they should be exceedingly wrath- 
 ful? We assure them, for the quieting of their fears, that 
 our ambition has no such lofty aim ; and that, although our 
 measures should soon prove successful, they would not 
 necessarily abridge their number, even by one congregation; 
 and instead of scattering their Assembly, would enable it to 
 meet, and deliberate, without " order taken " over it by any 
 other than its One Spiritual and Heavenly King. In a word, 
 we attempt no change on the Church of Scotland, so far as it 
 is a Church of Christ, unless it be such a change as we desire 
 for our own churches — an improvement in godliness. Our 
 hostile blow is aimed entirely at the Pension. Let that be 
 surrendered, then we of different denominations. United Se- 
 cession men, Relievers, Independents, and Baptists, shall no 
 more quarrel with the members of the Church of Scotland 
 than we quarrel with one another. I can almost promise 
 that we shall not call upon them to change their name, a 
 little presuming although it be. The Old Church of Scotland^ 
 B 2 
 
IS 
 
 or even the Mother Church of Scotland, let them call them- 
 selves, if their humour so incline. We promise we shall bear 
 with a good deal of humoursome conduct if they shall just 
 surrender the pension. 
 
 Surrender the pension I say they, you may just as well call 
 upon us to give up the whole matter at once; it is the very 
 life-blood, the very marrow of our system: without it we 
 could not maintain our standing for a day. — There are two 
 ways in which a man may make a false report concerning 
 himself. In a spirit of self-conceit he may laud himself 
 above his merits; or, in a spirit of modesty, he may underrate 
 his worth. It is with the latter, and less common kind of 
 erroneous self-judgment that our opponents are chargeable, 
 when they say, they would be unable to keep their ground 
 if they were made dependent, like the Dissenters, on their 
 acceptableness with the people to whom they minister in 
 things spiritual. O Sirs, this diffidence of yours, howsoever 
 amiable in one respect, is not only most unjust to yourselves, 
 but discredits your flocks in a manner which they do not 
 deserve. We know and acknowledge you to be men of worth; 
 and although your congregations may not tell you to your 
 faces in what estimation they hold you, through fear of being 
 charged with flattery, yet we assure you, that, out of your 
 presence, they speak of you with the warmest affection, and 
 wait with impatience for an opportunity of testifying it, when 
 the government shall have delivered you over to their filial 
 care. Cheer up, then, gentlemen; were the pension with- 
 drawn, matters would be in a much better condition with you 
 than your excessive modesty permits you to believe; and 
 when our measures have effected their object, you will per- 
 ceive that we have all along been labouring so as to promote 
 your interests as w^ell as our own. And should you persist 
 in believing that your services are not so acceptable as those 
 of the Dissenters, so as to be afraid to take the chance of 
 voluntary maintenance in company with them, why, then, I 
 advise that you signify this to the government in your next 
 petition for the perpetuation and extension of the endow- 
 ment; it will be a pithier reason than any you have yet 
 advanced. The Dissenters, say you, can maintain them- 
 selves withont any such endowment, but for us to subsist, 
 were it withdrawn, would be absolutely impossible. (Aside: 
 What if the government should say, — Let us be a praise to 
 them that do best, and turn the stream of our favour on the 
 
19 
 
 worthiest ! Some say we are contending for a share of the 
 pension, but we seem to ourselves to be in the fair way of 
 securing the whole of it!) 
 
 IV. But you act in the spirit, and with the purpose of 
 iniquitous spoliators, say our opponents. Be we able or 
 unable to stand without the endowment, the Tiends were 
 bequeathed to the Church by the piety of former ages, and 
 are as much her rightful inheritance, as is the estate of any 
 nobleman in the land. 
 
 A full discussion of this point is evidently precluded by 
 the nature of this lecture, as already explained; equally, 
 however, does it require that 1 give a brief explanation of 
 our views. Passing over, then, the Annuity Taxes, the 
 charges on Town's Funds, the Parliamentary Grants, and all 
 such minor items of the endowment, let us fix our attention 
 on the great standard impost, by which the Church of Scot- 
 land is maintained — the Tiends. What are they? I answer, 
 they are part of that burden on lands with which the ancient 
 kings of Scotland, by royal decree, or individuals, in trans- 
 mitting their property by testament, endowed the Church of 
 Rome. And how came they into the possession of the 
 Church of Scotland? By inheritance, eh? as being the 
 legitimate daughter of her of Babylon ! No, say our op- 
 ponents, with indignation. Our church is not of Roman 
 lineage ; on the contrary, she is the Papacy's deadliest foe. 
 True, she was once the equally deadly foe of the Prelacy of 
 England, and sware the Covenant of Extirpation against them 
 both. The latter part of her oath, however, we forego, at 
 the risk, though it be, of being charged with perjury by our 
 excellent friends. Dr. M'Crie, Dr. Symmington, and Mr. 
 Willis, when we make common cause with Prelacy, and hail 
 her as the well-beloved sister of our Presbyterian Zion; but 
 as for Popery, we continue to abhor her with a perfect ab- 
 horrence. How, then, the question presses, did the Church 
 of Scotland come to be possessed of her enemy's wealth? 
 Evidently thus: — the Church of Rome having been de- 
 clared by the government a nuisance, and abolished as a 
 national institution, its endowment, so far as it had been made 
 by the government, remained with the government; and so fai* 
 as it had been bequeathed by private liberality, properly fell 
 to be confiscated, as when the forfeited goods of a criminal are 
 transferred to the government for public uses. In the first 
 instance, indeed, a rapacious nobility unlawfully made spoil of 
 
20 
 
 nearly the whole of these forfeited Popish goods, but this 
 does not affect the case in the eye of law. Rightfully they 
 were the government's, to be dealt with as it might see fit. 
 Accordingly, at a future period it prevailed to cause the 
 nobility to refund a part of what they had seized, sanction- 
 ing their appropriation of the rest, and with that part endowed 
 the Presbyterian Church, not evidently as a corporation is 
 endowed, but as a national institution is endowed. Let the 
 Church of Scotland then be declared to be no longer a 
 national institution, (which the government has unquestion- 
 ably a right to do, if persuaded that to acknowledge it as 
 such is unchristian and impolitic) then the funds formerly 
 expended on the defunct institution, (defunct as a national 
 one) remain in the power of the government, to be expended 
 on some other institution, or such objects as it may judge 
 proper. So far as it is an Established Church, the Church 
 of Scotland stands in the same category with the Army and 
 Navy. Suppose, then, the government were to propose the 
 disbanding and dismantling of these two institutions, what 
 should we think of the conduct of the soldiers and sailors, did 
 they interfere and declare that not only were they life-rented 
 in the barracks, the ships, the ordnance, the ammunition, and 
 Parliamentary estimates ; but that the country was bound to 
 maintain a similar army and navy in all time coming? Not 
 one whit less unreasonable and absurd than this would be in 
 the soldiers and sailors, is the clamour of Churchmen about 
 our meditated spoliation, when they claim the Tiends as the 
 permanent and unalienable endowment of the Presbyterian 
 Kirk. 
 
 Let us therefore now hear their explanation of the matter. 
 When that part of the endowment which originated in the 
 decree of the ancient kings of Scotland, is contemplated, it 
 is to be regarded, say they, so far as it was an endowment of 
 religion, fixed and unalterable — it would be sacrilege to 
 touch with it; but alterable in its application from Popery, to 
 our particular form of Presbyterianism, which has been in- 
 fallibly determined to be the only genuine religion, so that 
 all change in future would be sacrilegious robbery. And 
 when that other part of the endowment is contemplated, 
 which originated in the liberality of private individuals, who 
 bequeathed it for the saying of certain masses, &c., we must 
 consider it fixed and unalienable, so far as it was an endow- 
 ment of religion, but subject to be changed in its applicatior> 
 
21 
 
 by the government, from the Popery of the pious bequeathera, 
 to the only genuine faith, the Presbyterianisra of the Kirk, 
 where it must remain for evermore ; and let all those who 
 would endeavour to effect another change, be anathema, as 
 infidel spoliators. Just as our old pious Town Council, in 
 concert with our honest Kirk-session, felt it not only lawful, 
 but imperative, to turn the legacy of the Prelatic Dr. Bell to 
 a purpose of Presbyterian education : and just as it would 
 be imperative on a Christian government, did it fall in with 
 a well-endowed Mahometan Mosque, to turn the endowment 
 to the support of the Kirk ; and to avoid, as they would not 
 be chargeable with sacrilege, converting it to any other pur- 
 pose, seeing it would be violatory of the testamentary deed 
 of the pious Turkish bequeather, which is to be interpreted 
 according to what his views would be, were he restored to 
 the land of the living, which, there can be no question, would 
 be in favour of Kirk Presbyterianism. On this principle, 
 our opponents cannot see how they are not entitled to the 
 whole of the endowments and mortifications even of Episco- 
 pacy, both in England and Ireland ; they are sure the pious 
 dead would make the bequeathment in their favour, were it 
 yet to be effected ; at all events, they read their title clear 
 in the Solemn League and Covenant. But for reasons of 
 prudence, they have resolved they shall allow this claim to 
 sleep, till they have settled the dispute with the- Voluntaries. 
 — It is difiicult to say in which character our opponents are 
 most to be admired ; whether as civilians, or theologians, or 
 moralists, or men of cautious forbearance. 
 
 There are several other subjects to which, in opening the 
 case, it would be in my way to advert ; particularly, the bear- 
 ing which our views have on the personal character of ma- 
 gistrates, on national education, and the sanctification of the 
 Sabbath. But to enter on the consideration of any of these 
 points, in the exhausted state of our time, would evidently 
 be highly improper. I must therefore leave them to be 
 discussed by my successors, or, on some other occasion, by 
 myself. 
 
 I conclude w'ith a vindication of our proceedings from 
 the charge oi precipitancy made against them by many friends 
 and entertainers of our principles. Their complaint is, that, 
 whereas our principles were silently working their way with 
 
22 
 
 great force, our forming ourselves into public associations, 
 was not only calculated to rouse our opponents to take 
 similar active measures, but to force the full blaze of truth 
 on the weak eyes of many ignorant persons, so as to make 
 them hate the light, and commit themselves as its declared 
 enemies, when, had we allowed it to open on them gradually, 
 by means of sermons, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, 
 conversation, &c., we might have gained them as friends. 
 Now, there must be some force in this representation, because 
 it has been made by some, who, in more dangerous times, 
 when the Castlereagh Acts threatened them with a dungeon, 
 proclaimed the iniquity of the alliance betwixt Church and 
 State. We accordingly at once admit, that the representa- 
 tion is possessed of not a little truth ; nevertheless, we main- 
 tain, that there were other reasons more powerful, which 
 sanctioned our movement. 
 
 The Voluntary cause was not an infant one. We felt as- 
 sured it would show its strength to be that of a host, so soon as 
 its banner was publicly raised. Nor has the result disappointed 
 us. We know of no other cause which was so ripe when it was 
 first publicly organized. And, then, circumstances seemed 
 to call upon us to embody and act with the power of union, 
 even although we had been a less numerous party. The 
 representations of want of accommodation within the pale 
 of their Zion, and petitions to the government for its en- 
 largement, were being made at that time by Churchmen, 
 nearly as strongly and urgently as at the present moment ; 
 and the enactment of the Reform Law, was evidently to 
 bring the cases both of the Irish and English Establishments 
 under the review of Parliament, when our united voice might 
 have some effect in modifying the measures which might be 
 adopted. And who doubts that it shall ? There is a Vo- 
 luntaryism at present in the House of Commons, which, if 
 not placed there by us, is enabled to speak with a boldness 
 and an effect, to which, without us, it could not have at- 
 tained. Instead of having acted precipitately, we feel that 
 we were too tardy in adopting our measures for the enlight- 
 ening and influencing of the public mind. 
 
 But whether our step was a false one or not, it is evident 
 we cannot recede — we cannot fall back on the position of 
 our brethren ; and we appeal at once to their sense of gener- 
 osity and self-interest, if it be not incumbent on them to 
 advance and occupy our position, and show what the strength 
 
23 
 
 of Dissenters is. They gain nothing by their silence, but 
 are involved in all the odium which Churchmen cast upon 
 the Dissenting cause ; and we lose much in the want of their 
 counsel, their advocacy, and the display of their number. 
 Let them look at the other side ; Do they see any neutrals 
 there ? — Brethren, let us be united. Even with disunion, 
 our cause, -being the cause of truth, of justice, of the Re- 
 deemer, must prevail; but it will prevail sooner than it 
 would otherwise do, if there be no division of our force — 
 no Achilles troop resting on their arms, when their brethren 
 are engaged in the conflict. 
 
 APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION. 
 
 My Publishers having intimated their intention to print a 
 second edition of the preceding Lecture, I have craved liberty 
 for an Appendix on these subjects to which I have adverted 
 towards the conclusion ; and vk'ithout a statement of our 
 views, in reference to which, the Lecture is greatly deficient. 
 My request has been granted, on the conditions that I be 
 brief and expeditious. 
 
 I. Many of our opponents allege that we are influenced 
 by our system, to be careless about the moral and religious 
 character of our legislators ; yea, that the more irreligious a 
 candidate for office may be, the more zealous are we in 
 securing his election. How false is the representation ! But 
 is there any falsehood in the charge we bring against them^ 
 when we affirm, that although a man be a Sabbath-breaker, 
 a profane swearer, and an adulterer, if yet he declare himself 
 in favour of perpetuating the Church's endowment, and es- 
 pecially in favour of its extension, they forthwith proclaim 
 him the religious candidate, around whom it is incumbent on 
 all the faithful to rally, as they would not be guilty of viola- 
 ting the terms of a pure Christian communion ? — Or is this 
 a falsehood — that, although the King's cabinet were com- 
 posed of as profligate characters as ever corrupted the earth, 
 they would yet proclaim it a Protestant government, provided 
 it exerted its power to uphold and increase the exactions of 
 our three established Zions ? — Or is this a misrepresentation 
 — that on their principles, Great Britain and Ireland would 
 
24 
 
 be a Christian Kingdom, though there were not a right hearted 
 Christian in it, provided the government continued to enforce 
 the levying of the tithes and tiends for Churchmen ; whereas 
 i\merica would be an atheistic land, although every soul in 
 it were converted, if yet Congress refused to pronounce one 
 of the sects the true Christian Church, and to commence a 
 system of compulsory taxation for its aggrandizement ? How 
 sanctified our opponents are in their views of a Christian ma- 
 gistracy, and of national religion ! 0^C2«/ Christianity is their 
 loudest cry ; such a kind of saintship as is little concerned 
 about its own faith and purity, but exceedingly concerned 
 about the salvation of others, in having extended to them the 
 blessings of that most efficient of Tory institutions — the 
 Church, over which " the King hath authority to take order." 
 We Voluntaries on the other hand, are concerned about 
 the personal religion of our civil authorities; for this obvious 
 reason, that the advantageous management of our temporal 
 interests requires honest men. The requisite honesty may 
 indeed be found in an unbeliever, and is, in fact, sometimes 
 found in such a one, when we search for it in vain in your 
 official saint ; but still it is only in men who are personally 
 religious, that we can repose full confidence. For such men 
 we seek with strong desire, and for no reason more anxiously 
 than the abolition of the alliance betwixt Church and State. 
 Were our Throne, our House of Lords, and our House of 
 Commons, all occupied by enlightened Christians, that unjust, 
 corrupting, and anti-scriptural connection, would be dis- 
 solved without a debate. Why, therefore, our opponents will 
 say, do ye refuse your suffrages to the pious men whom we 
 have set forth as candidates ? Where are they ? We insist 
 on the question. Where are the pious men whom they have 
 set forth, and we have rejected ? In the most friendly spirit 
 do we advise some Tory candidates for office, both in Parlia- 
 ment and Town Councils, that they use their influence with 
 their indiscreet friends to make them cease from exhibiting 
 them as saints, lest we be provoked, in self-defence, to dis- 
 cuss the difference betwixt official and personal saintship, 
 with our illustrations drawn from their particular cases. 
 And let them be assured, that not a few of them are indebted 
 to the honourable and gentlemanly and forbearing spirit of 
 Dissenterism, for such a course not having been heretofore 
 adopted. Sed est modus in rebus: forbearance has its 
 limits. — Verhum sapienti sat. 
 
25 
 
 But although men were to present themselves as candi- 
 «[ktes whose personal piety was unquestionable, we might 
 yet see fit to reject them, and give our suffrages to others 
 whose religious character was inferior. Suppose the editor 
 of the Guardian, or of the Church of Scotland Magazine, or 
 — which will serve still better for illustration, as being on the 
 whole the most devout Churchman of the brotherhood — sup- 
 pose the editor of the Courier were sick and ready to die, 
 and that there were two physicians, the one a zealous Church- 
 man, but a man of little skill in his profession, and many of 
 whose patients died of excessive blood-letting, he having 
 studied at Rathcormac; the other a Voluntary, and conse- 
 quently an infidel, but a man of great skill, and who preferred 
 administering a glass of wine to the use of the lancet, — who 
 can doubt that our sick Churchman would prefer the Volun- 
 tary for his attendant? So is it with our choice of medical 
 men for the Body Politic Were all other things equal, we 
 would greatly prefer the religious physician ; but wo would 
 not pass by infidel skill for unskilful piety. And so far as 
 the divine blessing is concerned, since that blessing proceeds 
 rather according to the sanctity of the employer than that of 
 the instrument employed, when we at any time engag« 
 worldly men for the management of our temporal affairs, it 
 remains for us to beseech the divine blessing on their coun- 
 sels and operations. 
 
 Since we deem it lawful, as explained above, to advance 
 iiTeligious men to office in our legislature and magistracy, 
 when we cannot find religious men who are sufficiently quali- 
 fied, it follows, that we cannot permit them to interfere with 
 our spiritual affairs. And we demand of our opponents to 
 explain, how it is that they give them such permission. For, 
 practised though they be in that first point of law, denial, 
 even of plain facts, I scarcely think they will have the hardi- 
 hood to deny, in the face of the whole kingdom, that they 
 also unite in advancing to civil office men who do every 
 thing but give evidence that they are spiritually regenerated. 
 Surely those, of whose church the National Covenant and 
 the Solemn League and Covenant form part of the standards,* 
 
 * On the occasion of the trial of Mr. Campbell, Dr. Fleming, 
 who led the prosecution, declared in the General Assembly, 
 without being contradicted, that these two Covenants remain 
 unrepealed ; and Mr. Willis has been admitted to plead their 
 
 c 
 
26 
 
 will not hesitate to denounce Mr. O'Connell as an idolater. 
 And yet, there are few to whom that gentleman and his tail 
 are indebted for their admission among our legislators, so 
 much, as they are to Dr. Chalmers, who pled so eloquently 
 and zealously the cause of Catholic Emancipation. Where, 
 then, we demand, is conscience, where is honour, where is 
 consistency, when our Presbyterian opponents assign to a 
 civil magistracy thus constituted, authority to interfere with 
 a flock of Christ in the appointment of a pastor — to judge at 
 what rate his spiritual services should be remunerated, and 
 by the force of their law to provide the remuneration — and 
 " to take order that the truth of God be kept pure and 
 entire?"* I hesitate not to proclaim it all a system of mean 
 and abominable impiety. It is no better, but much worse, 
 because there is tyranny in it, than were the sick churchman, 
 in the case I have imagined, to receive the ordinance of the 
 Supper at the hand of his infidel physician. 
 
 But, say our more devout opponents, Dr. Chalmers, and 
 Dr. Thomson, and many other churchmen, conspiring with 
 the apostates, Wellington and Peel, acted a most treacherous 
 part against the Covenants ; both Houses of Parliament should 
 be cleared of papists, and nothing permitted to keep a place 
 in our legislature, no not even on the throne, but what has 
 on it the stamp of the true presbyterianism of the Kirk, as 
 was resolved by " our fathers before us;" and where would 
 be the incongruity then of such a blessed Parliament taking 
 our Zion under its regulation? We might satisfy ourselves 
 with replying, — First get the Parliament, and then we shall 
 tell you. How contemptible it is, if not dishonest, that our 
 opponents ever answer our exposure of existing enormities 
 wath suppositions and theories which they are well aware can 
 never be realised ! 
 
 But we do not decline following them into their fields of 
 abstraction, being persuaded we can demonstrate that their 
 imaginations are as undevout as their practice. 
 
 Suppose, then, that all the constituencies of England and 
 Ireland, as well as of Scotland, had returned serious presby- 
 terians to the House of Commons, and that the King and the 
 Peers had been converted to the same faith; would not a 
 
 validity, among the advocates of the establishment, in the series 
 of Lectures with which they are illuminating our city. 
 
 * Westminster Confession, Chap. XXIII. 
 
27 
 
 legislature so sanctified, say our opponents, feel themselves 
 bound to exert their authority for Christ, as having received 
 it from Him, and as being accountable for the employment 
 of the talent with which he had entrusted them ? Certainly, 
 we answer. But, as faithful servants, would they not exa- 
 mine their Master's commission, with the view of ascertaining 
 what he had appointed them to do, in their capacity of civil 
 legislators, with the power he had conferred on them ? Now, 
 where, we ask, would they find in all that commission a 
 warrant for their determining, in their magisterial capacity, 
 for the whole of the hingdom, among which party the true 
 church is to be found ; and levying taxes for the support of 
 the same at the point of the sword? Our opponents may 
 be sure, that among all our national afflictions, we account it 
 a very mysterious one, that a body of men should be pen- 
 sioned on the country, as its only proper spiritual instructors, 
 who make such work of the interpretation of the divine ora- 
 cles, as to endeavour to prove, that a magistrate may, jure 
 divino, send a troop of soldiers to levy money on an infidel, 
 for the furnishing of bread and wine for Christians' Sacra- 
 ments!* 
 
 II. The bearing of our views on the Sanctification of the 
 Sabbath. What a cry thousands of Sabbath-breakers have 
 raised against the Voluntaries on this subject ! Well, when 
 we plead for Voluntary Sabbaths, for what kind plead ye ? 
 Forced ones, of course; — that if a man attend not the Church, 
 he shall at least keep within his house, and sleep, or read 
 novels, or play cards with his friends, and so honour the 
 Lord's day at the Parliament's order by resting from labour! 
 There is something peculiarly august in the Parliamentary 
 religion of our antagonists. 
 
 * The discussion of this subject has been carried as far as my 
 limits permit ; and I must refer to the Third Edition of my 
 tract, " The Lame Restored," for an argument held with Dr. 
 M'Crie and Mr. Willis on the question of a National Acknow- 
 ledgment of God. I only remark at present, that all acknow- 
 ledgment of Him made by a king, in tho nation's name, must be 
 a mockery, unless the nation be religious. Could King William, 
 then, consistently with truth, confess in the name of the majority 
 of this nation, that they worship God through his Son whom he 
 has sent ? When such a majority is gained, we shall then 
 deliberate with them, who may be the proper organs through 
 whom the confession is to be made. 
 
28 
 
 The Sanctification of the first day of the week, as a day of 
 holy resting from worldly employment, is a duty precisely 
 of the same order with the observance of the ordinance of 
 the Supper: and there would not be a whit less of profanity in 
 the civil legislature taking upon itself to enforce Sacraments, 
 than there is in its taking upon itself to enforce Sabbaths, on 
 the plea that the Lord has given them a commission to com- 
 pel others to reverence his day. Let them reverence it them- 
 selves and they do well. 
 
 Nevertheless, our opponents act a most disingenuous part, 
 when they endeavour to prejudice our cause in the estima- 
 tion of the operative classes, by representing us as opposed 
 to all legislation by which they may be secured in a day of 
 rest in the midst of their toils. None of us questions that 
 the civil magistrate^ in full consistency with the nature of his 
 office, as the guardian of the health and worldly interests of 
 the lieges, may ordain such a day of cessation from labour ; 
 especially on behalf of those who are in the condition of ser- 
 vants; in the same way as when he limits the hours of daily 
 labour in a cotton factory. And, as a prudent and discreet 
 judge, since many of the subjects will, from religious views, 
 sanctify the first day of the week at all events, he will make 
 his day of civil rest coincide with their day of sacred rest. 
 But let him take care that he place his enactment on the 
 proper footing, — that he is careful of men's temporal welfare. 
 Shr -id he begin to say, that he has discovered in the Scrip- 
 i.ires, that God wills the sanctification of that day, and that he, 
 ^^s concerned for the divine glory and the interests of men's 
 !5 3uls for eternity, is determined to enforce its sanctification 
 by the power of the sword, the words of God to him will be, 
 Who hath required this at your hand? It is not for our 
 officers of police, affecting zeal for the divine glory, to assail 
 with their batons those who on the Lord's day may be 
 lounging or making merriment in the public green. No, 
 verily; Christ has committed the vindication of the honour 
 of his day to very different officers, armed with very different 
 weapons. 
 
 IIL The bearing of our views on National Education. It 
 is difficult to say in which part of this controversy our 
 opponents have acted with the greatest dishonesty. But if 
 they have at any time excelled themselves in the practice of 
 this quality, it appears to have been when treating of the 
 question now before us. How earnest have they not been 
 
29 
 
 in endeavouring to persuade the people, that a national en- 
 dowment of churches, and a national endowment of schools 
 are so inseparably connected in principle, that they must 
 stand or fall together? It is a gross misrepresentation. 
 None of us would question the lawfulness, and few of us the 
 propriety, of the government instituting and endowing a 
 system of national education much more extensive than any 
 which at present exists. And when we maintain that such 
 a system should be limited in its nature to instructions in 
 branches of.secular and moral education, as distinguished 
 from those which are religious — what else, we ask, has our 
 parochial education hitherto been ? Has it been even so 
 much ? Has moral training been any part of its practice ? 
 Our antagonists must surely be conscious that they speak of 
 fancies, and not of facts, when they represent the superiority 
 of the Scottish character as having been in any, the least 
 degree, the effect of the religion taught in our parish schools. 
 Of late, some improvement has been made in a few cases; 
 but so lately, and in cases so few, that I defy our opponents 
 to produce fifty individuals in broad Scotland, of twenty 
 years of age, who, being religious, will declare that they 
 received religious impressions under our parochial teaching. 
 Is the spelling and syallabling of the Holy Scriptures, as a 
 class-book, from the reading of which, when he has risen to 
 the reading of " the Collection," the child is taught to think 
 he has made an advance in learning; — or is the tasking of 
 him to the recitation of a Catechism, not one question of 
 which he comprehends — is this a religious education even in 
 the estimation of Churchmen ? I have not the least hesita- 
 tion in declaring my conviction, that the employment of the 
 Scriptures, as a common class-book ( the New Testament, 
 be it observed, in striking consistency with compulsory 
 theology, being of inferior importance to the Old,) has been 
 of immense detriment to the religious interests of Scotland; 
 not only as being of itself a desecration of the Divine oracles, 
 but as creating habits of irreverence, and listless thoughtless 
 uninquiring reading, in their perusal. Accordingly, the com- 
 mittee of the Presbytery of Glasgow on education, have made 
 some strictures on the use of the Bible in Schools, which 
 show they are somewhat sensible of this evil; and very 
 curiously, for gentlemen who are so horrified at the mutila- 
 tion of the Scriptures perpetrated in the Irish scheme of 
 c2 
 
30 
 
 education, have recommended that the Proverbs of Solomon 
 be extracted and printed for the use of schools.* 
 
 By your own confession, therefore, say our opponents, the 
 system is under the process of improvement. Well, suppose 
 exposition of the Scriptures, and enforcement of their truths 
 on the consciences of youth were practised to a much greater 
 extent — the practice of wliich, however, to any very profit- 
 able extent, I do not believe will ever be reached amid the 
 hubbub of a reading school — What right, I ask, would the 
 government have to tax a Baptist, or Arminian Methodist, or 
 Socinian, or Infidel, for the support of a school taught by a 
 Calvinistic expositor of the appointment of the Kirk? The 
 more faithful he might be, the stronger would be the objec- 
 tions to the iniquity of the impost. Were Sir Daniel, in the 
 course of his translations of the New Testament, to defend 
 the rendering of the authorised version, Acts xii. 4, and lec- 
 ture his pupils on the sanctification of Easter-day, would 
 not Dr. Macgill be inflamed with anger ? And is it lawful 
 only for established Doctors to be angry when the national 
 wealth is employed in support of teaching opinions in which 
 they do not agree ? Is the conscience of such a man as was 
 Robert Hall of so insignificant account, when compared 
 with that of such a man as Dr. Macgill, that the British 
 Parliament may, under the eye of justice, trample with 
 impunity on the rights of the Baptist's; but must be wary 
 in giving offence even to the judgment of the Calvinist ? 
 More than the half of the notes of that hour have struck, 
 with the expiry of which all such infamous partiality shall be 
 abolished for ever. The twelve o'clock is ringing.-f- 
 
 * In taking the part which I did take with some prominence 
 in advocating Stanley's scheme of Government-education for 
 Ireland, I felt not quite at ease ; but my difficulty arose from its 
 embracing a Scriptural education in any degree, and I overcame 
 it by pleading with myself, that it promised a reduction of the 
 evil. I may further state, that I have looked over the First Part 
 of the Scripture Lessons recommended by the Commissioners ; 
 and were the note on the 16th page erased, I must say, that I 
 would rejoice were they introduced into the voluntary school 
 in which my own child is taught. Even ivith that note, I am 
 prepared to show that the authorised version contains errors 
 nearly as prejudicial. 
 
 ■j- It is not likely that these lines will ever meet the eye of 
 my old Professor : but lest they should, I respectfully request 
 
31 
 
 Now, should our opponents exclaim, Behold the atheisti- 
 cal education of Voluntaries, according to which no acknow- 
 ledgment should he made of God ! I shall raise the counter 
 exclamation, Behold the stupidity of Compulsories, who 
 cannot understand how the State may give a child one part 
 of its education, and the Church another ! Is not this divi- 
 sion of educational labour practised every day? Is not a 
 boy taught Latin in the Grammar School, and music and 
 painting elsewhere? Or, because music and painting are 
 not taught in that seminary, must we say its regulators re- 
 present an education as being perfect without them? But 
 more to my point — A young man may pass through the 
 Latin class of Mr. Ramsay, the Greek class of Sir Daniel, 
 the Logic class of Mr. Buchanan, the Moral Philosophy 
 class of Mr. Mylne, the Natural Philosophy class of Mr. 
 Meikleham, graduate, and come forth to the world an A.M. 
 without having received, canonically at least, one solemn 
 exhortation on the subject of Christian faith. Must we 
 therefore say of the Glasgow College that it is atheistic in 
 its scheme of education? Just with as much propriety as 
 Churchmen say so of the London University. To remind 
 me of the Divinity Hall is nothing to the point: for, j^rst, 
 the class held there is not designed for all the students ; the 
 Anatomy class makes it as much a medical education, as 
 does the Divinity class make it a religious education: and, 
 secondly, Divinity is not taught in that Hall so much with 
 the design of making the students personally religious, as 
 with the design of qualifying them in the science of Theology 
 for the teaching of others: their personal religion is under- 
 stood to be taught them elsewhere. 
 
 Let the State, if it judge proper, take upon itself to 
 furnish the means of a secular education; but let it be left 
 to the Church, as the Lord hath ordained, in the pious 
 instructions of parents, guardians, pastors. Sabbath-evening 
 school teachers, or week-day Voluntary teachers, to incul- 
 
 he take my assurance that I continue to regard him with un- 
 feigned esteem. I had even almost forgotten his lapsus in the 
 matter of the Magdalenes, when he endeavoured to prejudice 
 even them against the Voluntaries. The introduction of his 
 name on the present occasion, is to be ascribed entirely to his 
 Episcopalian fellowship. O Doctor ! Doctor ! take lessons from 
 Mr. Wilhs. 
 
32 
 
 cate religion on the youtliful mind. I make little doubt, 
 that in the march of education we shall soon liave daily 
 teachers of religion, to whom children will be sent for an 
 hour, not only to be instructed in the system of the Chris- 
 tian faith, but to have its principles inculcated on their 
 consciences. 
 
 I conclude with an extract from an admirable paper, in 
 that excellent little periodical, the Belfast Christian Libe- 
 rator, Had I been aware, before I wrote the above, how 
 nearly the writer's views coincide with my own, even to 
 such an extent as in some cases to assume the same expres- 
 sion, I would not have troubled myself with writing any 
 thing of my own; and I preserve what I have written, 
 especially for gaining some credit to myself, by showing my 
 thoughts run in the same course as that in which those run 
 of one who is obviously a person of no mean consideration. 
 
 " Again, should children be taught nothing but the Bible? 
 No man values the Bible more highly than I do. None can 
 contend more strenuously for its supreme and exclusive autho- 
 rity in matters of religion. I most cordially agree with the 
 illustrious Chillingworth, that ' the Bible, and the Bible 
 alone, is the religion of Protestants.' That is, the Bible is the 
 fountain of religious truth, and they acknowledge no other. 
 Philosophers have objected to the Bible, because it does not 
 give a true account of astronomy; and the answer furnished 
 to this objection is, ' the Bible was not intended to teach 
 astronomy, but i eligion' It was intended to point a fallen 
 world, whose guilt and wretchedness it faithfully describes, to 
 Him who is a refuge from the wrath to come; whose blood 
 and righteousness received by faith, are the ground of our 
 acceptance with the Father, and whose spirit prepares the 
 redeemed for the inheritance of the saints in light. The 
 Bible is, in fact, a history of salvation from the first promise 
 to fallen Adam, till the day when Emmanuel will say to the 
 congregated myriads of his people, ' Come, ye blessed of my 
 Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the 
 foundation of the world.' Again I assert, the Bible was de- 
 signed to teach religion, and nothing hut religion, and the man 
 who would thrust it out of its appropriate sphere, and convert 
 it into a manual for teaching spelling, reading, writing, cy- 
 phering, grammar, geography, history, mechanics, astronomy, 
 &c. &c. evinces more egregious folly than the Turk, who, as 
 
33 
 
 an excuse for destroying a valuable library, declared, that if 
 those books contradicted the Koran, they were false, and if 
 they agreed with it they were unnecessary; and in either 
 case ought to be destroyed ! Among Christians, none but 
 the wildest visionary, some gloomy anchorite, some dream- 
 ing quietest, or bewildered separatist would think of acting 
 on this principle in reference to the Bible. And I cannot 
 but think that some Protestant divines in Ireland, are 
 labouring under a strange hallucination, or sadly blinded by 
 party spirit on the subject of education. 
 
 " The melancholy truth is, that our moral atmosphere is so 
 crowded, — the rays of truth are so fantastically refracted by 
 prejudiced interest, and party animosity, that it is peculiarly 
 difficult to see any important national question in its proper 
 light. 
 
 " If any system of education be national, it must be wow- 
 religious. If it be religious, either of two things will follow. 
 First, The whole nation must receive a literary education, 
 bound up in the peculiarities of one particular creed, like a 
 grain of sugar in the heart of a bitter pill, for which they must 
 pay, but which they may swallow or not as they please. And 
 this is virtually an addition oi funds and resources to the Es- 
 tablished Church of this country. Or, secondly, The peculiar 
 creed of each denomination, their catechisms and confessions, 
 must form part and parcel of the education which the govern- 
 ment imparts at the public expense, and this would be a virtual 
 establishment of every religion in the land ! I can conceive of 
 nothing more calculated to perpetuate the reign of anti-chris- 
 tian bigotry, sectarian jealousy, superstition, and intolerance, 
 than the establishment of a number of exclusive systems of 
 education, sanctioned and supported by government. I am 
 persuaded (and I know my Catholic countrymen well) that a 
 system of national education, founded on sound principles, and 
 administered in a liberal spirit, which would not interfere with 
 religion at all, would do more in ten years to improve the 
 population of this country, than all the existing societies can 
 hope to accomplish in a century to come. These might in- 
 duce a few individuals to come, from time to time, within the 
 sphere of their operations ; that would speedily leaven the 
 whole mass of the people, and prepare the way for a moral re- 
 volution the most decided. 
 
 " Persons who can see only one side of a question may 
 object, that none but an infidel would recommend a nan- 
 
religious education. Nor do I recommend any such thing. 
 What I recommend is a non-religious national education. 
 The objection supposes that the children learn nothing any 
 where but at school, and that their only teacher is the school- 
 master. But where are their parents, and their ministers, 
 and tlie Sunday-schools ? While the schoolmaster trains the 
 mental faculties, may not they cultivate the religious principles ? 
 May not these two processes go on consentaneously, though 
 not conducted by the same person ? Look at our colleges. 
 Every professor does not teach theology, and yet theology is 
 taught. Intercourse with well-instructed Protestant children 
 would very soon wear off the most objectionable peculiarities 
 of Romanism. Right principles of reasoning would be culti- 
 vated — early friendships would be formed — the fiendish spirit 
 of partyism, which would plant the standard of religion on 
 heaps of murdered bodies, and amid streams of human blood, 
 would give place to that charity which thinketh no evil, and 
 knows no distinction of persons. — Are the people blind ? 
 Then you will not open their eyes unless they previously 
 engage to look fully on the mid-day splendour of the sun ! 
 Whereas, they, thinking that this would dazzle them and 
 bewilder them more than ever, prefer practising a little in the 
 shade. Open their eyes, and leave the rest to God ! — Are they 
 perishing for lack of knowledge ? They will take the water 
 of life in their own vessel, or in their hand; but you require 
 them absolutely to kneel down and drink from the fountain ! 
 Are you justified in imposing such restrictions on that which 
 is the free boon of heaven? Beware how you thwart the 
 purposes of a merciful God! ' Freely ye have received, 
 freely give.' Impose no conditions which your master has 
 not imposed. Ah, narrow-minded, selfish man ! It is well 
 that such a being is not the governor of the universe. God 
 causes his sun to shine on the evil and the good alike ; but 
 you will not allow the sun of knowledge to shine on any, 
 unless they first promise to look through your spectacles ; 
 lest, by possibility, they should do something wrong, — lest 
 peradventure, a Voltaire or a Byron should rise up amongst 
 them. And suppose there did, what is that to you ? The 
 man who would prefer a nation of ignorant savages, to a 
 nation of educated, that is, civilized men, should go and live 
 among the filthy Hottentots. His taste is peculiar, and for 
 tastes there is no accounting. 
 
 " [t is better, to be sure, to have a purely Scriptural educa- 
 
35 
 
 tion for all the people. But the parents, the natural guardians 
 of the children, will not consent. You may reply, that they 
 would, only for the priests. Well, but they acquiesce in the 
 priest's authority, — an authority which you cannot destroy 
 directly, no, nor indirectly, if you persevere in opposing a 
 liberal system of education. We should grapple with things 
 as they are, and not waste our time speculating about things 
 as they ought to be. 
 
 "I have been led to pursue this discussion, Mr. Editor, much 
 farther than I intended. I was about to offer some remarks 
 on the suicidal spirit in which some religionists cry out, 
 ' NOTHING BUT the Bible !' There is the Episcopalian, for 
 instance, with his thirty-nine articles and three creeds, his 
 catechism, canons, and liturgy, with the church ' deciding 
 matters of controversy ;' also, the three sections of the Pres- 
 byterian Church, with their 'catechisms,' and 'confession,' 
 and the civil magistrate presiding in Synods with Divine 
 authority. Now, surely, these are something beside the 
 Bible ! And moreover, they have come in to jostle the Bible 
 out of its own peculiar province ! I could dwell, Sir, on 
 this manifest inconsistency, but as the subject might seem 
 invidious, and would probably irritate some good men, I 
 forbear." — Christian Liberator, No. II, 
 
 BELL AND BAIN. FttlNTERS, ROYAL EXCHANGE COURT. 
 
LECTURES SECOND AND FOURTH: 
 
 UNDER THE PATRONAGE 
 
 THE GLASGOW 
 VOLUNTARY CHURCH SOCIETY 
 
 THE SCRIPTURE ARGUMENT. 
 
 DELIVERED ON THE EVENINGS OF MARCH IOtH, AND MARCH 24tH, IN THE RELIEF 
 CHAPEL, JOHN-STREET. 
 
 BY RALPH WARDLAW, D.D. 
 
 FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 
 A. FULLARTON, & CO. 34, HUTCHESON-STREET 
 
 EDINBURGH,— JOHN WARDLAW: DUBLIN,- 
 JOHN ROBERTSON & CO. : LONDON,— ORR & SMITH. 
 
 MDCCCXXXV. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 In an earlier period of this controversy, I had occasion to no- 
 tice the different answers which had been given to the question, 
 What is an Ecclesiastical Establishments some of them more 
 comprehensive and some more restricted in regard to the elements 
 essential to its constitution. Having adverted to the wide dis^ 
 tance between the high ground of the Warburtonian alliance, 
 and the comparatively low ground of Paley's scheme of in- 
 struction, I adopted the latter as my standard, conceiving it to 
 be the fairest for the side of our opponents, and quite as mo- 
 derate as they could reasonably desire. " The three essential 
 " elements of an Establishment," according to this celebrated 
 writer, " 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 par- 
 " ticular sect of Christianity.'' If, as is usually maintained, 
 the great end of an Establishment is to supply religious instruc- 
 tion to the community, and especially to the poor, it is not easy 
 to see how the second of these elements could, by any possibil- 
 ity, be dispensed with ; for how could such supply be provided 
 otheruise than by means of some kind of endowment ? We 
 can even more readily conceive the absence of the monopolizing 
 restriction of the endowment to a particular sect, and its equal 
 distribution amongst all parties of professing Christians : — but 
 if you take away endowment, or pecuniary provision, alto- 
 gether, you take away the only means by which the proposed 
 end can be attained : for how is instruction to be furnished 
 A -2 
 
without teachers and places of assembly ? and how are such 
 teachers to be maintained, and such places erected and upheld, 
 without funds? — Yet lower ground still has recently been taken. 
 To the abstract idea of an Establishment, it has been alleged, 
 an endowment, or pecuniary provision, is not essential. Among 
 those who have taken this ground is the Rev. Mr Cunningham, 
 of Edinburgh. In his lecture on the lawfulness of union between 
 Church and State, — the first in a series now in course of being 
 delivered in the Scottish metropolis, — he takes the position, that 
 a church may, in a certain sense, be established, and there may 
 really exist a union or connexion between Church and State, 
 when there is no State endowment. " It is quite possible," says 
 he, " that the State, or the supreme civil rulers, on becoming 
 *' Christian, and considering the duty which they owe to religion 
 '' and to the church, may see it incumbent upon them to estab- 
 ^^ lish the church, by giving it the sanction and countenance 
 *' of civil authority, or, what is substantially the same thing, 
 '' giving it a public official declaration of tlieir approbation 
 ^' and good-willy while at the same time the situation of the 
 ** church may be such as to render a State endowment unneces- 
 '* sary." And then we have many pages of argument, on this 
 *^ purely abstract" theory, — argument in support of " some 
 kind of union," ^' some friendly connexion," '■^ some alliance," 
 in opposition to those who deny any relation between the two, 
 in any degree, or in any circumstances. But who are they ? 
 That there may be a relation, — nay that there is and ought to 
 be a relation, and a friendly relation too, between the church 
 and the State, — that is, between the members of the spiritual 
 community of Jesus Christ and the civil government under 
 which they live, who is there that questions ? It is the duty, 
 and must ever be the interest of the State, to afford its impartial 
 protection to the members of that community, in the exercise 
 of their religious principles, according to Avhat they deem the 
 will of their heavenly King ; — and it is equally the duty and 
 the interest of the subjects of Christ to seek the good of their 
 country, and to diffuse the influence of those principles, of which 
 the tendency has ever been to promote peace, and loyalty, and 
 obedience to the laws, and general prosperity. This is a kind 
 of friendly connexion, such as does not, in the least degree, 
 interfere with perfect separation, and mutual independence. — 
 But ^vho does not see, that all such argumentation about what 
 is admitted to be a pure abstraction, is grappling with nothing, 
 ' — is no better than " beating the air V" It were, assuredly, a 
 
very harmless thing, were the head of the State to issue a pro- 
 clamation, declaratory to all his loyal subjects of his preference 
 of episcopacy to presbyterianism or independency, and of any 
 particular system of religious doctrines in connexion ^vith this 
 form of ecclesiastical order; a proclamation , which annexed no 
 exclusive privileges of any kind to the approved faith and dis- 
 cipline, but left all to choose for themselves, without advantage 
 on the one hand or forfeiture on the other, whether they would 
 have the honour of being of the com-t religion, or, judging of 
 the mind of God for themselves, follow the dictates of an en- 
 lightened conscience. An Establishment, without an endow- 
 ment, and without exclusive civil privileges, is no more than a 
 theoretical fancy, which could never have occasioned any strife 
 either for or against it. We might say of any such govern- 
 ment proclamation, " Valeat quantum valere potest!' let those 
 mind it who will : — but a barer bone of contention there could 
 not well be — All such reasoning as that to which I have alluded 
 is sheer trifling with a serious question ; under an assent to 
 general abstractions, deceiving the mind into a fallacious sub- 
 mission to something widely different ; and indicating an un- 
 manly reluctance to grapple at once with the realities of the 
 case. 
 
 By such a view of an Establishment the necessity Avould be 
 removed of all dispute about the respective claims to preference 
 of the voluntary or the compulsory system of provision for the 
 maintenance of Christian ordinances ; inasmuch as the latter 
 would have no existence. — But it is manifest, that instead of 
 wrangling about a Utopian theory, we must take Establishments 
 as they are, and as they have always been. I must be allowed, 
 then, to assume, that a church established by the State is a 
 church taken under the patronage and pecuniary support of the 
 State, — and that a church unendowed is a church unestablished. 
 — And, in considering the great general question of Establish- 
 ments, we are considering a question Avhich involves the most 
 important and interesting views of divine truth. Next to right 
 conceptions of the Gospel of Christ, are scriptural views of 
 his kingdom. If they do not directly affect those doctrines of 
 which the faith is connected with salvation, they do most mate- 
 rially affect the whole practical working of the principles of 
 his mediatorial administration, in subserviency to its present 
 efficiency, its progressive advancement, and its final triumph. — 
 If, therefore, it is our duty to " contend earnestly for the faith 
 once delivered unto the saints," surely such a subject must be en- 
 A 3 
 
6 
 
 titled to a portion at least of the same earnestness. We cannot 
 allow it to be set aside, as undeserving of serious discussion ; — 
 as some, under the false pretence, or the imbecile reality, of 
 superior spiritual-mindedness, are accustomed to deal with many 
 other points, which go by the convenient but often mischievous 
 designation of non-essentials. In last lecture, the first of this 
 series, the present was ably shown to be a fair subject of con- 
 troversy. And controversy is not a word from which any well- 
 constituted mind should shrink. If it be conducted in the 
 spirit of the Blaster whom we serve, it is an important and 
 indispensable means of eliciting truth. In the sight of the 
 great Searcher of hearts, and in the prospect of our final 
 account, let us see to it that such be the spirit in which, on our 
 part, it is prosecuted. It is, alas ! true, as we are sometimes 
 made sensible by experience, that, how careful soever we may 
 be in laying- our tempers under control, and how successful 
 soever in etTecting and maintaining their subjugation, there are 
 persons to be found, who, Avithout a spark in their characters 
 of manly ingenuousness towards an adversary, will persist in 
 pronouncing us under the dominance of feelings and motives 
 to which our bosoms have been strangers : — but there are, at 
 the same time, amongst the party to which we stand opposed, 
 not a few fellow-Christians, who Avill duly appreciate, and be 
 suitably influenced by, the Christian spirit of our warfare : — 
 and, at all events, whatever may be the treatment we receive 
 from fellow-men, we must never allow ourselves to forget that 
 "He that judgeth us is the Lord." — "Herein," like Paul, "let 
 *' us exercise ourselves, to have always a conscience void of 
 *' ofience towards God and towards men.'' 
 
 I have formerly taken my stand in the Bible argument ; — 
 and, leaving it to my hearers to form their own judgment of 
 the ingenuousness of the charge, that, Avhile I profess to draw 
 my proofs only from the Bible, I have " taken special care, in 
 " every approach I have made to argument on the subject, to 
 *' argue from an^ thing but the Bible," — I take my stand there 
 still. I do so for two reasons : — First^ Because it is, in truth, 
 the only authority in the case ; — all appeal to other sources of 
 argument, to the overlooking of this, being in itself strangely 
 preposterous, as well as dishonouring in the extreme to the 
 great Head of the church, of whose kingdom the New Testament 
 is the authenticated statute-book: — and, Secondly, Because 
 the settlement of the question on this ground supersedes at 
 once every other species of argumentation. — I am very far frora 
 
meaning that no other is of any worth. But what, I ask, is 
 the natural and legitimate course of procedure ? Surely, to 
 come, directly and in the first instance, to the inspired record 
 of our Sovereign's will. When we have ascertained, by such 
 appeal, what that will is, we may then, on such gi-ounds as may 
 suggest themselves, demonstrate the consistency of his decisions 
 and commands with expediency and enlightened reason ; and 
 point out the manifestations, in the constitution of his church, 
 as in other departments of his works, of the " manifold wisdom 
 of God." But, to begin with endeavouring, by our own specu- 
 lations, to determine, on the principles of right reason and ex- 
 pediency, what, in the circumstances of the case, would be best^ 
 — and, when we Ua^e done this, to compare the results with the 
 dictates of inspiration, — is to come to the Bible with such 
 preconceptions in our minds, and such prepossessions in their 
 favour, as may materially bias and mislead our judgments, 
 strongly inclining us to interpret what we find there in accord- 
 ance with our previous notions of rectitude or of expediency, 
 and to expend the ingenuity of a refined and perverse criti- 
 cism in supporting the credit of our own wisdom. The wisdom 
 of *^ ceasing from our own wisdom," Avhile it is the most diffi- 
 cult and rare of attainment, is the most valuable wisdom of all. 
 — What is the course pursued by us in the departments of na^ 
 ture ? Do we first set our wits to work, in forming a theoreti- 
 cal universe of our ovm, according to conceptions previously 
 fixed of what might be expected of divine wisdom and divine 
 goodness "r* Do we not rather apply ourselves to the investiga- 
 tion of the productions and arrangements of nature, and from 
 these form our estimate, and frame our demonstration, of the 
 attributes of the Maker? — Who is the man, let me ask, that 
 does most honour to God ? Is it not he who renounces most 
 entirely his own wisdom, and submits most implicitly to the dic- 
 tation of his word ? — who, instead of either demanding reasons 
 or calculating consequences, rests satisfied with the simple inti- 
 mation of the divine will ? It is thus, certainly, that we truly 
 honour either his authority, his wisdom, or his love, — Avhen we 
 go forward in the way he marks out for us, in the undoubting 
 assurance that implicit obedience to his will can never ulti- 
 mately be injurious, but must in all cases prove beneficial, in 
 promoting the glory of his name, the prosperity of his cause, 
 the efi^ectuation of his purposes, and the happiness of his crea- 
 tures. I kno\v no principle of greater importance ; and I urge 
 it anew, though at the risk of being charged with vain repeti- 
 
tion, — that in every instance in which the Lord of the conscience 
 lays down a rule for us, we have nothing to do but to follow it. 
 The stronger our faith, the more prompt, and fearless, and un- 
 compromising, will be our obedience. 
 
 Few things, I must confess, have surprised me more, in the 
 present controversy, than to see Christian men, — good and 
 great men, — commencing an argument, of which the object is 
 to ascertain the constitution and laws of the kingdom of Christ, 
 with an appeal to the dictates of natural reason. — In the first 
 place, the adoption of a process so circuitous, on such a sub- 
 ject, seems to involve a reflection on the sufficiency, either in 
 simplicity or in fulness, of the divine directory. Why should 
 it be necessary to prepare for an examination of the instruc- 
 tions and laws which are there given us, by a preliminary dis- 
 cussion of natural principles and the suggestions of reason ? — 
 In the second place, there appears to be something strangely in- 
 congruous in making an appeal to natural reason for the deter- 
 mination of questions relative to the constitution of the Chris- 
 tian church ! What can we possibly determine on such a sub- 
 ject, from such a source ? If it be said, the appeal relates, not 
 directly to the constitution of the Christian church, but only 
 to the great general principle of the incorporation of religion 
 with civil polity, various questions will then remain to be asked 
 and ans\vered, such as — What religion is? and whether that 
 which had place in regard to such religions as nature dictated, 
 be equally suitable for the religion of the New Testament V 
 How can such questions be answered, but by a direct appeal to 
 the New Testament itself? And why not at once begin, where, 
 after all our previous speculations, we must end ? — Why not 
 oxjme, in the first instance, with an humble teachable spirit (the 
 only qualification necessary for the right understanding of it) 
 to that inspired record, from which alone Ave can learn, either 
 the principles of the religion of Christ, or his Avill with regard 
 to the profession, support, and propagation of it? — Still fur- 
 ther : — I need not tell you what the result has been of the exer- 
 cise of natural reason in the things of God. Wliat has it actu- 
 ally produced ? A theory of what is called " natural religion," 
 constructed at the light of divine revelation, is a very different 
 thing from natural religion, when ascertained by universal ex- 
 perience, in countries where that light is not enjoyed. What 
 have all the unrevealed religions of mankind been ? Systems, 
 confessedly of polytheistic superstition and folly, — of which the 
 " gods many and lords many" have been worshipped with rites 
 
suited to their respective characters, — rites frivolous, ferocious, 
 and viie, — and, all of them, external, anti-spiritual, heartless. 
 Now, surely, that uhich was quite compatible Avith the nature 
 of such religions might he far from suiting the religion of 
 Christ, — the pure, spiritual, heart religion, of the gospel. — Nay 
 more : — it is quite possible to argue, on exceedingly plausible 
 grounds, — grounds which, on some points, it might not be easy 
 to dispute, or to prove fallacious, for the propriety and expe- 
 diency of the State taking this religion under its patronage, in- 
 corporating it with its civil institutes, supporting it from its re- 
 sources, and conferring peculiar privileges on certain classes of 
 its professors, for the purpose of encouraging its diffusion, and 
 promoting its influence : — but let the case be ever so plausible 
 which human sagacity may reason out, it is still but a hazard- 
 ous ground on which to place the determination of any thing 
 that relates to God's institutions and designs. The infinitely 
 Wise might say, in regard to all the devices of our wisdom, — 
 " 3Iy thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways 
 " my Avays." He might say so here. If he saw, that such asso- 
 ciation w ould impair the purity, the spirituality, and the distinc- 
 tiveness of his religion, and, while promoting the " form" of it, 
 weaken and hinder its power, — he might lay his authoritative 
 veto on all the conclusions of our sagacity, and address to us 
 the humbling but salutary reproof, — " If any man among you 
 " seemeth to be Avise in this world, let him become a fool, that 
 *' he may be wise.'' And then, of what avail are all our specu- 
 lations ? — the question still comes to be — the only question to 
 which an answer can settle the point in dispute — what is God's 
 mind ? — what saith the scripture ? This is the decision to which 
 we must bow ; and in every case the divine declaration wall be 
 found to hold true, — " As the heavens are higher than the earth, 
 *' so are my thoughts higher than your thoughts, and my ways 
 *' than your Avays." 
 
 Let not any of my hearers be startled by Avhat I said a little 
 ago, Avith regard to the religions of the Gentile Avorld, — that 
 Avhat Avas suitable enough for such systems, might not be suit- 
 able for the true religion : — let not any, I say, be startled, — 
 either friends in the Avay of apprehension, or opponents in the 
 Avay of triumph, — as if I Avere getting myself into a dilemma in 
 regard to the religion of the JcAvish people, — inasmuch as that 
 Avas the true religion, and yet that religion Avas actually estab- 
 lished as the national religion of Judea. We shall come to that 
 case by and by ; Avhen, from its peculiar nature and circum- 
 
10 
 
 stances, I hope to make it apparent, that the dilemma is one in 
 semblance only, and not in reality. Before proceeding to it, 
 ho^vever, there are one or two topics Avhich the advocates of 
 Establishments have introduced into the discussion, and which, 
 as they take precedence of it in the order of the Old Testament 
 history, demand some brief previous notice. 
 
 To the first of these, indeed, I have hesitated whether I 
 should at all advert ; and yet, the ground having been taken 
 with the apparent satisfaction and triumph of some of the 
 leading supporters of Establishments, it may be worth while 
 just to touch upon it ; the more especially, as there is no- 
 thing so weak as not to be caught at by some minds, in 
 the absence of something better. — It has been alleged, then, 
 that even in the history of the earliest period of our world's 
 existence, ^ve have a practical demonstration of the ineffi- 
 ciency of the voluntary principle ; — that, notwithstanding its 
 operation, and that too, in the outset, with every advantage 
 and under the most favourable auspices, the antediluvian race 
 of men became speedily so universally corrupt as to draw 
 down upon them the vengeance of heaven, which, with the 
 exception of eight souls, swept them all away. — Were it not 
 for the seriousness of our subject, and the consequent inde- 
 corum of treating any part of it with levity, we should feel 
 tempted to amuse ourselves a little Avith the conclusion implied 
 in this mode of arguing, that had there but existed a reli- 
 gious Establishment before the flood, the world might have 
 escaped that fearful catastrophe. — Without insulting your un- 
 derstandings, and taxing your patience, by any enl-arged re- 
 futation of such a phantasy, permit me to remark — 1. That, 
 an Establishment being, from its nature, a national institu- 
 tion, and there being, at the time of the original apostasy, 
 no nation, there could not, of course, be any thing of the 
 kind, when the tide of corruption set out in its progress. 
 Such checks as Avere then in operation could be those only 
 of parental and domestic influence. — 2. Wlien men multiplied 
 into tribes, and came to be nationally considered, it is ad- 
 mitted that we have no traces of a national Establishment of 
 religion. Now, without dwelling on the circumstance that 
 here we have one exception at least, or more than one, to 
 the universality of the dictate of natural reason, on which the 
 supporters of Establishments lay so great a stress, — I simply 
 ask, 11 111/ was there no such institution ? Vt'Iien our opponents 
 allege the fact, whether do they mean to insinuate a complaint 
 
11 
 
 against men, or against God ? — Against God ! they will say, 
 far be it that >ve should presume to complain of Him; our 
 complaint is against man : the blame lies Avith man, and with 
 man only. Let our friends on that side of the question, then, 
 recollect, that, on theii' own showing, the complaint involves 
 an admission, that, had any such thing existed as a national 
 religious Establishment, it could have been nothing more than 
 a Jiuman institution ; and that by the authority of any merely 
 human institution, we never could feel ourselves bound. — If, 
 in reply, they shall allege, that God acted judicially/ in with- 
 holding such an institution, and leaving men to their own 
 devices, we answer, — this is begging the questio7i ; — it is as- 
 suming the very point to be proved, namely, that Establish- 
 ments are calculated to secure the maintenance and advance- 
 ment of pure and undefiled religion ; — even so much so, as 
 to render the absence of them a punitive judgment. — 3. If 
 the complaint is not against God, then it is admitted that 
 God did his part towards man, — the part of righteousness and 
 of mercy. He did not leave himself without witness ; but so 
 ordered every part of his procedure as to leave his fallen crea- 
 tures without excuse. There were not only before their eyes, 
 in heaven, and earth, and sea, the visible signs of his being 
 and perfections; there were at the same time, from himself, rites 
 of instituted worship, especially those of sacrifice and other 
 typical observances ; there Avas early inspiration, announcing, 
 by '■* holy men of God who spoke as they were moved by 
 the Holy Ghost," the truths, and promises, and threatenings 
 of Jehovah. To Avhat extent this primitive inspiration reached, 
 it is impossible for us to ascertain. We have *' Enoch the 
 seventh from Adam" prophesying of the second coming of 
 the Lord to judgment, and, without doubt, of the first coming 
 of the Lord for salvation. We have Noah himself *' a preacher 
 of righteousness." And whether it was in the person of Noah 
 alone that Christ, by his .Spirit, during the 120 years of his 
 suspended vengeance ** while the ark was a-preparing, went 
 and preached to the spirits now in prison," we know not: 
 there might be many more during both that and the preceding 
 time. At all events, there was enough of manifestation to 
 vindicate the Creator, and to condemn the creature. And 
 yet, it seems, there was entirely left out of operation the most 
 efficient of all means, — the means which might have succeeded 
 when all else failed, — of preserving true religion and pui-e 
 morality amongst mankind. — 4. Suppose I were maintaining 
 
12 
 
 a matter-of-fact argument for the corruption oi human nature, 
 drawn from the early and universal degeneracy of the primi- 
 tive generations of men, might I not be perfectly justified in 
 reversing the line of reasoning thus maintained by oui* op- 
 ponents ? They insist that the degeneracy affords satisfactory 
 evidence of the inefficiency and Avorthlessness of the Voluntaiy 
 principle : — am not I entitled to use this very inefficiency in 
 proof of the melancholy force of corruption, and to place my 
 argument thus — that so resistlessly mighty was this force, as to 
 bear down all before it ; so that, notwithstanding all the means 
 of counteraction which the Divine Being saw fit to employ, — 
 means which must have been the best, — the best adapted, that 
 is, for securing from all reflexion the honour of his own name, 
 and for depriving his guilty creatures of every ground of self- 
 vindication, or of palliative apology, the corruption spread 
 through the whole mass, and drew down the merited vengeance? 
 — I leave it to the judgment of my hearers, whether such a re- 
 presentation is not more honouring to the Godliead, than that 
 which imputes to him, even although on principles Avhich leave 
 his equity unimpeached, the withholding from his creatures of 
 the only efficient means of counteracting their depravity ! 
 
 I need not say, that the same principles of reasoning might 
 be brought to bear, with the same conclusiveness, on the ac- 
 counts we have of the second trial of human nature in the de- 
 scendants of the second great progenitor of our race. — But I 
 have already spent too much time on such an argument. 
 
 There is another ground taken by our opponents, derived 
 from an incident recorded in the patriarchal history : — I refer 
 to tlie case of Melchisedec. 
 
 I have never been able to regard the use made of this case 
 otherwise than as indicative of a felt scarcity in the resources 
 of argument : — but, without vapouring about its irrelevancy, 
 let us look at it. — The mention made in the history of this singu- 
 lar personage is comprised in three verses. Gen. xiv. 18 — 20. 
 " And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine : 
 " and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, 
 " and said. Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of 
 " heaven and earth : And blessed be the most high God, which 
 " hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him 
 " tithes of all." The record is one of which we should never 
 ourselves have been able to make anything beyond mere con- 
 jecture, but for the inspired allusion to it in David, and the in- 
 spired commentary upon it in Paul. It is well for us to observe 
 
13 
 
 what it is Ave are taught by them. It is, that Melcliisedec was 
 one of the most distinguished typical representatives of Christ ; 
 — in name, the king- of righteousness, and in place, the king- 
 of peace ; — uniting- in his person the royal and the sacerdotal 
 cliaracters, — as king of Salem, and priest of the most high 
 (iod ; — the superior of Abraham, even of the great progenitor 
 of Israel, the father of the faithful, the friend of (iod, — a 
 superiority indicated by his "receiving tithes of Abraham, and 
 blessing liim that had the promises.'' This superiority, we are 
 further taught, was a decisive proof of the superiority of the 
 priesthood of Melchisedec to that of Levi the descendant of 
 Abraham ; and, by consequence, of the superiority oHiis priest- 
 hood who was '* called after the order of Melchisedec, and not 
 after the order of Aaron." — This is, substantially, though Avith- 
 out the variety of interesting and beautiful illustration, the 
 amount of the apostolic commentary on the case of JMelchisedec. 
 I mention it chiefly for the purpose of impressing the remem- 
 brance, that, whatever else may be drawn from it is not to 
 be regarded as having- the authority of New Testament in- 
 terpretation, but is only a human inference. If, however, 
 the inference be obvious and legitimate, it is not, we admit, 
 merely on account of its inferential character, to be rejected. 
 Let us see, then, how it stands. — The lawfulness and propriety 
 of the union between church and state, are conceived to be 
 countenanced by the union in the person of Melchisedec of 
 the royal and the priestly functions : inasmuch as Ave cannot 
 but suppose, that Melchisedec, as a king, would exercise his 
 royal prerogative in support of his priesthood ; and, as a 
 priest, his priestly influence in maintaining the rights, and 
 giving efiiciency to the laAvs, of his civil administration. — 
 NoAv, it is generally admitted as one of the canons of legi- 
 timate reasoning, that Avhat proves too much proves nothing. 
 The full and fair inference from the case of Melchisedec 
 would be, the propriety of uniting the civil and ecclesiastical 
 functions in the persons of Christian kings. If the case 
 proves any thing, it proves this. Yet this is an inference 
 which no one attempts to deduce. Dr Inglis says, " In the 
 " case of Melchisedec, the functions of a priest and of a king 
 " were, in their exei'cise, more strictly combined than they 
 " now are for the support of any Establishment which it is 
 " the object of these pages to defend." But why not go the 
 full length of what the case exemplifies ? It appears to be 
 thought, that, since the more strict combination existed, we 
 
14 
 
 are entitled, a fortiori, to infer the legitimacy of the less strict. 
 But this, I apprehend, is fallacious ground. We are not en- 
 titled to alter and to modify divine examples. If they are 
 meant for our imitation at all, Ave should regard them as they 
 are, — not taking a part and leaving a part, — following what 
 accords with our notions of expediency, and declining the rest. 
 That Avhich ishere exemplified is, obviously, the union of the royal 
 and sacerdotal offices in the same person. If it be an example, 
 there is a presumptuous deficiency in the imitation, if it is 
 not followed out to this extent. — When it is asked, ** In Avhat 
 " other Avay will the opponents of Ecclesiastical Establishments 
 *^ account for what God Avas, in this case, pleased both to per- 
 '* mit and to sanction?" — i. e. in Avhat other Avay, than as a 
 Avarrant for the reciprocal support of the Church by the State, 
 and of the State by the Church ? — our answer is at hand. It 
 is furnished by the inspired author of the Epistle to the He- 
 brews. It is to be found both in Avhat he says, and in Avhat 
 he does not say. He teaches us to regard the case of Melclii- 
 sedec, as designed to be a peculiarly appropriate and per- 
 fect type of the royal pontificate of the Son of God — even 
 of him Avho is '* a priest upon his throne." This is what he 
 does teach. — He does not teach us to consider the case as, in 
 any Avay, furnishing an example for our imitation. Not a Avord 
 of the kind is to be found. We look in vain for the remotest 
 hint of any principle in it, by Avhich our conduct is to be 
 reo^ulated, in regard either to ecclesiastical or civil affairs. 
 There is nothing about Church and State in the inspired com- 
 mentary ; it is only to be found in the uninspired, and there- 
 fore the unauthoritative. The case Avas manifestly peculiar. 
 It Avas not at all intended as a pattern for any human institu- 
 tion, but only as a type of things divine. We are on the 
 surest and safest ground, Avhen Ave consider the apostle as 
 having, in his interpretation, exhausted the lessons Avhich the 
 case Avas designed to teach. We knoAV so little about it, — 
 being in entire ignorance as to the character and condition 
 even of the people among Avhom, as a priest, tliis singular and 
 mysterious personage officiated ; it is altogether, in the state- 
 ment of it, so succinct and so obscure ; that inferences from it, 
 beyond Avhat the apostle deduces, can have nothing in them of 
 authority, and nothing therefore of obligation. — When I speak 
 of the case of Melchisedec as peculiar, I do not mean that 
 there existed nothing in the same age bearing any resemblance 
 to it. In the patriarchal dispensation, the religious and the 
 
15 
 
 civil functions were to a certain extent united in the Heads of 
 families, and of what may be called Clans. Tlius it was 
 with Abraham, with Job, and others. But even under the 
 Mosaic economy, this union was done away ; — the kingly and 
 priestly functions being then separated, and becoming, dis- 
 tinctly, typical of offices, to be afterwards permanently com- 
 bined in Christ. — And since in him both the kingly and the 
 priestly found their fulfilment and termination ; unless we 
 convert the very combination of the two in Christ himself 
 into a warrant for the alliance of Church and State, the 
 example utterly fails us. But there are few, it is presumed, 
 who will think of going quite so high for their pattern. 
 
 With regard to that part of the brief notice of Melchisedec, 
 
 which is pressed into the service of Establishments as the 
 
 pattern, or the justification, of the mode of their support, 
 
 it will not be necessary that we detain you long. I can do 
 
 little more than repeat, as already I have been pa^'tly doing, 
 
 what others have said before me. — In the first place. What 
 
 was the tithe which was given by Abraham to Melchisedec - 
 
 It was, as the history tells us, the tenth of the spoil which 
 
 he had taken in war. Now, " by the law of Moses," says Mr 
 
 Spence,* "the spoils taken in war belonged wholly to the 
 
 ''victors; (Deut. xx. 14.) and we have no reason to suppose 
 
 " that a different custom obtained in the days of Abraham. 
 
 " If he, therefore, gave a tenth of the spoils to Melchisedec, 
 
 "priest of the most high God, he did so voluntarily, and 
 
 " beyond what any law of God required, even as David and 
 
 " his captains did, when they dedicated to the Lord ' the 
 
 " spoils won in battles, to maintain the house of the Lord.'* " 
 
 — " This, therefore, instead of being a compulsory" — or even, 
 
 he might have said, an obligatory — " payment of tithe to the 
 
 " priest of the most high God, was a free-will offering, and 
 
 "is a bright example of the voluntai-y principle, which 
 
 " leads those pious persons who embrace it, not only to give 
 
 " to the Lord willingly when his law requires them, but also 
 
 " to give, in accordance with the spirit of religion, on every 
 
 " fitting occasion, although not specifically mentioned, or ex- 
 
 " pressly enjoined, by the letter of the law." — Secondly, There 
 
 is no proof whatever of Melchisedec having been supported by 
 
 tithe-payments ; far less of his having received them in any 
 
 such capacity as that which he has been gratuitously represented 
 
 as sustaining, — the " Head of the patriarchal priesthood." 
 
 * Comparison of the Voluntary and Compulsory Systems, &c. 
 
 B 2 
 
16 
 
 This is going beyond both the Mosaic narrative and the 
 Pauline commentary. As one who wore a crown as Avell as 
 a mitre, he could not stand in need of such maintenance : — 
 nor, indeed, does Dr Inglis himself argue from the case 
 for the regular maintenance by tithe even of the priesthood 
 of those times : — " 1 do not say that these cases,'' — (he is in- 
 cluding that of Jacob's vow, which is an instance of the same 
 voluntary description, only that Jacob, as Mr Marshall justly 
 observes, " was the consumer of his own tithes, building altars 
 and offering sacrifices, with a liberal hand, at Bethel and at 
 Shechem, and wherever else his occasions led him," — and, 
 from its coming under the same category of free-will offerings, 
 we deem it needless to dwell further upon it) — " I do not say 
 " that these cases afford decisive evidence that it was by means 
 " of tithes that any of the priests under the patriarchal dis- 
 " pensation were maintained, exclusively, and from year to 
 "■^ year. The facts with which we are made acquainted do not 
 " enable us either to afiii-m or deny this position.'' — ^But this 
 representation hardly comes up to the truth. We have, in these 
 cases, instances, I will not say of the payment of tithes, for 
 the word payment naturally suggests the idea of debt, but of 
 the giving or bestowment of tithes, such as were manifestly 
 occasional and voluntary. Of occasional and voluntary tithe- 
 ^iving, then, we liave evidence in these cases, — the evidence 
 of facts ; — but of stated or obligatory i\i\\Q-paying we have no 
 evidence, there being no facts of the kind then on record, nor 
 any statutes enjoining it. I am to be understood as speaking 
 of patriarchal times. Of the sense in which tithe-paying was 
 obligatory under the Jewish economy we may have occasion 
 hereafter to speak ; when we shall endeavour to show you, that 
 the sense in which it was obligatory is perfectly consistent with 
 the sense in which we affirm it to have been voluntary ; al- 
 though no little pains have been taken to perplex people "s 
 minds on the subject, by confounding things that are essentially 
 different. — Meantime I conclude my observations on the case 
 of Melchisedec, with remarking, — and I would be understood 
 to make the remark more in the way of a passing suggestion 
 than of a serious argument, — that, if our friends on the oppo- 
 site side of this question will have something founded upon it, 
 perhaps it would be as legitimate an inference as any they have 
 been able to deduce, — that, if the union of Church and State is 
 to be at all considered as symbolized or countenanced by the 
 union of the royal and the priestly offices in the person of 
 
\1 
 
 Melchisedec, — tlien might there be found in it some little sup- 
 port to the identity of Church and State property. 3Iel- 
 ohisedec the priest was the same with Melchisedec the king. 
 What sustained the one sustained the other. What belonged to 
 the one belonged to the other. If, therefore, Melchisedec the 
 king represents the State, and Melchisedec the priest represents 
 the Church, and the meeting of the two functions in his one 
 person represents the connexion of the one with the other, — 
 then what belongs to the Church belongs to the State, and what 
 belongs to the State belongs to the Church. The properties 
 are identified. This deduction is at least as legitimate as any 
 other. But the truth is, the case affords no ground of argu- 
 ment at all ; and Avould never have been appealed to, but for 
 the scantiness of better material. 
 
 We now come forward to what may be considered the palla- 
 dium of our opponents, — the Jewish Rstablishment. There 
 was a national Establishment in Israel, it is alleged: — the God 
 of Israel could not give the sanction of his authority, by direct 
 institution and constant support, to what was, in the very prin- 
 ciple of it, wrong : — and we have, therefore, in this recorded 
 case, an example in point of a national religion, and a national 
 establishment of it, having the full weight of divine authority, 
 and more than warranting our imitation. 
 
 Now, taking this reasoning in this general form, it has a 
 plausible aspect, and has accordingly imposed upon many minds. 
 It shall be my endeavour to show, that any plausibility which 
 belongs to it, arises solely from the confounding, by the use 
 of general terms, of one thing with another, from which it is 
 essentially different ; and that the plausibility vanishes as soon 
 as the two things are compared. — I have, on a former occasion, 
 urged, as my first objection to the alleged example in this case, 
 that " imitation is, in the nature of the thing, impossible : — 
 that it is a case which comes not within the range of the imi- 
 table : — that the only imitation possible must be on the part of 
 God himself: — that, the Jewish constitution being 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, or civil Head, — himself con- 
 ducting the administration of their government, by a system of 
 supernatural interposition, and immediate manifestation of his 
 presence and authority, — none but Jehovah himself can imitate 
 this: — and that to talk of imitation, in a case so thoroughly 
 peculiar, or to call that imitation, in which the essence of the 
 B 3 
 
18 
 
 thing imitated is of necessity wanting-, is the height of absur- 
 dity."* — I have seen no reason, from any thing I have since 
 heard or read on the subject, to retract or to modify this state- 
 ment. — I have no wish to debate about words. Some have 
 questioned the propriety of calling the Jewish a national church. 
 But, dismissing this as a needless refinement, I still insist upon 
 it, that, its theocratic character being no mere circumstantial 
 difference, but belonging to its very nature, that which calls 
 itself an imitation of it Avants its most essential feature ; wants 
 the very thing that warranted its existence ; and the want sub- 
 jects the professed imitation to the charge of daring and pro- 
 fane presumption. — I grant that Jehovah instituted a national 
 church : — but then, he instituted such a church, witli himself 
 as the Supreme Head of ecclesiastical and civil government 
 to the nation, which thus sustained the twofold capacity of 
 Church and State. — I ask again, can this be imitated? — or is 
 the conclusion at all a legitimate one, that because Jehovah 
 instituted, and consequently, approved a national church with 
 such a theocratic superintendence, therefore he must necessarily 
 approve of a national church without it ? Is the difference 
 between the two cases so trivial and circumstantial, as not to 
 affect the validity of any inference from the one to the other i:' 
 That God instituted a national church where the government 
 was divine, must form a very questionable ground for conclud- 
 ing that he approves of a national church where the govern- 
 ment is merely human. So far from the difference being im- 
 material, it amounts to the difference between human and divine. 
 That surely may be a right and a safe constitution under the 
 management of God, which is the very reverse of right and 
 safe under the management of men. And may we not consider 
 the Divine Being as having, by that very singular and unique 
 constitution of civil and ecclesiastical government which sub- 
 sisted in Israel, impressively taught the lesson, that in no other 
 circumstances than under his immediate superintendence, is 
 such a union of the civil and the sacred admissible with safety 
 or with benefit? Seeing the only instance of an establishment 
 sanctioned by divine authority is one under a theocracy, M'ho 
 will undertake to prove that the theocracy is not the very thing 
 necessary to its having his approbation ? 
 
 When we have affirmed imitation impossible, we have been 
 charged with contradicting facts. Imitation cannot be impos- 
 sible ; for Christ and his apostles did imitate. But what, I 
 * Sermon on Civil Establishments of Christiauit}-. 
 
19 
 
 ask, did they imitate ? Did they imitate this f If not, they 
 did not imitate the only thing to which the affirmation applied. 
 They imitated certain particulars of the ancient ceremonial, it 
 is alleged, in the i-ites of baptism and the Lord's supper ; in 
 the number of the apostles and of the seventy disciples, they 
 imitated the number of the tribes of Israel and of the Jewish 
 Sanhedrim ; in some parts of the institutions of Christian wor- 
 ship and church order, they imitated corresponding parts of 
 the worship and order of the synagogue. But this is drivelling. 
 Do any of these imitations (supposing them granted, and it is 
 not to our present purpose to dispute them,) — do any of them 
 prove the possibility of that which alone was affirmed impossi- 
 ble — the possibility of man's imitating \vhat, from its very nature, 
 it was competent only for God to do? Supposing Jesus and 
 his apostles to have followed, in the constitution of the Chris- 
 tian chui'ch, some parts of the synagogue observances — what fol- 
 lows ? — Why, that by this very imitation these became author- 
 ized institutions of the New Testament kingdom. Did Christ 
 and his apostles, then, imitate the national constitution of the 
 ancient church y I need not answer the question. And if 
 they did not, the imitation must for ever be destitute of their 
 authority. — What they did imitate has that authority; what 
 they did not imitate lias it not. — ** Christ and his apostles," 
 Mr Fleming adds, " imitated the Jewish system, in so far as 
 " was suitable to the nature and doctrine of his dispensation." 
 Be it so : — then, since their imitation went as far as was suit- 
 able, all imitation further than they imitated must be unsuit- 
 able. When the writer asks, — " Why may not we, in this, 
 follow their steps y" — it ought to be a sufficient reply, and will 
 be so to every one who " trembles at the word of the Lord," 
 — that we are not quite such competent judges of suitable imi- 
 tation as Christ and his apostles. The nationality of the an- 
 cient church was no such trivial and adventitious matter of form, 
 as that we could be safe in following it, when it was not fol- 
 lowed by them. Our sole and simple duty is, an uni-eserved 
 compliance with the divine injunction, by the voice from the 
 excellent glory, — '* This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
 pleased: — hear ye him." 
 
 AVhen we say that, at the first constitution of the Christian 
 church, there was no imitation of the nationality of the Jewish, 
 and no association of it with the civil polities of this Avorld, — 
 we, in our turn, are met by our opponents with an alleged 
 impossibility. The circumstances of the case did not, at the 
 
20 
 
 time, Ave are reminded, at all admit of such a thing. — But mark 
 the difference between our impossibility and theirs. Ours is 
 the impossibility of men's doing what, from the nature of the 
 thing, cannot be done without the concurrence of God ; theirs 
 is the impossibility of God's doing what cannot be done with- 
 out the concurrence of men ! Circumstanc^es did not admit of 
 it ! — as if there Avere any circumstances which Avere not under 
 the absolute control of Omnipotence ! There may be no more 
 than inconsideration on the part of those who give utterance 
 to the sentiment; but in the sentiment itself there is no ordi- 
 nary presumption. — The most high God was introducing a new 
 economy, or constitution, of his church in the world. It is 
 surely natural to suppose, that he would then place it on the 
 footing on which he intended it should continue. Were we to 
 represent it as impossible for the apostles and primitive disciples 
 to effect an alliance of their religion with the civil poAvers, Ave 
 should say no more than truth. They could not command this, 
 either Avith Jewish or Avith Gentile rulers. But Avhen the sub- 
 ject is the introduction of the Ncav Testament dispensation, Ave 
 must not think and speak of the agency of men. It Avas " the 
 Lord's doing." "The Lord wrought Avith them.'' The powers 
 of nature, and the hearts of sinners, Avere alike subject to his 
 Avill. Was it not in his power to influence the existing author- 
 ities of those days according to his pleasure, and so to eflect, 
 from the very first, the establishment of Christianity, and pro- 
 vide for it the patronage and endoAvment of the State ? To 
 question this, is worse than either inconsiderate or presumptu- 
 ous; it is impious. It is " limiting the Holy One of Israel." — 
 But, besides all this, such a representation is, on the part of oui- 
 opponents, very inconsistent. According to them, the same 
 thing Avas done at an after period. It Avas the Divine Being 
 that influenced the mind and heart of Constantino the Great, 
 to do the very thing for the necessity of Avhich they plead. 
 Now, surely, Avhat Avas possible then, Avas not less possible three 
 hundred years before. The heart of the Roman emperor of 
 that time Avas not more easily Avorked upon than tlie heart of 
 any one of his predecessors, or than the hearts of the Jewish 
 rulers of apostolic days, — than that of Tiberius, or of Annas, 
 or Caiaphas. Who Avill deny, that he had it in his poAver, Avith 
 perfect facility and certainty, to insure for the Gospel the in- 
 stant and hearty patronage either of the Gentile or of the 
 Jewish poAvers ? Who does deny it ? Ave may ba asked in 
 reply. All that Ave mean, our opponents may allege, is, that 
 
21 
 
 then was not Gocfs time ; — and since, in regard to time as well 
 as to every thing else, he can do only that which is best, this is 
 the only impossibility we mean to affirm, — a moral impossibil- 
 ity, arising from the necessai-y rectitude, not only of the divine 
 acts, but of the seasons selected for the doing of them. God 
 did not see jit to do at first what he did see fit to do afterwards. 
 — Let us look at the case, then, in this light. Most readily 
 do we grant, that it is not ours to prescribe to the infinitely 
 Wise, either what he should do, or when he should do it : — and, 
 had we but gi'ound for believing, respecting any transaction, 
 that it was done by divine authority, we should have no title 
 to find fault with the time at which he was pleased to fix the 
 doing of it. But in the chain of the present argument, there 
 is a most important link Avanting, without which it has no con- 
 tinuity, and can support no conclusion. Had the national 
 establishment of Christianity taken place at first, under the 
 direction of the accredited vicegerents of the exalted Redeemer: 
 and had the account of it formed a part of the inspired record 
 of the erection of the New Testament kingdom ; we should 
 then have had full assurance of its having been done by divine 
 authority. But it is not so. No one pretends that it is. What, 
 then, have we now "? What have we in the case of Constantine? 
 What more than a simple fact in history ? But does the mere 
 occurrence of it, as a fact in history, give us any evidence of 
 the divine approbation ? This will not be affirmed by any 
 man who wishes to have credit for a sound understanding. 
 What, then, are we to do with this fact? To what test are we 
 to bring it ? Is it not manifest, that there is nothing else for 
 us, than to come back three hundred years, for the only stand- 
 ard by which the mind of God concerning it can be ascertained? 
 And is it not equally manifest, that, nothing of the kind having 
 been done at first, and no principles having been laid down in 
 the record, to wan-ant, prospectively, the future doing of it, 
 we have all the evidence we ought to require to satisfy us, that 
 the fact, instead of being in conformity to the mind of God, 
 was a departure from it ? 
 
 Few things are more surprising than the use that lias been 
 made of this fact, to elicit from it an indication of the will of 
 God ; — the amount of ingenious theorizing that has been ex- 
 pended upon it. All that we have said about what God could 
 have done and did not, is admitted ; — for how, indeed, after all, 
 could it be seriously questioned ? When we argue, however, 
 on this ground, that what he did not had not his approbation, 
 
22 
 
 Ave are met, by Dr Inglis, with the following reply : — " But 
 " if, in reference to the point in question, we allow ourselves 
 " to reason upon this ground, where is such reasoning to 
 " end? May we not argue, with equal propriety, that it was 
 "in the power of God, from the beginning, to make divine 
 " influence effectual, in all cases, for superseding the use of all 
 " outward means and outward agency 'f" — But where, I would 
 ask, is the analogy between the two cases ? To have any thing- 
 like an analogous case, we must have one, in which God sets out 
 on a certain principle, a principle which thus has the sanction of 
 his word, and continues to carry forward his measures on this 
 principle for a period of successive centuries ; and then men 
 take upon them to innovate on this principle, and presume on 
 tlie superior excellence and more promising success of another ! 
 — If, in the case supposed by Dr Inglis, God himself had com- 
 menced with a system of " outward means and outward agency," 
 and afterwards, at whatever distance of time, it had appeared, 
 in point of fact, that the same effects began, remarkably and 
 numerously, to be produced witJiout such means and agency, — 
 this would have been a case, in which the very fact would have 
 involved evidence of the divine will : for this obvious reason, 
 that, from the nature of the fact, it could be the doing of no 
 other than God himself; — so that the very doing of it would at 
 once have shown that he had changed liis plan. But in the 
 case now in question, it is quite otherwise. It is throughout, 
 and in every view of it, a case of " outward means and outwaid 
 agency." When God begins on one system of such agency 
 and such means, and another is afterwards introduced by men, 
 we have no evidence in the mere fact, of the alteration having 
 the sanction of heaven, — unless we ai'e prepared to adopt the 
 preposterous and fearful principle, that fact proves rigJit^ — 
 that events permitted in Providence are, in all cases, satisfac- 
 tory evidence of divine approbation, — a principle, which would 
 stamp with '' the image and superscription of Heaven," all 
 descriptions of superstition and fanaticism, the whole Anti- 
 christian " mystery of iniquity," and every evil that is done 
 under the sun. — I repeat, then, — that we have no way of de- 
 termining in the present case, whether the procedui-e of Con- 
 stantine had or had not the sanction of Him into whose hands 
 " all power in heaven and earth is committed," — but recurring 
 to the record. I take the deceased and respected writer, on 
 whose words I have been commenting, on his own ground : — 
 *' In what concerns the ways of God," says he, " we can 
 
23 
 
 '* safely judge of what was right or Ht for him to do, only from 
 " what v.eknow him to have actually done." What, then, did 
 he actually do, in the acknowledged exercise of his own author- 
 ity ? He constituted his church in a state of entire indepen- 
 dence of the governments of this world ; a spiritual kingdom, 
 maintained and propagated by its own subjects and its own 
 resources ; in the world, but not of the world ; — unindebted to 
 earthly powers, uncontaminated by earthly alliances. TJiis is 
 what he '' actually did :" — and if it be true, that " we can safely 
 judge of what it Avas right or fit for him to do, only from what 
 we know him to have actually done," — in this, and in this only, 
 are we warranted to believe, is rectitude and fitness. — There 
 cannot, surely, be ground more insecure for creatures like us, 
 than to conjecture " excellent reasons" why the apostles of 
 Clirist were silent in regard to particular duties, — and why, 
 " so far as we can see" their commands, had they given any, 
 must have been so general as to be of little use, and '^ in all 
 likelihood'''' not only useless but in various ways dangerous !* — 
 This, I say, is not ground for us. Poor short-sighted creatures I 
 hoAv far is it that we can see '? Our only safety is in taking the 
 revelation of God as we find it ; and, instead of presuming to 
 introduce important innovations, which to our wisdom may seem 
 to tlow from its principles and analogies, to act upon the divine 
 interdi<;tion, Avhich cannot surely be less strongly applicable to 
 the Apostolic than to the Mosaic word : — *' Ye shall not add 
 unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish 
 aught from it."t We take this simple position, then ; a posi- 
 
 * Brown's Church Establishments Defended, p. 121. 
 t " Let us then suppose for a moment, that it was the will of Christ, 
 that when Christianity should so far have diffused its influence as to in- 
 clude among its friends the most powerful persons in the empire, the 
 emperors should then, of their own accord, lend their official aid to the 
 faith they had formerly persecuted ; I ask whether, in the circumstances 
 of the apostolic age, it was not enough, and in perfect accordance with 
 the spirit that pervades the precepts of Christianity, to lay down certain 
 cardinal principles, out of which, taken along with the analogy of the 
 Old Testament Scriptures, the duty of rulers to endow the church would 
 naturally be seen to flow, as soon as circumstances should admit of the 
 duty being discharged ; the application of the principles in each parti- 
 cular case, along with all limitations and modifications, being left to be 
 regulated by the leadings of Divine Providence, in conjunction with 
 Christian prudence, and a sense of duty." Ibid, page 122. — This is, in 
 fact, leaving all to human discretion ; inasmuch as it is by it that the 
 " leadings of Providence"' must be interpreted. 1 ask the respected 
 writer, if, in sober earnest, he thinks this safe ground in such matters. 
 . Have we any right to " suppose for a moment" that any thing is " the 
 will of Christ," especially any thing of such magnitude, about wiiich he 
 
24 
 
 tion from Avliich we cannot be moved ; — and we beseech our 
 brethren in Christ connected with the Established Church, to 
 think of it anew, and to consider, whether, in attempting to 
 dislodge us from it, they may not be found " fighting against 
 God." They cannot question the simple facts of the record. 
 These facts were ordered by the authority of the King of Zion. 
 If they presume to say, he might intend it to he otherwise 
 afterwards, I remind them that the mere fact can never be 
 sufiicient evidence of such intention ; and demand of them a 
 new revelation, accredited by the same signs and wonders which 
 attested the authority of the old. 
 
 We are reminded, moreover, on the present subject, that, 
 although the ceremonial law was abolished, the moral law 
 remains, in all its force of obligation. We grant at once the 
 truth of the position, and the importance of the distinction. 
 But we ask, of what avail is it in the present controversy, un- 
 less it can be proved that the national constitution of the Jewish 
 church, and the system of tithes by which its priesthood Avas 
 supported, formed a part of the moral law ? — " It has ever been 
 ** the rule by human lawgivers," it is argued, " that no law 
 " or statute is rescinded or annulled, without due and public 
 " notice, that so all may know what they had to do. This is 
 " the conduct of all wise and enlightened legislators. If, in 
 " place of rescinding a whole statute, only particular parts of 
 " it are rescinded, the parts so rescinded are mentioned, as no 
 " longer binding or in force ; but all the rest of the statute 
 " continues as obligatory as before. Every jurist knows this. 
 " Regulated, therefore, by this canon, acknowledged on all 
 " hands to be correct, we should have expected, when the new 
 " law, or testament, was published, that what was to be re- 
 " scinded would be clearly and unequivocally expressed; and 
 "that whatever was not so expressed, and particularly except- 
 " ed, was to remain as obligatory a^ before."* — Suppose the 
 
 has given no instructions and no intimations of its being his v\ill? — Can 
 we imagine even emperors warranted to interfere officially ^'^ of their own 
 accord'''' with the concerns of Christ's kingdom? — And as to this being 
 done Avhen *' circumstances admitted of the duly being discharged," what 
 circumstances prevented its being done long before, except the absence 
 of the imperial will? Could Tiberius, or any emperor between him and 
 Constantine, not have "lent his official aid to tlie faith,'' if he had so 
 pleased? And could not God have so ordered it, if He had so pleased? 
 — And besides all this, I am at a loss for the " cardinal principles'''' re- 
 ferred to. In all that is said of the kingdom of Christ, 1 find cardinal 
 principles of quite an opposite kind, admitting of no such innovations. 
 * Fleming's Critique on Dr Wardlaw's Sermon, p. 12. 
 
25 
 
 principle thus laid down to be granted — (and, although it is 
 expressed in terms somewhat sweeping and undiscriuiinating, 
 I feel no disposition to question it,) — mark the consequence. 
 Whatever, in the IVIosaic law, was of a ceremonial nature is 
 admitted on both sides to have been done away. W hen the 
 national establishment, then, is represented as having continued 
 ** as obligatory as before,''' the obligation meant must be moral 
 obligation. What, then, are we to make of the fact, that, in 
 tlie constitution of the Christian community, as organized by 
 Christ and his apostles, there was nothing of the kind ; — nor 
 any command given, that at any future period, when altered 
 circumstances admitted of it, it should be introduced; — nor any 
 principles laid down, such as would A\arrant the introduction 
 or the expectation of it V ^^'as there, on the part of Christ 
 and his apostles, a suspension of the moral obligation of this 
 part of the divine institutes, — a suspension continued for three 
 centuries, and ultimately taken olfby the self-assumed authority 
 of a heathen, — or, if you like it better, of a Christian prince ! 
 — What shall we say ? Is the unquestioned and unquestionable 
 fact of its actual discontinuance not to be regarded by us as 
 proof sufficient of its not having been one of those parts of the 
 ancient system of which the authority and obligation remained? 
 Ought we to require any further evidence of its being the divine 
 intention that it should pass away, beyond the actual fact that 
 it did pass away ? If Christ and his apostles did not continue 
 it, who is authorized to restore it ? — Tlie more direct evidence 
 of the divine purpose we have hereafter to bring before you. 
 
 In my sermon on religious Establishments, I have charged 
 tliose who would make the national church of Israel a model, 
 — even in the general principle of it, — for the imitation of 
 Christians, with '' wilfully going back to the worldly and 
 " corrupt state of things, that has ' waxed old and vanished 
 '* away ;' " with ** taking for their model that which He by 
 " whom it was instituted has set aside ;" with " giving pre- 
 *' ference to the * beggarly elements,' and choosing the intro- 
 " ductory and carnal condition of the church, rather than the 
 *' spiritual which it introduced;" with thus " inverting God's 
 '' procedure," and *' building again the things which he has 
 *' destroyed." — I repeat the charge. 
 
 It is common, when we set aside the authority of the Jewish 
 establishment in Christian times, to meet us with the objection, 
 that we are setting aside the Old Testa?nent, as affording us 
 no example,— es^eciaWy in regard to the obligations and duties 
 
26 
 
 of nations. — Now, this is a charge that is certainly made with- 
 out due discrimination. In taking the Scriptures as our guide, 
 we must take them with a right understanding of the divine 
 intention in their several parts. We do not use the word 
 of God discriminately, or as its divine Author intended it to 
 be used, when we use it otherwise than thus. That valuable 
 lessons are to be learned from every part of the Scriptures, is 
 gladly admitted. But with regard to the examples which we are 
 bound or even authorized to follow, there is necessity for the 
 exercise of discretion, and of prayer for divine counsel and 
 guidance. It is very obvious, that that may be right and bene- 
 ficial in certain circumstances, — the circumstances in which 
 God has enjoined it, — which may be the very reverse, even 
 wrong and injurious, in otlier circumstances. On our present 
 subject, accordingly, the only legitimate question is. Was the 
 national constitution of the Jewish church designed by God to 
 be an example or model for the Christian church? This is a 
 question which can never be satisfactorily answered by merely 
 proving the general position — a position which no one ques- 
 tions — that the Old Testament Scriptures Avere '* written for 
 our learning," and do contain '* ensamples" for our imitation. 
 The special inquiry immediately recurs, — Is this one of these 
 exatnples ? This is obviously tlie one point to be determined ; 
 and all discussion of general principles can serve only to mis- 
 lead and bcAvilder the simple. 
 
 If it was the purpose and the will of God that the nationality 
 of the church should be continued, then the imputation against 
 those who go back to it for their model, or their principle, must 
 on my part be retracted ; — but if this was indeed among the 
 characteristics of the ancient system which were to be abolished, 
 then it stands in full force. — Now, we have already seen the 
 fact. It was done away. The New Testament church did 
 cease to be national. It ceased to be so in two senses. It 
 ceased to be national in the comprehensiveness of its fellow- 
 ship ; and it ceased to be national in its dependence on state 
 support. — The Jewish church Avas, in the true and full meaning 
 of the designation, a national chuich. It Avas a church, I mean, 
 embracing the Avhole community ; so that citizenship in the 
 nation constituted membership in the church. In saying that 
 " the nation was the church, and the church the nation," I have 
 been misrepresented, as confounding the civil and ecclesiastical 
 departments of the Jewish constitution, and their respective 
 cfRcial functions and laws. All that I meant was, as any candid 
 
27 
 
 and attentive reader could not fail to perceive, that they were 
 the same in the article of membersJdp ^ every member of the 
 civil or political community being, in virtue of his status as a 
 citizen, a member at the same time of the Israelitish church. 
 Surmises have been thrown out as to the correctness of this re- 
 presentation. But I have seen no formal denial of it, — far less 
 any attempt to disprove it Were not the various religious 
 festivals of the Je\vs, all of them, national observances ? — All 
 binding on the people at large ? Were not all under obliga- 
 tion, for example, to keep that first and most distinctive of 
 Jewish feasts — the passover ? The only excuses for its non- 
 observance were occasional ceremonial uncleannesses, or other 
 incidental causes of hinderance. Where these did not exist 
 the obligation to the observance Avas universal. And so was it 
 with the other '* feasts of the Lord." Even on the great day 
 of annual atonement, one of the most solemnly religious cere- 
 monies of that dispensation, what was the law^* — Lev. xxlii. 29 
 30. '' For whatsoever soul it be, that shall not be afflicted in 
 that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And 
 whatsoever soul it be that doeth any Avork in that same day, 
 the same soul will I destroy from among his people." — When 
 good king Hezekiah commenced his reign with the celebration 
 of the passover, the messengers that bore the invitation to 
 Judah and Israel made no distinction. They summoned all the 
 people. What now should Ave think, Avere William the IV. to 
 issue a proclamation, summoning all his loyal people to assem- 
 ble, on a fixed day, at the metropolis of the kingdom, for the 
 purpose of holding, as a national festival, the celebration of the 
 ordinance of the Lord's supper! Would this be quite in accordance 
 Avith the spirit or the letter of the laws of Christ's kinodom ? 
 Would it not rather, under the guise of godliness, be the most 
 flagrant and presumptuous profanation ? — I endeavoured, in the 
 sermon already referred to, to show, that the principle adopted 
 by Hooker, according to Avhich every member of the English 
 commonwealth is a member of the English church, c^ejz/ re and 
 de facto^ is the only principle for a truly consistent and 
 thorough-going imitation of the Jewish pattern. And, indeed, 
 on both sides of the T^veed, Avhatever may be said in occasional 
 mitigation of the Avell-known and fearful laxity of parochial 
 communion in the Lord's supper, there is, in regard to the or- 
 dinance of baptism, a most melancholy and mischievous approx- 
 imation to national universality. We are a baptized nation ; 
 — and, by this means, — the natural result of an established form 
 c 2 
 
28 
 
 of worship, — we are an extensively and miserably deluded 
 nation, — systematically and guiltily deluded. 
 
 Why it was, that Jehovah constituted his church of old on 
 the principle of nationality, it is not at all our present province 
 to inquire. Our only question now is one as to fact : — and of 
 the fact there can be no doubt. — During the continuance of 
 this national system, there could not fail to be, and there 
 always was, though at some times to a much more distressing 
 extent than at others, a great prevalence of corrupt and no- 
 minal religious profession and fellowship. But it was a state 
 of things that was not destined to continue. In their anticipa- 
 tions of the fulness of time, the inspired prophets describe it as 
 a period of purification to the churcli ; when " the wicked were 
 " to be shaken out of it;" when there were " no longer to enter 
 " into it the uncircumcised or the unclean." The Messiah, " the 
 *' Messenger of the covenant," is announced, as a *' refiner 
 *' and purifier of silver," who should " purify the sons of Levi, 
 " and purge them as gold and silver, so that they might ofl^er 
 *' to the Lord an offering in righteousness :'' — i. e. according to 
 Mr Scott, — who should " purify his church and the hearts of his 
 ** people from all dross, and prepare a pure race of ministers 
 " and a spiritual priesthood, (instead of the corrupt and rejected 
 " tribe of Levi,) who might present before him a holy wor- 
 " ship." — Now, where are Ave to look for a commentary on such 
 predictions of change for the better in the spiritual character 
 of the church ? Is it not to the record of the actual constitu- 
 tion of the New Testament kingdom ? And what do the facts 
 of this record show ? Is not the very first and most prominent 
 lesson taught us by them, that the church was no longer to be 
 national, — but to be composed of individuals chosen out of the 
 nations by the converting and purifying grace of God? The 
 very terms in Avhich it is described are borrowed from the 
 language which belonged of old to the national church of 
 Israel, as if for the very purpose of showing, the more 
 clearly and impressively, how different it Avas now to be: — 
 1 Pet. ii. 9. " But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priest- 
 ** hood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show 
 " forth the praises of him Avho hath called you out of darlaiess 
 *Mnto his marvellous light." Gal. vi. 16. *'And as many as 
 *' walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, 
 ** even upon the Israel of God." 2 Cor. vi. 14 — 18. " Be ye 
 " not unequally yoked together Avith unbelievers : for Avhat fel- 
 ** lowship hath righteousness Avith unrighteousness ? and Avhat 
 
29 
 
 *' communion hath light with darkness ? and what concord hath 
 *' Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with 
 '* an infidel ? and what agreement hatli tlie temple of God with 
 *' idols ? for ye are the temple of the living (jod ; as God hath 
 "said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be 
 ** their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, come 
 *' out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, 
 *' and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 
 *' and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and 
 " daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." — This is now the only 
 NATIONAL CHURCH, — the cliurcli composcd of the " holy nation 
 and peculiar people," — "the Israel of God." This was what, 
 according to the prophets, was to succeed, and, according to 
 apostles, did succeed, the national church-state of the Jews. — 
 It is true, that there was always a distinction between the natural 
 and the spiritual Israel But the spiritual Israel were the chil- 
 dren of a covenant which preceded, by four hundred and thirty 
 years, that which took the nation of Israel under the special 
 oversight of Jehovah, and constituted it his visible church. To 
 introduce this distinction, as if it were inconsistent with our 
 representation of the nation and the church of Israel as having 
 been identical in extent, is most uncandid ; inasmuch as they 
 who do so can hardly fail to be aware that by the church, in 
 tliis representation, we mean, not the true spiritual children of 
 Abrah-am, but that ecclesiastico-political community, consisting 
 of his posterity by Isaac, Avhom Jehovah took into special cove- 
 nant with himself at Sinai. 
 
 These things will be still more satisfactorily apparent, from 
 tlie manner in Avhich both the royal and the sacerdotal order 
 among the Jews terminated; — the latter in " the Great High 
 Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus," and the former in 
 Him whom Jehovah has " set as King upon his holy hill of 
 Zion." — That the royal as well as the priestly office was thus 
 typical, and designed to terminate in the reign of Messiah, 
 as the other terminated in his sacrifice and intercession, it 
 appears scarcely reasonable to dispute. — The prediction of the 
 dying patriarch was, — " The sceptre shall not depart from 
 Judah, until Shiloh come." And why Avas it then to depart ? 
 The promise to David informs us. Jehovah engaged for the 
 perpetuity of his throne. It was to be " established for ever 
 before him." His royal seed was never to fail. Now, that it 
 was not David, and Solomon, and one or two more of the 
 good kings, that were personal types of Christ, but their 
 c3 
 
30 
 
 office that was at the same time typical of his, appears from 
 this, that, through the entire succession, the throne continued 
 to be, and continued to be called, ''the throne of David f' — 
 and to this throne the Messiah is represented as the last suc- 
 cessor, destined to be its perpetual occupant. Thus the pro- 
 phet, — Isa. ix. 6, 7. " For unto us a child is born, unto us a 
 " son is given ; and the government shall be upon his shoulder ; 
 " and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The 
 " mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 
 " Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be 
 " no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to 
 " order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice, 
 " from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of 
 " hosts will perform this." And what is the New Testament 
 accomplishment of this ? You find it in the intimation of the 
 angelic messenger to the mother of our Lord, — Luke i. 30 — 33. 
 *' Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God. And, 
 *' behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a 
 " son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and 
 "shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God 
 *' shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he 
 ''shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his 
 *' kingdom there shall be no end." — I have no dispute at present 
 Avith Millenarians. 1 take for granted, that the Messiah does 
 now reign ; — that his predicted kingdom commenced, when he 
 " sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." — Who, 
 then, are the subjects of his kingdom? Nations? In one 
 sense they are. He rules the Avorld. He supei-intends the 
 artairs of all peoples, tribes, and languages, in subserviency to 
 the interests of his church. But his church itself is properly 
 his kingdom. The members of the one are the subjects of the 
 other. Mark his own words, on which Ave shall have occasion 
 to comment more at large hereafter, — John xviii. 36, 37. 
 " My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdoiu 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 Avas I born, and for this cause came I into the world, 
 '* that I should bear Avitness unto the truth. Every one that 
 " is of the truth heareth my voice." 
 
 My object, in all that has just been said, is to show, that 
 the national church of Israel was never intended to be followed 
 
31 
 
 by other national churches, but by this kingdom of spiritual 
 subjects, out of all nations, under the Headship of Christ: — 
 that the Jewish constitution Avas entirely sui generis, instituted 
 by Jehovah for special purposes, never by him intended to be, 
 nor indeed capable of being, imitated : — that in the primary 
 constitution of the Christian church there was an actual de- 
 parture from it, and a complete change of system, — such a 
 change as makes it manifest, if any thing can, that every at- 
 tempt to set up the former as a pattern, or plead it as an ex- 
 ample, is what 1 have called it, a presumptuous and preposter- 
 ous return to that Avhich is abolished, and an overthrowing, in 
 its very spirit and principle, of the constitution of the king- 
 dom of Christ, as originally delivered to his apostles by its 
 Supreme and only Head. 
 
 It appears to me, that our brethren on the other side of this 
 question fall into an egregious error, Avhen they begin >\ith 
 general and abstract discussions about the duties of the civil 
 magistrate. 1 shall advert to this subject in next lecture , when 
 the directions of the Ne>v Testament with regard to these duties 
 will come before us. What I wish you for the present to 
 observe is, the difference between magistrates now, and magis- 
 trates under the Jewish theocracy. 'Ihe kings of Judah were 
 Jehovah's deputies. When the Israelites asked a king, — they 
 asked a description of ruler whose rise had been anticipated, 
 and whose character and qualifications had been described, by 
 Moses. Their sin lay in wishing to have a king of a similar 
 description to the kings of the countries round about them, — 
 " that they also might be like all the nations, that their king 
 " might judge them, and go out before them, and fight their 
 " battles." They did not like the previous plan of rule by 
 judges and prophets, raised up, on the part of Jehovah himself, 
 as he saw need, — a state of things in which his own authority, 
 as the glorious self-constituted King of Israel, was more imme- 
 diate, and more constantly apparent and felt. They sighed 
 after something of more imposing worldliness, and, as they 
 foolishly fancied, of more honourable independence. On this 
 account, Jehovah represents them as, in their demand, " re- 
 jecting Him, that he should not reign over them." But, 
 notwithstanding their infatuation and guilt, He did not, when 
 he so far complied with their desire as to give them a king, 
 himself resign his peculiar rule. He retained his theocratic 
 supremacy. — Now, under a government of this description, it 
 must at once be apparent, every thing has a peculiarity that 
 
32 
 
 can exist under no other. The peculiarity consists in the two- 
 I'old light which, in such circumstances, every action of the sub- 
 ject assumes. Sins and crimes, Avhich, under ordinary govern- 
 ments, are by all writers on jurisprudence distinguished, come 
 to be identified. Jehovah being at once their God and their 
 King, — over them in the general relation of the moral Gover- 
 nor of the universe, and over them in the special and appro- 
 . priate capacity of their national Head, rebellion was impiety, 
 and idolatry was treason. It is idle, in such a case, to talk of 
 imitation ; or of a state of things so divinely peculiar being a 
 pattern for other peoples. — There has hardly been a sentiment, 
 indeed, in the range of mistakes into which professed Chris- 
 tians have fallen, which has proved more mischievous in its 
 practical operation, than this description (if I may so term it) 
 of Judaizing. Not only has the appeal been made to it in 
 support of those Establishments, whose tendency has been so 
 fatal to the purity of the church and its separation from the 
 Avorld ; but all the systems of persecution for conscience-sake 
 have sought in it their justification ; it has supplied the apology 
 for the extirpation of heretics, — for the punishment, by confisca- 
 tion of goods, by imprisonment, and by death, of nonconformists 
 to the dominant faith. — The good kings of Israel put idolaters to 
 death. They did rightly. They executed in this the law of 
 that Supreme Sovereign, whose throne, by his appointment, and 
 in the character of his deputies, they occupied. — They entered 
 into covenants with their people, for the suppression of all idol- 
 atry, and the judicial extermination of all who persisted in 
 their adherence to it. They did rightly. It was the act not 
 of piety merely, but of loyalty ; inasmuch as contumacious 
 idolaters not only sinned against Jehovah as their God, but 
 rebelled against Jehovah as their King, and were traitors to 
 the national government. Let us look to .an example or two 
 of such covenants. We have one in the reign of Asa^ — 2 Chron. 
 XV. 12 — 15. ** And they entered into a covenant to seek the 
 " Lord God of their fathers with aU their heart, and with all 
 '* their soul ; that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of 
 *' Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether 
 " man or woman. And they sware unto the Lord with a Icud 
 " voice, and Avith shouting, and with trumpets, and with cor- 
 " nets. And all Judah rejoiced at the oath : for they had sworn 
 " with all their heart, and sought him Avith their Avhole desire ; 
 ''and he was found of them: and the Lord gave them rest 
 *' I'ound about." — We have another, at the suggestion of Jehoi- 
 
33 
 
 ada the priest, on the death of Athaliah and the accession of 
 young- Joash — 2 Chron. xxiii. IG, 17. *' And Jehoiada made 
 '* a covenant between him, and between all the .people, and 
 ** between the king, that they should be the Lord's people. 
 ** Then all the people Avent to the house of Baal, and brake it 
 *' down, and brake his altars and his images in pieces, and 
 *' slew Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars." — And Ave 
 have similar combinations of king and people, though not ac- 
 companied with precisely the same formalities of covenant 
 engagement, in the days of the excellent Hezekiah — 2 Chron. 
 XXX. 13, 14. Avith chap. xxxi. 1. — "And there assembled at 
 " Jerusalem much people to keep the feast of unleavened bread 
 ** in the second month, a very great congregation. And they 
 *' arose, and took aAvay the altars that Avere in Jerusalem, and 
 ** all the altars for incense took they away, and cast them into 
 " the brook Kidron." " Now, Avhen all this was finished, all Israel 
 " that Avere present Avent out to the cities of Judah, and brake 
 ** the images in pieces, and cut down the groACs, and thrcAT 
 ** down the high places and the altars out of all Judah and 
 *' Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manasseh, until they had 
 " utterly destroyed them all. Then all the children of Israel 
 " returned, every man to his possession, into their own cities." 
 This Avas all right ; in harmony, both as to spirit and letter, 
 with the existing dispensation. But ah ! Avhat miserable Avork 
 has arisen from the transference of Avhat belonged exclusively 
 to that singular constitution to cases essentially dissimilar ! — to 
 the cases of nations under no such divine superintendence, and 
 of magistrates Avho Avere in no such sense the acting viceger- 
 ents of a divine superior! — cases in Avhich there Avas no such 
 identification of the civil and the sacred, of the supremacy of 
 God's dominion and the royal authority of the kingdom, of sins 
 against God and crimes against the State. — By this confounding 
 of the theocracy of Isi-ael Avith ordinary governments, — of spe- 
 cial with common, — of divine Avith human, — all classes of pro- 
 fessing Christians haA'e been, at difiei-ent periods, more or less 
 misled. They have, in their turns, Avith hardly an exception, 
 fancied they Avere " doing God service," by proscribing, an- 
 athematizing, and persecuting even unto death, such as dis- 
 sented, under whatever plea of conscience, from the faith Avfiich 
 at the time had the ascendancy, or, still more generally, from 
 their own faith, Avhether dominant or not, according to tlie 
 extent of power at the time in their possession. The laudable 
 examples of the good princes of Judah has been urged, Avith 
 
34 
 
 all the vehemence of zeal, by Christian ministers, upon Chris- 
 tian kings ; and the frowns of heaven, and the pouring out of 
 the vials of divine wrath upon themselves and upon their sub- 
 jects, have been denounced against them as the judicial punish- 
 ment of their refusal. And in thus counselling, and thus de- 
 nouncing, these ministers have flattered themselves that they 
 •were following a worthy and legitimate example : — they have 
 felt, in delivering what they called their message from God, all 
 the conscious authority, and stern prophetic majesty, of a com- 
 missioned Elijah. — It had been well, if these servants of the 
 Prince of peace had borne in mind the reply of their Master 
 to the two " sons of thunder," when they too were for imitating 
 Elijali, and calling down the fires of Heaven upon his enemies : 
 — " He turned and rebuked them, and said unto them. Ye know 
 "not what manner of spirit ye are of; — for the Son of man is 
 '' not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." 
 
 I must, for the present, have done. Several topics, which 
 properly belong to the Old Testament part of the argument, 
 remain untouched; particularly the question respecting the com- 
 pulsory or voluntary nature of the support of religion in Israel,^ — 
 or rather the question, in Avhat sense it was obligatory, and in 
 what sense voluntary, — and the proper interpretation of certain 
 prophetic intimations respecting the part that the kings of the 
 earth should act towards the maintenance and advancement of 
 tlie Messiah's kingdom. But the Old and the New Testament 
 arguments blend unavoidably with each other ; and the topics 
 to which I have alluded will find a more suitable place under 
 the discussion of the latter. Meantime, it is my earnest prayer, 
 that, in conducting a scriptural argument, I may be kept from 
 every feeling and from every expression that is out of harmony 
 with a scriptural spirit. — And both noAV and hereafter, I shun 
 those vain-glorious vauntings of victory, which have nothing but 
 tlieir magniloquence to recommend them, and which, mightily 
 as they sound, are much more frequently the indication of felt 
 weakness than of conscious strength. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 THE SCRIPTURE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 
 
 In our former lecture, we reviewed a part of the argument, 
 adduced in support of civil establishments of Christianity, or 
 of a State-endowed church, from the Old Testament Scriptures. 
 We considered the alleged manifestation of the inefficiency of 
 the voluntary principle in the history of the antediluvian world; 
 — the countenance conceived to be given to the union of Church 
 and State, and to the support of the former by the latter, in 
 the case of Melchisedec ; — and the divine authority pleaded for 
 such union and such support from the constitution of the Jew- 
 ish church. In the extended discussion of the last of these 
 subjects, we were, as a matter of course, led to the New Tes- 
 tament, as the only source from which Ave could derive any 
 authoritative information as to the intention of God, respecting 
 the continuance or the cessation of that constitution. We 
 noticed the accordance of facts in the apostolic records with 
 the previous intimations, given by the prophets, of a purposed 
 change. There was such a change. The constitution of the 
 cliurch did cease to be national : — nor is the most distant in- 
 timation to be found, possessing the sanction of divine authority, 
 of any future recurrence either to the principle or to the details 
 of the ancient state of things ; all that follows the point in the 
 church's history to which the apostolic records conduct us, being 
 nothing- more than simple facts in providence, the accordance 
 or disagreement of which with the mind of Christ can no 
 otherwise be ascertained than by an appeal to those very re- 
 cords, — to the doctrine, precept, and example which they 
 contain. — Your time will not at all admit of enlarged recapitu- 
 
36 
 
 lation. To the observation just alluded to, that no divinely 
 intimated sanction is given to any anticipated change, I must 
 now add, that the only great change anticipated in the con- 
 stitution of the church is accompanied, in the announcement of 
 its future introduction, with the very reverse of sanction, — Avith 
 the severest censure and commination. You will perceive to 
 what I now refer — the rise, progress, and consunmiation of the 
 antichristian system of *' the man of sin." I am quite aware, 
 tliat every allusion to this topic has been and will be character- 
 ized as slanderous, and as a violation of all my promises that, 
 " when reviled, I would not revile again ;" — as applying to 
 protestant and reformed churches what pertains to the papistical 
 church of Rome. But our present question is, What saith the 
 Scripture? That must not be censured as reviling, which goes 
 not beyond the legitimate application of Bible principles, and 
 which is dictated by the sober seriousness of a Bible spirit. 
 We may be chargeable Avith *' handling the Avord of God 
 deceitfully," Avhen Ave Avithhold as Avell as Avhen Ave pervert ; 
 when, under the influence of a false courtesy, — as unfaithful to 
 our Master as it is unkind to our brethren, — Ave shun to declare 
 any part of "the counsel of God." — What, then, I Avould ask, 
 Avas the primary germ of that mystery of iniquity, Avhich pro- 
 gressively developed its hideous deformity under the domi- 
 nation of the Man of Sin and Son of perdition ? Was not 
 the principle of that heaven-devoted system the anomalous 
 union of the temporal and the spiritual poAver, — the presump- 
 tuous usurpation and universal monopoly of the former by the 
 latter? Where, then, are Ave to look for the origin of this 
 principle ? When Avas it introduced ? When, but at the time 
 Avhen the union Avas projected by Constantine betAveen the 
 kingdom of Christ and the kingdoms of this Avorld, betAveen 
 the banner of the cross and the sceptre of the Cesars ? It Avas 
 then that the embryo of the great apostasy Avas conceived. 
 What more did the Roman pontiff, than avail himself of the 
 combination of civil and sacred thus inauspiciously commenced, 
 and, Avith an ambition and a capacity Avorthy of a better cause, 
 carry out the principle of it to the full extent of its applica- 
 tion ? It is in the conduct of his Holiness, Avhen he succeeded 
 in uniting in his own person the ecclesiastical and civil supre- 
 macy of the Avorld, avowing himself in both departments, the 
 vicegerent of God upon earth, that Ave see the complete imita- 
 tion of the case of Melchisedec ; — an imitation, it is true, 
 equally audacious and profane, but still boldly consistent Avith 
 
37 
 
 the pattern. — I confess myself at a loss for the principle of that 
 illicit connexion between the mystical Babylon and tlie kings 
 of the earth, so severely condemned, and threatened Avith such 
 judicial vengeance, in the book of Revelation, if Ave are not 
 to understand it as consisting, essentially, in the alliance between 
 the Church and the State. That the connexion is capable of 
 subsisting in various degrees of profligacy, is at once admitted. 
 That in the Romish church it ha-s been can-ied to the highest 
 pitch of gi'ossness, and shamelessness, and guilt, no protestant 
 denies, — and that there the divine denunciations are to find 
 their fullest accomplishment. But is the principle of the 
 forbidden intercourse confined in its operation to that commun- 
 ion ? I Avill not attempt to show the amount of popery that 
 is to be found in the Greek church, in the Lutheran church, and 
 in the hierarchy, the principles, and the ritual observances, of 
 our own English episcopacy. In our Scottish establishment, 
 from the parity of her clergy and the comparative simplicity of 
 her presbyterian constitution and ceremonial of Avorship, there 
 is incomparably less of it than in the character of her southern 
 sister. But in every Establishment there is the principle. The 
 interdicted connexion subsists, Avherever there subsists the 
 unhalloAved alliance betAveen the Church and the State. There 
 may be a gradual diminution from the highest point in the 
 scale of delinquency to the loAvest; from the throne of the 
 Roman poutifl' to the throne of the British monarch, Avho, 
 Avhen (in the person of the eighth Henry) he indignantly threAV 
 otfthe pope of Rome, became himself the pope of England, — 
 and to the still loAvlier throne of that monarch's representative 
 in the councils of our northern chui*ch : — but in all, if I do 
 not greatly misapprehend the sense of prophetic intimations, 
 the principle is the same. If I am Avrong in this, I shall be 
 glad to acknoAvledge and retract the error, as soon as there 
 shall be pointed out to me a more natural and fair interpretation 
 of the essential principle of the reprobated connexion. 
 
 In proceeding to Avhat remains of our extensive field, there 
 is one thing that has been introduced into the argument on the 
 opposite side, to Avhich I Avish in the first instance, though very 
 briefly, to ad^'ert; because, Avhile it may be regarded as holding 
 the precedence in the order of the Ncav Testament record, it 
 holds, at the same time, Avere its relevancy at all admitted, a 
 much more important precedence, a precedence of authority 
 such as Avould decide the conti-oversy Avith every consistent 
 foUoAver of Christ : — it is the example of Clirist himself. For 
 
38 
 
 the thirty-three years of his life on earth, he Avas a member of 
 an Established church ! — This has been said more than once or 
 twice ; and it was recently said, as I have been informed, in a 
 public lecture in this city, by a friend and brother in the minis- 
 try of the Gospel, whose expressions of esteem on that occasion, 
 I can, with all sincerity, reciprocate. And, while 1 speak with 
 esteem of him, I would speak with affectionate reverence of 
 that blessed Master Avhose example he thus pleaded. To that ex- 
 ample Ave should all desire to look, Avith a ch)ser scrutiny of every 
 point of its perfect excellence, and Avith more devout aspiration 
 after groAving conformity to it both in spirit and in practice. 
 I believe the friend to Avhom I have referred incapable of 
 introducing such an allusion ad captandum, — for the purpose 
 of inspiring the minds of his hearers Avith a horror against the 
 Voluntaries, as if they Avere setting aside a part of their Sa- 
 viour's example, and pretending to greater sanctity and separa- 
 tion from the Avorld, than appeared in the sinless prototype of 
 Christian obedience. But surely, to every intelligent hearer 
 noAV present, it cannot fail to be apparent, that the case thus 
 adduced, to throAV the Aveight of the highest of all examples 
 into the one side of the balance, is nothing more than a branch 
 of the argument Ave have already had under revicAV. The 
 national Establishment of the Jcavs is, on all hands, admitted 
 to have been divine. When Jesus appeared on earth, he was 
 " made under the laAV." The ancient economy Avas still in full 
 authority. His subjection to it Avas a part of his '' fulfilment 
 of all righteousness." On the same principle, he conformed to 
 the existing festivals and rites of Avorship. The old system 
 did not " vanish aAvay," till, Avhen he had himself ascended on 
 high, the ncAv kingdom Avas established. The question Avith 
 us should be — What is the example of Christ by Avhich ive now 
 are to regulate our course? Because he conformed to the 
 divine institution of the JoAvish Establishment, does it folloAv 
 that he Avould give the countenance of his example by con- 
 formity to the human institution (for Avho pretends that it is 
 more ?) of the British ? Hoav can we find a satisfactory 
 ansAver to the question, otherwise than by looking at the con- 
 stitution of his OAvn kingdom, as settled on his accession to tlie 
 throne, under the superintendence of his accredited vicegerents, 
 — his OAvn inspired apostles? It is thus alone that Ave can 
 ascertain the system, to Avhich, had he remained on earth, he 
 would then have given the sanction of his conformity; — and it 
 is thus alone that the point can be determined, Avhether, were 
 
39 
 
 he now on earth, he would give it to any system of national 
 Christianity — to any incorporation of his religion with the civil 
 polities of this world. — Let not the attempt be made to turn 
 aside the edge of this reply, by the reflexion, that were he on 
 earth, he ^vould find a mournful leaven of corruption in every 
 system and in every existing communion. Who questions it ? — 
 and who does not lament it '? O that the ministers and mem- 
 bers of every Christian community Avould but set themselves to 
 *' purge out the old leaven," that they may be a new and un- 
 leavened lump! O that He Avho *' walketh in the midst of the 
 golden candlesticks" saw all the lights of his sanctuary burning 
 with a purer and a more diffusive and influential lustre ! But 
 reflexions of this kind, on such occasions, — and they are in- 
 cessantly to be heard, — are, to the perception of the very 
 weakest intellect, nothing better than an evasion of the argu- 
 ment, — a retreat from its felt annoyance, under the imposing 
 cover of a more than ordinary seriousness. 
 
 By this reference to the Redeemer's example, I am naturally 
 led to the notice of what he himself, even during the period of 
 his subjection to the existing economy, taught his disciples, 
 and in part his hearers generally, with regard to the kingdom 
 he was about to set up. — I might here show you, how the w hole 
 style of his speech on this subject was calculated and intended 
 to intimate a change from the state of things which had pre- 
 viously subsisted, — a change especially from the worldly to the 
 spiritual, from the national to the select and separate. But 
 not only would such general illustration occupy a great deal 
 more time than can be spared for it, — I feel that I am specially 
 called upon to vindicate, fer myself and for my cause, one 
 particular text, which almost every writer that has honoured 
 me ^vith any strictures on the discourse of which it was the 
 motto, has attempted to wrest from both, — I mean the noted 
 passage in John xviii. 36, 37. " My kingdom is not of this 
 *' world. 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 1 am a king. To this end was I born, and for 
 *' this cause came I into the Avorld, that I should bear witness 
 " unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my 
 *' voice." — I am far from questioning the sincerity of convic- 
 tion Avith which so many successive writers have affirmed this 
 passage to be nothing to the purpose in the present contro- 
 D 2 
 
40 
 
 versy. But I am entitled to question the judiciousness of their 
 comments and conclusions. One of them denies that the ex- 
 pression " My kingdom is not of this world'''' is designed to 
 be descriptive of character at all. He alleges that it is a tor- 
 turing of the text to make it mean any thing of the kind. " It 
 " gives no hint of any such thing," he says : — " it neither tells 
 " us uhere this kingdom is, nor in what world it exists. — 
 " Whether it is a kingdom of matter or of mind, temporary or 
 " permanent, or governed by civil or by sacred laws. It 
 " gives us information about none of these things : all it says 
 '' is — My kingdom is not of this world."* — No child needs to 
 be told, that this is all it sai/s : — but the question is, What 
 does it mean ? According to this writer, it is an expression 
 not descriptive at all of nature or character, but simply of 
 locality/ ; and even this is only in a negative form ; — " it is 
 not of this world :" but of ivhat world it is, the passage, 
 it seems, gives no information. We are accustomed to think, 
 that the alternative is between this world and the world from 
 which the divine speaker had himself come down ; and that 
 his saying " it is 7iot of this world" is only a negative form 
 of a positive affirmation, that it is what it is so frequently 
 called, " the kingdom of heaven.'' But alas ! if heaven be 
 really meant, and there is at the same time, in the expres- 
 sion, no reference to character, but only to locality; — the 
 inevitable consequence must be, that Christ, if we are to be. 
 lieve his own declaration, was to have no kingdom on earth ! 
 — According to tliis commentator, all that is positive in the 
 affirmation is, that, not being of this world, it was of some 
 other world; — but whether it was in Jupiter, or Mercury, or 
 Venus, or Mars, or Saturn, or Herschel, Pilate (if he knew 
 of such worlds) was left to conjecture. — But by the rest ' of 
 the Avriters alluded to it is granted, that the terms are de- 
 scriptive of character ; — that they do express the idea of 
 spirituality and heavenliness. They say, Who questions the 
 spiritual nature of the kingdom ? — all Me contend for is, 
 that it is not, by its spirituality, unfitted for a friendly al- 
 liance with the governments of this world, in order to the 
 attainment of a conmion good. — And one of them puts it 
 still more strongly, that the very difference between the two, 
 since it does not amount to opposition such as would make 
 their alliance incompatible, is the very circumstance that con- 
 stitutes their fitness for such alliance. 
 
 * Fleming's Critique — page 3. 
 
41 
 
 Now, I freely concede to the writer last alluded to,* that, 
 when Jesus says " My kingdom is not of this world," he does 
 not mean " the Avorld " in the sense in which it is sometimes 
 used, as distinguishing the wicked from the people of God. 
 He does not mean to express the sentiment that it is not 
 wicked, but only that it is not secular ; — that it is sacred, as 
 distinguished from civil or political, — that it is spiritual, as dis- 
 tinguished from earthly. — Mr Willis (of the Christian spirit of 
 whose little work I cannot -withhold my unqualified commenda- 
 tion, ho\vever inconclusive I may deem his reasonings) — Mr 
 Willis conceives the expressions Avhicii are used by Christ re- 
 specting his disciples in various parts of the gospel according 
 to John, when he represents them as " not of the world" to 
 be in their import " perfectly similar." In this, I think he is 
 mistaken : — and I wish to mark the mistake, because it is of 
 importance for the illustration of my o^vn views. — It seems to 
 me evident, that, in such passages, being " of the world," sig- 
 nifies belonging to it in its degenerate and corrupt state, 
 agreeably to the distinction in 1 John v. 19. *' We kno\v that 
 " we are of God, and that tJie whole world lieth in the Avicked 
 *' one."t In this view the disciples of our Lord were *' not 
 *' of the world," but " chosen out of the world;" John xv. 
 19. — and the true meaning of " the world" is clear from 
 what is immediately added — " therefore the world hateth you." 
 Now, observe, this is descriptive of character. It means their 
 separation from the world, not properly, however, as secular, 
 or civil, or political, but as sinful and vain, and practically 
 wicked: — it means their being "not of the world" in the 
 sense in which the world is " not of God." But in this sense, 
 it must be evident, they are to have no connexion with it, 
 no concurrence in its principles, 7io participation in its ways, 
 no communion in its pleasui-es. It does not follow, Mv Willis 
 alleges, from their being '^ not of the world," that they must 
 have " no secular connexions with it — no property — no worldly 
 '' endowments — no benefit from the laws of their country." 
 But this writer, I am persuaded, will, on reflexion, be sensible, 
 that his inference is drawn froni one thing to another that is 
 essentially difierent. That in the sense in ^vhich believers are 
 atfirmed not to be of the world, their incumbent duty is to 
 
 * Rev. Mr Brown. 
 t Our translators say " in wickedness:" but it is evidently a repeti- 
 tion of tlie designation in the preceding verse — the Greek being the 
 Eame — " that wicked one toucheth iiim not.'' 
 d3 
 
42 
 
 have nothing to do with the Avorkl, appears from many an ex- 
 press injunction : — Horn. xii. 2. " Be not conformed to this 
 " world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your 
 *' mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, 
 " and perfect will of God." — 1 John ii. 15, 16. " Love not 
 '' the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any 
 " man love the Avorld, the love of the Father is not in him. 
 " For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust 
 '' of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but 
 ** is of the world." — 2 Cor. vi. 17, 18. " Come out from among 
 '* them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the 
 '* unclean thing : and 1 will receive you, and will be a Father 
 " unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the 
 " Lord Almighty." — Now, if this be the case in the one in- 
 stance, ought not the same principle of interpretation to hold 
 also in the other ? In the sense in which Christ means to say 
 that " his kingdom is not of this world," should he not be un- 
 derstood as virtually inculcating that it should be kept by it- 
 self ^ that, being spiritual and not secular, it should keep aloof 
 from all incorporation and alliance with the secular, lest its 
 spiritual character should be thereby deteriorated, and its 
 marked and prominent distinctness from the kingdoms of this 
 world impaired ? The reason in both cases is similar. As as- 
 sociation with the world, in any of its vain and evil courses, is 
 inconsistent Avith, and tends to relax and deaden, the holy and 
 heavenly sensibilities of the new nature, — so would incorpora- 
 tion with the secular kingdoms of men, according to the spirit 
 of the Saviour's declaration, serve to secularize, by the admix- 
 ture of the earthly and political, the " kingdom which is not of 
 this world," And such, universal experience attests, has been 
 the invariable and melancholy result. 
 
 But, in all the discussions on this passage, the one point, 
 that bears with special force on the present controversy, has, 
 in my apprehension, been overlooked. Suppose Ave grant, that 
 the design of our Lord in the words Avas to allay the jealous 
 surmises of the Roman governor, — and to remove from his 
 mind all fears of dangerous or troublesome interference Avith 
 the imperial supremacy. Suppose Ave admit the following state- 
 ment to be substantially correct : — " The crime charged Avas 
 " that of setting up as a rival to Cjesar, — a direct aspirant to 
 " the crown of at least one part of his dominions. He, the 
 " holy Jesus, guiltless of any such design, avov.s his right to be 
 " accounted a king ; but explains, that his kingdom Avas of a 
 
43 
 
 " very clifierent nature from that of this world's potentates, and 
 " was not at all of a kind to interfere with political autliority, 
 " or to seek to supplant it in its own proper province, far less 
 " to wrest the crown by violence from the brow of any one who 
 " wore it. Had these been his views, instead of appearing 
 " before his judges with a few simple attendants, as defenceless 
 •' as himself, he would have been found at the head of an army 
 " fighting- his way to the ascendency he sought to usurp."* — 
 Be it so. Still, as I have said, in all this, there is one consi- 
 deration which appears to be unaccountably overlooked. Jesus 
 was not only accused of making himself a king. His alleged 
 designation was, — " King of the Jews." Now, Pilate was well 
 aware, that, of old, kings of the Je;vs had been kings of tlie 
 same description as other kings, — not a few of them warlike, 
 and distinguished for their prowess, and for the might of their 
 arms, and the extent of their conquests. Whatever Pilate 
 might think of the unintimidating circumstances of his appear- 
 ance who stood before him, without the favour of priests, nobles, 
 or people, — still he wished to know his pretensions. What 
 were they ? If he called himself *' King of the Jews," was he 
 to be a king bearing any resemblance to former kings of that 
 people ? Was he to be such as they had been ? Here lies, so 
 far as this text is concerned, the turning point of the present 
 controversy. It is found in the word now : — " noiv is my king- 
 dom not from hence." The question is, not whether Pilate 
 fuUy comprehended the amount of meaning in Christ's words ; 
 but what that meaning evidently Avas. The words involve a com- 
 parison between the past and the present ; and they intimate a 
 change, — a change from what had been to what was now to be. 
 He had all along — in a way which we understand, though we 
 have little ground to suppose that Pilate did — been King of the 
 Jews. But in former times, his kingdom, in its form and con- 
 stitution, had been national; — there was in it an incorporation 
 of the civil and the sacred ; — and it was maintained and de- 
 fended by similar outward means as other kingdoms : — but now 
 it was to be otherwise. The " now" is not a mere unemphatic 
 and inferential particle ; for indeed there is nothing of the 
 nature of inference in the case. It announces a transition, — 
 a transition from a comparatively secular and worldly state of 
 his kingdom to a state essentially different. In this view, 
 therefore, Ave have in the passage a distinct disavowal, from 
 
 * Willis, pp. 8, 9. 
 
44 
 
 the Redeemer's own lips, of the Old Testament constitution of 
 his kingdom, as in any respect a model for the kingdom he was 
 about to establish ; — a declaration that its national and worldly- 
 state was now to terminate, and that, at this new era, it was to 
 assume a new character, — embracing as its subjects those who 
 were *' of the truth," i. e. who believed his doctrine and lived 
 under its practical influence, — and maintaining- its ground, and 
 punishing its delinquents, and extending its conquests, by no 
 power but the moral power of the same truth, — by no sword 
 but ** the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God." — If 
 we are to take the criterion of a worldly kingdom as here given 
 us by Christ himself, — *' // my kingdom were of this world, 
 tJieri would my servants fight " — the question will be settled, 
 whether the alliance of that kingdom with the state was con- 
 sistent with its spiritual and heavenly character : — for no sooner 
 did the church of Christ become a state-incorporated church, 
 than these words lost their distinctive meaning. His servants 
 did fight. The sword Avas assumed, for the purposes of defence, 
 and extension, and compulsory subjugation, and vindictive dis- 
 cipline. 
 
 With this and other intimations, on the part of our Lord, of 
 change from the former state of things, and of the spirituality 
 of his new reign, the entire narrative of the introduction and 
 establishment of that reign is in perfect and beautiful harmony. 
 This we have formerly seen, and resume not the illustration of 
 it. The facts confirm our interpretation of the principles ; 
 the one being the clearest and most satisfactory of all commen- 
 taries on the other. — But to the conclusion Ave deduce from 
 these plain intimations, and, if possible, still plainer facts, what 
 is opposed by our friends on the other side of this great ques- 
 tion ? What is there remaining, when we set aside the plea 
 that is derived from the ancient Jewish constitution ? What 
 is there in the Old Testament having reference to New Testa- 
 ment times ? and what is there in the New Testament itself? — 
 Let us briefly reply to each of these questions. 
 
 From the Old Testament we have a selection of prophetic 
 intimations respecting the part which the kings of the earth 
 would act, and ought to act, in reference to the King of Zion 
 and his kingdom. — I introduce a brief notice of these prophe- 
 cies here, — 1 mean at this point of my argument, on the prin- 
 ciple that " no prophecy of the scripture is of self-interpi'eta- 
 tion." Prophecies that are obviously of general import, and 
 consequently susceptible of modifications of meaning, must bo 
 
45 
 
 interpreted in harmony >vith subsequent facts. If the nature 
 and constitution of the New Testament kingdom are clearly 
 ascertained from the principles and historical statements of the 
 New Testament record, the predictions in question must be 
 understood in a sense that is not at variance with these state- 
 ments and principles. It would be a most preposterous proce- 
 dure, to take our views of the church of Christ from any merely 
 general and comparatively obscure intimations of prophecy : — 
 how much more reasonable to take .our key for the interpreta- 
 tion of such prophecies from the inspired New Testament ac- 
 counts of the chui'ch of Christ ! I might illustrate the remark 
 from a closely analogous case. There are predictions respect- 
 ing the worship of New Testament times, that are expressed in 
 terms borrowed from the external ceremonial worship of the 
 old covenant : — but, from the cessation of that covenant and its 
 worship, we know that such predictions are to be interpreted 
 on principles consistent with the moi'e spiritual and simple 
 service of the New Economy. So it is with the other class of 
 prophecies of which I now speak. 
 
 It would be insulierable in me to tax your patience, by a 
 repetition of what has been already said on these portions of 
 prophetic scripture. The two principal of them are in the 
 second psalm, and in the 49th chapter of the prophecies of 
 Isaiah. In the former, the spirit and sura of the argument is, 
 that the kings who, in the beginning of the psalm, are described 
 as opposing Jehovah, are in the close of it commanded to serve 
 him ; and that, the opposition having been made in their offi- 
 cial capacity, in the same capacity must the service be ren- 
 dered : — in the latter, kings and their queens are represented, 
 in promissory prediction, as affording their guardian and nutri- 
 tive influence to the church of God, — as " nursing fathers and 
 nursing mothers." — Allow me, on these and similar passages, two 
 or three general remarks : — 
 
 1. Suppose Ave should grant that the rulers of the kingdoms 
 of this Avorld are here spoken to and spoken of in tlieir official 
 character, — it will not surely be denied, that there is a previous 
 and primary reference to them personalhj. Are they not, in 
 the former passage, called, in the first instance, to personal 
 faith in Christ and personal subjection to him ? — " to do 
 homage" (as jMr Scott expresses it) " to Christ as their superior 
 *' Lord, from Avhom they have their authority ; to adore him as 
 " their God; and to welcome him as their Saviour by the kiss 
 " of reverence, submission, love, and adoration?" It was not 
 
46 
 
 as kings merely, but as sinners, they were in danger of perish- 
 ing ; and it was not as kings merely, but as sinners, that they 
 are admonished to " kiss the Son," that they might escape " his 
 wrath." If, then, it be as kings, in their official capacity, that 
 they are enjoined to " serve the Lord," it is as converted, 
 penitent, believing kings. They must be personally in a state 
 of spiritual subjection to Christ, before they can, in any capa- 
 city, acceptably serve him. — And in the other passage, the same 
 thing is manifest. Tlie kings and queens spoken of are con- 
 verted princes, that become, from humble and affectionate 
 attachment to the church and to the church's Head, its protec- 
 tors, and the conscientious, tender, and zealous promoters of its 
 interests ; — " rendering the most profound respect for the 
 "church, and its faithful, consistent, pastors and rulers; not 
 " attempting to have dominion over lier faith, but promoting 
 " by all proper means her comfort and prosperity, and showing 
 *' her honour for the Lord's sake, proportioned to tlie contempt 
 " and indignity with which she has been treated."* — Are we 
 really, then, to regard predictions which tell us of the conver- 
 sion of kings, and of their subjugation, in willing and lowly 
 homage, to the King of Zion, and the consequent employment 
 of all their legitimate influence for the advancement of his 
 cause, — are we to regard sucli predictions as having, in any 
 respect or in any degree, received their accomplishment by 
 means of those civil Establishments of Christianity, by Avhich 
 the monarchs of this world have sought the gratification of 
 their own ambition incomparably more than the advancement 
 of the kingdom of Jesus Christ,— and under which hereditary 
 princes, of whatever character, how ungodly and how profligate 
 soever, are held " religious'''' by courtesy, and Christian by a 
 fiction of law? " defenders of the faith" which they neither 
 believe nor know, and " heads of the church on earth," while 
 they are " aliens" from the church both on earth and in 
 heaven ! 
 
 But 2. When we speak of kings acting in their official 
 capacity, we mean that they act witJi authority ; — and when 
 we speak of their acting with authority, ^ve mean that their 
 enactments are accompanied with statutes of compulsion to 
 insure obedience, and with statutes of penalty to correct 
 transgression. Now, we do most distinctly deny, that any king 
 on earth is entitled, on any ground of right recognised in the 
 
 * Scott's Comment, on the passage. 
 
47 
 
 word of God, to introduce any such authority, any such com- 
 pulsion, any such penahy, for enforcing obedience to any of 
 the laws of Christ's kingdom, or for avenging the infraction of 
 them on the part of the subjects of that kingdom. — That king- 
 dom is «in independent kingdom, — having a king of its own, 
 subjects of its own, laws of its own, obligations of its own, 
 penalties of its own. These penalties are all of a piece with 
 the spiritual nature of the kingdom ; the highest of them con- 
 sisting in a sentence of exclusion from the communion of the 
 faithful, by which the offender is solemnly declared, till he gives 
 evidence of true repentance, to have acted as the subject of a 
 different kingdom, — the kingdom of the " prince of this world.'' 
 — I am quite aware that obedience to their civil rulers is en- 
 joined by the King of Zion upon all his subjects. But this 
 determines nothing as to the nature and extent of the power 
 of those rulers. It proceeds on the principle, that civil gov- 
 ernment is an " ordinance of God" for the good of human 
 society : — but it no more pi'oves that civil rulers have any 
 rightful power in what regards the religion of their subjects, 
 than the command to Christian servants to be obedient to their 
 earthly masters proves those masters to have a religious as well 
 as a civil authority over their servants. 
 
 o. They who would found the magistrate's power in religion 
 on such passages as these, must be sensible that there is in 
 them a most extraordinary indefiniteness. They are so very 
 vague and general, that, in settling the duties of those to whom 
 they relate, it is impossible to make any use of them. Were 
 there other parts of the word of God, A\here these duties were 
 moi'e explicitly pointed out, their nature explained, and their 
 boundaries defined, the case would be different. We should 
 tlien have in the one a key to the other. But when we 
 merely read of kings and judges of the earth " serving Jeho- 
 vah," — and of their being " nursing fathers and nursing mothers' 
 to the church, and this too in a connexion which, so far from 
 involving a claim of authority or dominion, represents them 
 as " bowing down before her with their faces to the earth, and 
 " licking up the dust of her feet," Isa. xlix. 23. — we are left 
 in utter perplexity as to the place which civil rulers are to 
 hold in relation to the church ; — what they are to be, what 
 they are to do, and how they are to do it. — The expressions 
 in the New Testament, in which the kings of the earth are 
 brought at all into connexion Avith the church, are of the same 
 undefined description, — more so, if possible, than even the 
 
48 
 
 other. What is there to be made, in forming definite concep- 
 tions on a subject like this, of such a phrase as " the earth 
 " helping the Avoman ?" — or of " the kings of the earth bring- 
 " ing their glory and honour " into the heavenly city ? What 
 is there in such passages that is at all tangible, or reducible to 
 any thing like simple principles of action ? Yet these, and 
 such as these, are the texts to -which we are gravely and form- 
 ally referred for the foundation of the system of civil Establish- 
 ments of Christianity, and for the sanction of the magistrate's 
 power in matters of religion ! It certainly does not say much 
 for the validity of a system, when its supporters, instead of 
 directing us, for the ground on which it rests, to the plain and 
 explicit principles, and precepts, and facts of the New Testa- 
 ment, have recourse to the purposely obscure terms of unful- 
 filled prophecy, — terms from which the system could never be 
 extracted, but which they ingeniously interpret in harmony 
 vAth the system, — ingeniously, and I believe in many cases 
 sincerely, though under the influence of a strangely deluding 
 prepossession.^ — If, again, our brethren go back for any thing 
 definite as to the powers of civil rulers in the concerns of reli- 
 gion, to the ancient Jewish economy, — we have already, I trust, 
 wrested that weapon from their hands ; having shown that, not 
 even in the principle of it, and far less in its definite details, 
 is it either lawful or possible to malce that economy a pattern 
 for the New Testament kingdom. 
 
 4. Really converted and godly magistrates may be incom- 
 parably more efiicient in promoting throughout their dominions 
 the prevalence of true religion and its great practical ends, by 
 the influence of their personal example, and by a variety of legi- 
 timate means to which their exalted station gives them access, 
 than by anything whatsoever of the nature of civil enactment. 
 What are the religious laws of an irreligious ruler ? — the anti- 
 blasphemous statutes of a blasphemer? — a Sabbath-breaker's 
 prohibitions of the breach of the Sabbath ? — an unbeliever's pro- 
 clamations in support of the faith ? — They go for nothing, and 
 for worse than nothing. They engender only scorn ; and any 
 obedience that is rendered to them is the obedience not of 
 principle but of selfish fear. A royal subject of divine grace, — 
 a genuine fearer of God, — living under the power of godliness, 
 nught prove a true *' nursing father" to the church, without 
 the enaction of a single compulsory statute, or the interposition, 
 even in one instance, of his magisterial authority, in its proper 
 concerns. It was the example of David, far more than his 
 
49 
 
 official enforcement of Mosaic precepts, that effected the diflii- 
 sion amongst his subjects of the spirit of religion. I am firmly 
 persuaded, that the amount which, in preparation for the erec- 
 tion of the temple, he contributed " of his own proper good,'*'' 
 operated with an influence of sympathetic excitement inex- 
 pressibly more powerful, than the far larger contribution be- 
 stowed from the public revenue. — Assuredly, when the prophe- 
 cies speak of the rulers of this world acceding to the dominion 
 of the Son of God, and bowing to his sceptre, the predictions 
 should be understood according to the nature of his reign. 
 They must mean true spiritual subjection. But a royal convert, 
 duly enlightened as to the nature of the reign to which he sub- 
 mits, will be sensible that, in the kingdom of which he becomes 
 a subject, he cannot be a legislator. He will shrink from every 
 thing of the kind, as an audacious interference with a foreign 
 and superior jurisdiction, — as an act of more unseemly presump- 
 tion, than it would be for one of his own subjects to take it upon 
 him to enact and publish laws for his own realm. 
 
 5. In the work of Dr Inglis, there is a correspondence traced 
 between the opposition which, in the former part of the second 
 Psalm, the rulers of this world are described as making to the 
 Lord and his Christ, and the subjection and service to which 
 they are summoned in the close of it, — a correspondence, I say, 
 between these and the facts of the early history of the gospel ; 
 the opposition actually made to the cause of the Lord by the 
 imperial and other secular powers for three centuries, and the 
 service which was then rendered to it by Constantine, in the 
 taking of Christianity under the protection and patronage of 
 the State : — and from this he wishes, yet hardly ventures, to de- 
 duce the conclusion, that the latter class of facts were in gra- 
 cious fulfilment of the latter part of the psalm, — and, being 
 thus a verification of promise, may be regarded as having the 
 prophetic sanction of divine authority. — It is unnecessary to 
 expose the extreme slenderness of such gTound. The adop- 
 tion of it only shows how minds even of no ordinary power, 
 when they can find little that is substantial on which to build, 
 are fain to satisfy themselves with what is ingenious. The fault 
 is not theirs that they cannot find more solid ground : — how 
 can that be found which does not exist ? I speak of the argu- 
 ment, not of its author : — God forbid that I should indulge a 
 light or disrespectful thought of the dead ! — We must still insist 
 upon it, as in our former lecture, that the act of Constantine 
 can be estimated by no criterion but that of the New Testament 
 
50 
 
 lecDi'd. But we may now say, in addition to this, that, accord- 
 ing* to the view of the psahn and its fulfilment first referred to, 
 the establishment of Christianity by Constantine must have been 
 pre-eminently a benefit to the church of God. Was it then so ? 
 in answering this question, I may take the opportunity of ob- 
 serving that I have been myself greatly misrepresented. I have 
 been charged with either a grossly ignorant or a perversely 
 wilful falsification of the facts of history. The charge rests on 
 the allegation that, according to my statements, there was little 
 or no corruption in the Christian church before the days of 
 Constantine, and that all corruption had its commencement then. 
 But I have said no such thing ; I have said the very contrary. 
 My recorded words are, — " 1 am far from meaning to say, that 
 '■' there was no corruption in the church till such establish- 
 '^ ments came to be introduced. That would be a very different 
 '' proposition, — a proposition at variance with the plainest inti- 
 '* mations both of early history and of the New Testament itself. 
 " There was corruption, and no inconsiderable portion of it in 
 *' some of the apostolic churches themselves."* When after- 
 wards, in speaking of the time of Constantine, I represent it as 
 '' the point of terminating advancement and commencing retro- 
 " gression,'' — as "the precise boundary at Avhich the flowing 
 " tide began to recede,"f — a candid critic would have limited 
 the import of my words by the previous qualifying admission, 
 and would have interpreted them as meaning, what they were 
 intended to express, a sudden and prodigious increase of cor- 
 ruption, and the introduction of a flood of evils of new and 
 unprecedented kinds, — along with a sadly accelei'ated declen- 
 sion of all that was spiritual, — a neaptide of the church's true 
 and essential glory. — Have I, on this subject, employed stronger 
 language than others ? Allow me, for a few moments, to place 
 mine beside that of churchmen themselves, when, in freedom 
 from any spirit of controversy, they are recording the facts of 
 history, or expounding the predictions of the sacred volume. 
 I might multiply quotations to my purpose, from 3Iosheim, 
 Campbell, Faber, Fuller, Kett, Havveis, Jones, and even Milner 
 himself; but your time forbids. I shall present you with two 
 specimens, — which, strong as they are, are not stronger than 
 some others. The first is from Archdeacon Woodhouse, in his 
 work on the Apocalypse, and is adopted by Mr Cuninghame, 
 himself at the time a churchman, in his Dissertation on the 
 
 * Sermon on Establishments, p. 33. octavo ed. t Ibid. p. 4?. 
 
51 
 
 seals and trumpets of the same book.* — The writer is opposing 
 those interpi'eters ^vho explain the vision, in the seventh chap- 
 ter of the book of the Revelation, '' as a description of the state 
 of the church in the time of Constantine :" — " Now, the history 
 "of this period," says he, "fairly related, informs us, that, 
 " although the Christian church was delivered from persecution, 
 " and advanced in worldly consideration and power, yet did it 
 *' acquire no real accession of worth, dignity, or exaltation, 
 " by its connexion Avith the imperial throne. Nay, from that 
 *' very time its degeneracy and corruption are most indubitably 
 " to be dated. PYom that period Avorldly power and riches 
 *' became the objects of its leaders, not purity and virtue. Many 
 *• entered the Christian church, and obtained its honours and 
 *' dignities, by base dissimulation of their principles, to please 
 " the emperor, and recommend themselves to his favour; and 
 *' the consequent extension of the Christian religion among the 
 *' heathen nations was, as Mosheim observes, in name, not in 
 " reality. The worldly professors of Cliristianity in this cen- 
 *' tury were so far from fulfilling the prophecy by Avashing their 
 *' robes in white, and by being fed and conducted by the Lamb, 
 ** that they appear rather to have assumed the hue of another 
 *' leader, the fire-coloured dragon, and to have greedily sought 
 ** from him those worldly riches and that power, which their 
 *' Lord had refused at his hands." — P.Iy second citation is from 
 a more re(;ent, and a justly popular expounder of prophecy : 
 it is from Keith's Signs of the Times. In commenting on Dan. 
 xi. 34, he says : " The elevation of Constantine to the throne, 
 " and his conversion to Christianity, gave outward peac^ to the 
 " church. In human view the help seemed great. But, as 
 "many had foniierly become genuine converts, on witnessing 
 " the integrity of saints, conjoined Avith the intrepidity of mar- 
 '' tyrs, the religion of the court became then the lure to a for- 
 " mal and false profession of a holy faith. The cause of Truth 
 " received but a little help ; and ' many did cleave unto them 
 " witli jlatteriesS Eusebius, in his life of Constantine, relates, 
 *' that the emperor's kindness Avas Avont to be imposed upon by 
 " the unspeakable dissimulation of those Avho craftily crept into 
 "the church, and falsely assumed the name of Christians !" — 
 Then, on verse 35. of the same chapter, after detailing" the 
 persecutions of the kingdom or church of Christ in early times, 
 he says ; " /w the days of these kingdoms,'' of Avhich the Roman 
 
 * Dissertation, &c. pp. 46— 48. Ed. 1813. The Italics, in these quo- 
 tations, are not mine. 
 
 e2 
 
52 
 
 was the last, " did the God of heaven set up a kingdom ; and 
 " such was the reception given to it by the rulers and nations 
 " of the world. But, after a long- time of fiery trial, and still 
 ** without any change in the form of the government of Rome, 
 *' they who had been afflicted long- Avere ^ holpen with a little 
 " help ;' and hypocrisy and worldly-mindedness began to be 
 *' associated with the profession of the gospel, — ' Mani/ clave 
 ** to them with flatteries' when a smile from a throne, in lieu 
 ** of the prospect of a cross, awaited the convert to the Chris- 
 ** tian faith. But little, in a spiritual sense, was the help, 
 '* which the conversion of the emperor of Rome conferred on 
 ''the cause of the cross. The truth was not greatly aided by 
 "nominal converts, or by Avorldly men. The spirit of the 
 '* world was gTadually infused into the church, which became 
 " corrupted by prosperity, as previously it had been purified 
 " by tribulation. The hierarchy gradually arose, and attained 
 '^ a domineering- ascendancy, as if the kingdom of Christ had 
 *' been a kingdom of this world, dependent for its stability on 
 " human power. They who held the offices of those who be- 
 '' fore had ' instructed many,' became lords over the consciences 
 **of men, and held Gods heritag-e as their own. They who 
 *' ought to have been known of all men, as the disciples of 
 <' Jesus, by their mutual love, vented their unholy zeal in fierce 
 *' animosity and violence ; and the reputed guardians of the 
 " gospel of peace, copying the example of blind idolaters, strove 
 " to maintain the interests of the church by the very means 
 " which had been tried in vain to eflect the subversion of the 
 " gospel. Persecution for conscience' sake i-evived in another 
 " form ; — that of papal ultimately succeeded to that of pagan : 
 " — and churchmen inflicted against 'men of understanding' 
 " the injuries and cruelties which martyrs, in the earlier history 
 " of the church, had suffered at the hand of heathens."* — This 
 is a candid representation of the truth ; and nothing stronger, 
 certainly, could I wish in my support. 
 
 And was this, then, the accomplishment of one of God's 
 gracious promises to his church ? — the fulfilment of a predic- 
 tion of blessing- ? — a change, in which the subjects of the 
 Redeemer's kingdom had reason to boast themselves ? — It is 
 no difficult matter, by portraying, in the darkest shades they 
 will bear, the church's previous corruptions, and throwing 
 upon them as little as possible of the relieving lights of her 
 
 * Keith's Signs of the Times, vol. i. pp. 77, 78, and pp. 80, 81. 
 
53 
 
 still celestial glory, to delude inconsiderate minds into tlie 
 impression that any remarkable aggravation of error, and dis- 
 order, and defection ^vas hardly to be imagined ; — but it will 
 not do ; — the consequences which have thus been described 
 appear as dismal facts on the faithful page of history ; and they 
 are no more, either in kind or in degree, than any ordi- 
 nary sagacity might have anticipated. I may confidently ap- 
 peal to the decision of every ingenuous mind, whether this 
 period of the church's worldly elevation was not the period of 
 her spiritual do\^'nfall ; — whether, ^vhen the light of earthly 
 splendour shone upon her, the light of heavenly purity was not 
 proportionally withdrawn ; whether, as she gained the honour 
 that cometh from men, she did not lose that which cometh 
 from God only ; whether, if indeed she gloried in her acqui- 
 sitions, she Avas not, in the estimate of the whole spiritual 
 world, glorying in her shame ; and whether, over such a 
 scene, I have gone beyond the truth in pronouncing Ichabod 
 the appropriate inscription. 
 
 From all that has been said, you may be left to judge of tlie 
 candour of those who allege, that we have no more on which 
 to rest our argument in the New Testament than its silence. 
 Nothing can be more untrue. We have said, and we repeat it, 
 that on its silence we might rest, " were there nothing fur- 
 " ther to support us ;" — that is, on the absence of every thing, 
 in principle, precept, or fact, on which the advocates of 
 Establishments can place their cause. When there is such 
 silence, we may surely, without presumption, say to them, 
 with regard to an innovation of so great magnitude and exten- 
 sive influence, — " Who hath required this at your hands '"" We 
 might well have put the question to the imperial head of Rome, 
 v.hen he ventured to legislate for the Divine Head of the 
 church, — *' By what authority doest thou these things ? and 
 " who gave thee this authority?" — There are occasions, too, 
 ^vhen silence is more than ordinarily conclusive, as an interdict 
 on human interference. The present is one of these. We have 
 seen the previous state of things, under the old economy : — we 
 have seen the prophetic intimations of a coming change : — we 
 have seen the actual change at the fulness of time, in corres- 
 pondence Avith these intimations : — we have seen the cessation 
 of the nationality of the church, — and the distinctness of the 
 kingdom of Christ from the communities of this world, and the 
 simplicity and spirituality of its constitution and laws. Now 
 E 3 
 
54 
 
 we deny, in the strongest terms, that this is mere silence. It 
 is silence, indeed, on the one side — dead silence — but it is not 
 silence on the other. It is a case, in which facts involve 
 principles. How can we regard the actual procedure of the 
 apostles of Christ, in constituting- the New Testament church, 
 in any other light than as the acting out of principles ? And 
 who will venture to say that human discretion is at liberty to 
 innovate upon the institutions of divine wisdom ? Who and 
 where are the authorities, Avhether ecclesiastical or civil, that 
 are Avarranted to alter the laws of Heaven, and to substitute 
 their own devices for the enactments of the King of Zion ? 
 
 We lay it down as a fundamental maxim, that all legisla- 
 tion in the kingdom of Christ is ultra vires — beyond the pro- 
 vince and the rights — of any authority that has ever existed, in 
 the church or out of it, since the days of the apostles. " They, 
 " being dead, yet speak." Their recorded authority is in their 
 writings ; and it is the authority of Christ and of God. The 
 sole question ought to be, — What are the principles and laAvs 
 of the constitution of the kingdom, as settled by them ? There 
 may be diversity of opinion as to the manner in which, within 
 the church, these principles and laws are to be carried into 
 practical operation. But this does not aflect the present ques- 
 tion. That question is, whether the remotest hint is to be 
 found, of any power lodged, or commanded or permitted to 
 be lodged, in the hands of the civil rulers of this world, in 
 reference to the affairs of the kingdom of Christ ? Let it be 
 pointed out ; and we shall bow to it. But, with the New Tes- 
 tament before us, we cannot but regard the language put into 
 the lips of the monarch of these realms, in his speech from 
 the throne at the opening of the present parliament, (and 
 which accords with what has been said at other times on si- 
 milar occasions,) as involving a presumptuous violation of the 
 prerogatives of a higher Sovereign. What Christian, whose 
 mind has not been drawn away from the simplicity of the 
 apostolic statements, and nurtured in the school of political 
 Christianity, can fail to be sensible, that the king of Eng- 
 land is out of his province, Avhen he announces the intended 
 proposal of measures " to improve," not merely " our civil 
 '* jurisprudence," — that were right, — but " the administration 
 *' of justice in ecclesiastical causes;'' and " to make provision 
 " for the more effectual maintenance of ecclesiastical discip- 
 " line ;" — and the appointment of commissions, for consi- 
 dering, amongst other matters, '* the more equal distribution 
 
55 
 
 *' of Episcopal duties," — (not revenues merely, but duties, — 
 though indeed there is sufficient propriety in the two going 
 together,) — and " the best mode," in different specified respects, 
 '' of providing for the cure of souls." 
 
 I am not unaware tliat such language has immediate refer- 
 ence to the English Episcopacy, of which the king is acknow- 
 ledged the supreme head on earth ; and that by our Scottish 
 Presbyterian Establishment this Christ-dishonouring title is 
 jealously disowned. But the refusal of a title is one thing ; 
 the denial of power another. Let any one read those parts of 
 the Scottish standards, which relate to the powers of the civil 
 magistrate in regard to the affairs of the church ; and then 
 say, Avhat authority more plenary could well be ascribed to 
 him, Avere he acknowledged its earthly head. I cannot at 
 present dwell upon this topic, having expressed my views of it 
 on another occasion.* I Avould only observe, that the ordi- 
 nary distinction of circa sacra and in sacris can be of little 
 avail ; for if the terms tliere employed do not express a power 
 in sacris, I despair of miderstanding any language that can 
 possibly be used on the subject. It is time, however, that his 
 Majesty were looking after his prerogatives. They seem to be 
 in danger of infringement in more assemblies than one. The 
 editors of the Church of Scotland IMagazine have adopted and 
 sanctioned the views of the justly eminent metropolitan pro- 
 fessor of divinity, according to ^vhich the king, as represented 
 by his Grace the commissioner in the General Assembly, is 
 denied to have any power in that court whatever, either circa 
 sacra or in sacris, and pronounced to have no status there but 
 that of a looker-on : and they have challenged me to produce 
 a single instance " in which the Assembly have permitted the 
 commissioner to be more than a looker-on.'''' — I was once, many 
 years ago, in the General Assembly. I was there, of course, as 
 a looker-on. I had little conception at the time, that I, and 
 that each spectator in the gallery, had the same authority tliere 
 as his Majesty's representative. I had, in my simplicity, ima- 
 gined, never allowing myself to fancy that the standards of the 
 church w ere a dead letter, — that his Grace was there, as the royal 
 deputy, to " take order that unity and peace be preserved in the 
 '' church;" to see that " the truth of God be kept pure and 
 ** entire;" to ** prevent or reform corruptions and abuses in 
 
 * Speech published in the Report of the proceedings of the Edinburgli 
 Voluntary Church Society, at their last annual meeting. 
 
56 
 
 " Avorship and discipline ;" and " to provide that whatsoever 
 " was transacted was according to the mind of God." — Are we 
 now, then, to understand all this, and more to the same pur- 
 pose, as the language of mere adulatory courtesy ? — and is his 
 Grace, and is his Majesty whom his Grace represents, to be re- 
 garded as a mere cypher, of which it is one of the distinctive 
 properties, that precedence nullifies its power V — 1 ask, in seri- 
 ous earnest, What, according to this modern license of inter- 
 pretation, are we to make of the doctrine of the Confession 
 respecting the magistrate's power in matters of religion ? Are 
 not our brethren getting before their creed ? I rejoice to be- 
 lieve that they are. There is a manifest shrinking from its 
 statements, as not only too antiquated for the times, but con- 
 taining more of the spirit and letter of the Old Testament 
 theocracy, than even they are prepared to approve. If I am 
 wrong in this — and I shall be sorry if I prove to be so — let us 
 see a manful and straight-forward defence of these statements, 
 on any principles of explanation that are not chargeable with 
 explaining them away. 
 
 What is the general command of the Master we serve, 
 respecting civil and sacred things ? We read it in these words 
 — " Render unto Caesar the things that are Cajsar's, and unto 
 God the things that are God's." — This evidently implies a dis- 
 tinction between the one class of things and the other : — and 
 " if this distinction," (to use the appropriate words of Mr 
 Spence) '* consists not in Caesar being, under God, supreme 
 " head in civil things, and in God being the only Head in 
 " sacred things, it is high time that the world were favoured 
 " with a perspicuous and succinct detail of * the things whicli 
 *' are Caesar's,' in contradistinction to those that are God's, that 
 '^ tender consciences miglit be at rest, and know how far they 
 " ought to obey Caesar's ordinances in things sacred, as well as 
 " in things civil." — Let it be recollected, that the Avords were 
 originally addressed to Jews. These Jews were under the 
 obligations of their own law. Had their rendering the tribute 
 to Caesar been, in any Avay, incompatible with their rendering 
 to God obedience in all that his precepts required of them, they 
 could not have been either enjoined or permitted to do it. 
 God, in his providence, had allowed them to come under the 
 Koman yoke ; and what Avas exacted of them by those avIio 
 had the mastery, it Avas pronounced by the authority of Jesus 
 no infraction of their allegiance to Him that they should pay. 
 — Under their own theocratic government, hoAvever, there Avas, 
 
57 
 
 properly speaking, no distinction between the things which 
 were Caesar's and the things which were God's. God and 
 (^assar were one. What belonged to the one belonged to the 
 other. — But when the words are applied to Christians, the case 
 is different. We are under no theocracy. There is no such 
 identity now in the object to whom we render our civil and 
 our religious service. Wliile the distinction, therefore, remains 
 between the two descriptions of duties, the one must be regarded 
 as appropriate to Caesar, and the other as appropriate to God. 
 There is a distinction, which, generally speaking, is sufficiently 
 plain between things civil and things sacred, — between the 
 duties of the first and the duties of the second table of the law. 
 If, in some points, it is felt a matter of difficulty to draw witii 
 pi'ecision the line of demarcation between them, it may be 
 worthy of consideration, how far, in such cases, the difficulty 
 may not, wholly or in part, be occasioned by the very habits of 
 thought Avhich have been induced by their unnatural intermix- 
 ture. The very designation of a civil magistrate ought to be 
 understood as limiting his authority to the civil department. 
 When he comes upon religious ground, he steps beyond his 
 province. All that is properly religious lies between God and 
 the conscience. No human authority is entitled to interfere 
 with it. If, while Ave are, conscientiously and cheerfully, 
 *' rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesars," Caesar 
 should overstep the limit of his divine commission, and demand 
 of us, in one jot or tittle, the " things that are God's," the 
 question comes then to be, Is God or Cresar to be obeyed ? In 
 such a case, disobeying Csesar is not disobeying the God 
 who has enjoined submission to Cassar; because, in going 
 beyond his legitimate boundary, Caesar himself is the trans- 
 gressor; — he has interfered with what does not belong to him; 
 — he has presumptuously intruded into the province of the 
 King of kings : — and, if he transgresses in commanding, it does 
 not follow that ive must sanction and participate in his trans- 
 gression, by obeying. 
 
 That " righteousness exalteth a nation;" — that the more 
 extensive in a country the prevalence of scriptural godliness, 
 with its practical moral effects, the more truly great, prosperous, 
 and happy will that country be; — are propositions which no Chris- 
 tian, which no theist will question. I have ever inculcated the 
 doctrine, that he is the truest patriot who contributes most 
 efficiently to the diffiision of the knowledge and influence of 
 pure religion.— To say, therefore, that the civil magistrate has 
 
58 
 
 nothing to do with it, is to speak rashly, — is to say Avhat can- 
 not be admitted without explanatory qiialifi(;ation. He has to 
 do with it. Every man has to do witli it that desires the 
 nation's weal; and, since the magistrate, more than all others, 
 ought to have this object at heart, he has more to do with it 
 than any man in his dominions. It is the first duty of every 
 magistrate, as it is of every other man, to be religious ; and a 
 truly religious magistrate, will exert himself to the utmost, by 
 the openness and decidedness of his example, and by every 
 legitimate means in his power, to make his people religious. 
 Would to God that our country, and every country called 
 Christian, were blessed with such rulers! — All this, however, is 
 true, independently of official power. The proper authority 
 of a civil ruler includes legislation, compulsion, penalty. But, 
 in matters of religion, we affirm these to be altogether out of 
 the question; and such matters, therefore, to be beyond the 
 limits of his official province. — To legislate in regard to re- 
 ligion, to institute rites and ceremonies for the church, to frame 
 ecclesiastical constitutions by acts of parliament, and by similar 
 acts to alter and modify these constitutions at pleasure, is an 
 assumption of power even higher than belonged to those kings 
 of Israel whose jurisdiction is so commonly pleaded as the 
 divine archetype for that of other monarchs. With them 
 there was no legislative authority ; tlie institutes of both civil 
 and ecclesiastical polity were all fixed. Not a jot or tittle 
 could they change. They were a simple executive. And how- 
 ls it now? The constitution and laws of the kingdom of 
 Christ are to be found in the only statute-book of that king- 
 dom. There is no existing power of legislation ; and as for 
 the executive, it is not to be found in any civil functionaries, 
 but forms a part of the divinely ordered constitution of the 
 church itself. The magistrate can never, by any right of liis, 
 take out of the hands of the officers and subjects of Christ's 
 kingdom what has been lodged with them by the only Lord 
 whom, in this capacity, they acknowledge. — And, even if this 
 were not decisive, — even if he could be proved to have the 
 authority pleaded for, — it would still be a question, — a question 
 of natural reason, and a question of fact and experience, 
 whether the establishment and endowment of Christianity were 
 really the most eligible means for effecting the promotion and 
 prevalence of '' pure and undefiled religion." The evidence 
 of the contrary belongs not to my department; and, if it did, 
 I should abstain from touching it, after the condensed, but not 
 
59 
 
 less luminous than forcible exhibition of their injurious ten- 
 dencies laid before you in last lecture. 
 
 On the proofs adduced from the New Testament, that religion 
 comes within the province of civil rulers, it will not be needful 
 for us to dwell. They are of such a nature as fully to warrant 
 in replying to them, the adoption of the maxim — Verbum sat.* 
 
 It is the duty of every man, Ave are first reminded, in every 
 sphere he is called to fill, to act from religious principle, and 
 to " do all to the glory of God ;" and from this obligation 
 the magistrate surely, — the Christian magistrate — is not to be 
 considered as exempted. — Unquestionably not. It is, beyond 
 controversy, incumbent on every Christian magistrate, — and if 
 he be indeed a Christian, he will not require to have the duty 
 urged upon him, for he will ever be led to it by the felt re- 
 sponsibilities of his charge, and by a sense of his dependence 
 on the divine favour and the divine aid, — that in " transacting 
 " the national affairs," he '* acknowledge the authority and seek 
 *' the blessing of God, — and of God in Christ." — " If our 
 " opponents concede this," adds Mr Brown, '' they concede as 
 *' real a union of Church and State as can possibly exist." f 
 Indeed ! Then I trust you will all go along with me in the 
 fervent prayer, that the union of Church and State Avere uni- 
 versal ! — for it were then only a prayer that we might have truly 
 Christian men for our rulers, and that the whole civil adminis- 
 tration of our country were conducted under the guidance of 
 truly Christian principle. But the obvious question is — Does 
 this supposition alter the nature or the ends of the administra- 
 tion itself? Is it not, whether under the management of reli- 
 gious or of irreligious men, civil administration still '? Does 
 the principle from Avhich an act is done, change the department 
 to which the act belongs, — converting civil into ecclesiastical, 
 and ecclesiastical into civil, according as the motives happen 
 to be religious or political ? Christian servants are represented 
 as " serving the Lord Christ;" and, *' whatsoever they do, 
 they are conmianded to *' do it heartily, as to the Lord, and 
 not to men." Does this alter the nature of the servile rela- 
 tion ? Does that relation cease to be a civil relation, when the 
 duties required in it are performed from Christian motives ? — 
 I appeal to you, my hearers, whether this be not egregious 
 trifling. And yet the author of this argument, though by no 
 means destitute of acuteness, triumphs in it, as if it settled tlie 
 
 * A word will do. f Church Establishments Defended, page 6. 
 
60 
 
 controversy: — '* Produce us a text of the New Testament, say 
 " our opponents, for the union of Church and State. We 
 *' ansuer, that the whole Scriptures together, not only permit, 
 " but demand it. They demand it by enjoining, that Christian 
 ** men, in whatever sphere they are called to move — in private 
 *' and in public, in the Church and in the State, shall seek to 
 " carry the authority and the blessing of their Master along 
 '* Avith them, and, in his name, conduct their whole proceed- 
 *Mngs."* — I have already gone beyond my Verbum sat. I 
 leave you to answer the question, whether such gTOund as this 
 Avould have been taken, if better had been to be had ? 
 
 We are reminded further, that in Rom. xiii. the civil magis* 
 trate is described as *' the minister of God for good ;^' and 
 as " a terror, not to good works, but to the evil.'' And 
 from these expressions, because they are unqualified, the lesson 
 is deduced, that every kind of good comes within the province of 
 his official " ministry," — and that the same divinely-committed 
 ministry binds him to prosecute and to punish everj/ kind of 
 
 evil It might, perhaps, be enough, in reply to this, to say, 
 
 that the ministers of Christ in his spiritual kingdom are surely 
 ministers for good. Does it follow that t/iei/ are entitled to 
 interfere in civil concerns? No more does it follow from such 
 an expression, that civil rulers are entitled to interfere in re- 
 ligious concerns. If I am told that the province of the spirit- 
 ual minister is defined ; equally so, I answer, is that of the 
 civil. If the one is not an officer of State, neither has the 
 other any official status in the church. — But I cannot allow a 
 conclusion so important and so perilous to pass without a little 
 further notice. — " Let any man read these accounts," f it has 
 been said, "■ with attention, and with a common share of in- 
 " telligence and candour, and say, whether it is not the proper 
 *' end of the magistrate's office, to confer on society every kind 
 " and measure of good which he may be able to confer in the 
 '* use of means placed in his hands ; and to repress every sort 
 " of crime, or overt act of wickedness injurious to society, 
 " which, in the use of the means placed in his hands, he may 
 *' be able to repress. The expressions are quite indefinite; 
 " neither specifying any particular kind of good on the one 
 "hand, nor of evil on the other; and nothing but express 
 " authority from other parts of Scripture can justify us in giv- 
 
 * Church Establishments Defended, p. 6. 
 
 f The accounts given in the New Testament of the " direct ends of 
 magistracy." Brown's Church Establishments Defended, p. 70. 
 
61 
 
 " ing- them a limited sense. So far, however, from finding- 
 ** this, we have at least the presumption arising- fruui the ex- 
 *' ample of the Jewish rulers, to confiim the natural interpre- 
 " tation of the words. I really do not see how it is possible 
 " to get rid of these passages, without adopting- a mode of 
 *' interpretation altogether violent and arbitrary." 
 
 As to the reference here made to the JeAvish rulers, I have 
 formerly said enough to expose the irrelevancy of that example, 
 and to show you, that, instead of its affording a presumption 
 in favour of the course pleaded for, such an application of it 
 involves presumption of a very different kind. — But distant 
 may the time be, when the civil rulers of these realms shall 
 lend an ear to such ill-omened doctrines as these ! For an 
 exemplification of the kinds of evil, the coercive repression of 
 which comes Avithin the magistrate's province, in his capacity of 
 '' a terror to evil-doers," — *' as directly within his province 
 as theft or murder" — w^e are referred to the case of blasphemy. 
 But what is blasphemy '? I regard the denial and ridicule 
 of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ as blasphemy. Is it, 
 then, to be denounced by the laAv ? — and are we to prosecute 
 and to put doAvn, by pains and penalties, the followers of So- 
 cinus ? Every " overt act" of iiTeligion, of whatever descrip- 
 tion, is " injurious to society :"— is every such act to have its 
 appropriate penalty, — of corporal infliction, pecuniary mulct, 
 or imprisonment? Idolatry is an " overt act of wickedness," 
 and in its tendencies most " injurious to society :" — is summary 
 vengeance to be taken on the worshippers of the Virgin, and 
 the saints, and the host, — and, in conformity with the example 
 of the Jewish rulers, six-sevenths at least of the population of 
 our sister island to be either exterminated, or coerced into con- 
 formity to another faith and another Avorship ? Whither are 
 such principles to carry us ? It is our comfort, that, even Avhen 
 hinted darkly and dubiously, they come too late in the thirty- 
 fiftli year of the nineteenth centui-y I 
 
 It is noAV, so far as your patience is concerned, more than 
 time I Avere at a close. Yet I have an important part of my 
 subject still before me, Avhich I cannot leave untouched. It is 
 one, hoAvever, Avhich, Avhile it admits o/ great expansion, Avere 
 it to be discussed in all its bearings, happily does not require 
 it. I refer to the pecuniary support of the ministers and 
 ordinances of religion, or to Avhat has been appropriately 
 termed the Voluntary principle. 
 
62 
 
 I must despatch in very few Avoids Avliat relates to the Old 
 Testament. We have formerly seen, that tlie tithes given by 
 Abraham to Melchisedec, and those vowed to God by Jacob, 
 v/ere of the nature of free-will offerings, and distinct exempli- 
 fications of this very principle. We have other signal displays 
 of it on record, in the accounts given us of the erection of the 
 tabernacle in the wilderness ; of the preparation for the first 
 temple by David, with his nobles and people, and the subsequent 
 completion of the magnificent structure by Solomon ; of the 
 repairing of the house of the Lord in the reign of Joash ; and 
 of the building of the second temple after the captivity :— for 
 although, in regard to this last transaction, there are many 
 things in the conduct of the monarchs of Persia that more than 
 savour of the spirit of eastern despotism, yet, so far as the 
 Jews themselves were concerned, the voluntary principle per- 
 vades it. — Ihe principal question requiring attention is that 
 which relates to the voluntary or compulsory nature of the 
 law of tithes in Israel. The denial of its compulsory charac- 
 ter has been treated with a scorn which would require clearer 
 evidence than exists in favour of compulsion, to justify it. Who 
 ever heard, it is confidently asked, of a law without a penalty, 
 or without means of enforcement ? — This leads me at once to 
 the distinction between the law being obligatory, and its being 
 compulsory. When we affirm it to have been obligatory, we 
 mean that it had in it the obligation of divine command. 
 When we affirm it not to have been compulsory ^ we do not 
 mean that it was accompanied with no threatened penalty, (for 
 a law that may be ti'ansgressed with impunity is no law,) but 
 only that there was no penalty annexed to its violation to be 
 injiicted by man ; — that the Lord, while he published the 
 conimand, reserved the punishment of its infraction in his own 
 hands. In support of this view of the case, I merely mention, 
 without one word of comment, the following considerations : 
 — 1. That there is not the remotest approach to either an 
 injunction or a permission to distrain, or to enforce payment 
 by violence : — 2. That there is no specified penalty for failure 
 to pay, nor any intimated authority to prescribe one : — 3. That 
 there is no instance on record of any attempt at compulsion ; 
 which, had there been a law, or any thing that could be con- 
 strued into a law, warranting it, is not, it is alleged, a very 
 likely state of things, Avhen the character of the ecclesiastics, 
 at some periods of the history, as delineated by the prophets, 
 is considered — Isa. Ivi. 10, 11. "His watchmen are blind: 
 
63 
 
 ** they are all ignorant; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot 
 " bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they 
 " are all greedy dogs, which can never have enough, and they 
 *' are shepherds that cannot understand : they all look to their 
 " own way, every one for his gain from his quarter :" — 4. That 
 there is presumptive evidence of the law having stood on a 
 similar footing with the requisitions in behalf of " the stranger, 
 the fatherless, and the widow," in the fact of " the stranger, 
 the fatherless, and the widow" being so repeatedly associated 
 with '' the Levite," both with regard to the appropriation of the 
 tithe, and with regard to the general exercise of watchful care 
 and liberal generosity : — 5. That in certain other cases of a 
 similar description, the kind of penalty threatened is one 
 which it was competent to Jehovah alone to inflict. I refer to 
 the half-shekel, or redemption-money — Exod. xxx. 12. " When 
 '* thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their 
 *' number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul 
 " unto the Lord, when thou numberest them ; that there be no 
 *' plague among tJiem, when thou numberest them." The 
 penalty here threatened, I need not say, is one of exclusively 
 divine infliction : — 6. The instances alleged to the contrary are 
 not instances of either compulsion or penalty; — they are in- 
 stances only of the publication of the law, with the authority 
 of Jehovah, and of the willing compliance of tlie people. That, 
 in case there had not been such compliance, Nehemiah, Heze- 
 kiah, or any other ruler, would have proceeded to levy by 
 compulsion, is an assumption, altogether gratuitous, of the 
 point to be proved : — 7. So far from there being any ground 
 for such an assumption, there is not in the passages of the 
 history — Nehem. xiii. 10 — 12. 2 Chron. xxxi. 4 — 8. — the 
 slightest evidence of any thing like the work of a surveyor of 
 taxes, — any thing of the nature of personal or domestic 
 scrutiny and assessment, — any account taken of who paid and 
 who did not pay — of who w ere obedient and w lio were default- 
 ers. The people ** brought in," evidently in many cases beyond 
 what was due; so that, when Hezekiah " saw the heaps" of the 
 ofterings collected, he " blessed the Lord and his people Is- 
 rael," — delighted, as David had been on a similar occasion, with 
 the spirit of liberality displayed. 
 
 I am not, however, very careful about the establishment of 
 
 this position, because, even if the right of compulsory exaction 
 
 were clearly made out, there would still be requisite the further 
 
 proof, that the Jewish law of tithe itself retained any binding 
 
 F 2 
 
64 
 
 obligation in Clirislian times ; — a point wliicli even the most 
 eminent civilians give up as untenable.* 
 
 I pass, then, from this, at once, to the view given us of the 
 support of the Gospel in the New Testament records. And 
 here there is, throughout, perfect clearness and simplicity. — 
 
 * " Whether tlie special proportion of a tenth of our yearly revenues 
 is due to the Christian cleigy by a divine and unalterable right, is a point 
 which has been agitated witlx great heat. It is affirmed by all the can- 
 onists, by most of the popish clergy, and by no inconsiderable number 
 of the protestants, among whom our first reformers from popery may 
 be reckoned ; and it is denied by most of the protestant princes and 
 states of Europe. The topics urged in proof of the affirmative are 
 chiefly drawn from that article of the law of Moses, bj^ which God 
 himself ordained the tenth of the fruits of the ground to be given to the 
 priests and Levites. Numb, xviii. 21 et seqq. — But, Jirst, this argu- 
 ment is improper in a question what the Divine law is in the Christian 
 church ; — for the Mosaical law, in so far as related to the policy of the 
 Jewish church, was not given forth as a rule to other nations ; and, be- 
 ing but temporary in respect even of the Jews, lost its force at the com- 
 ing of our Saviour, when the order itself of the priests and Levites was 
 abolished. — Secondhj, The popish clergj^, who otfer this plea, do them- 
 selves disclaim the obligatory force of the Jewish law, where it interferes 
 with their views of power or interest; for they have, in spite of an or- 
 dinance of Moses, which prohibits the Levites to possess lands in their 
 own right, Numb, xviii. 23, 21. drawn to the church, besides the tithes, 
 a considerable property in land, in all the countries that acknowledge the 
 see of Rome. There can be no doubt of the sentiments of the Scottish 
 legislature on this point since the Reformation ; for our sovereigns, in- 
 stead of transferring the tithes from the popish to the protestant clergy, 
 have assumed the power of bestowing grants of the greatest part of them, 
 to laymen, with the burden of reasonable stipends to the clergy ; which 
 grants have been, either expressly, or by consequence, ratified in pai'lia- 
 ment." Erskine's Institute of the Law of Scotland — Edit. 1824, page 
 
 r/5. 
 
 " Most of the popish and some protestant divines have concluded 
 teinds to be jure dhnno, as being institute and consecrate by God him- 
 self, having a moral and perpetual foundation, — that those who are set 
 apart from worldly affairs to the service of God should have a compe- 
 tent livelihood from those for whom they serve; but the determination 
 of the quota to be the tenth part rather than any other proportion, is a 
 positive law that God manifested, and was observed before the written 
 word ; and was j-etained by the heathen even after they had deviated 
 from the true God. But most of the protestant divines hold teinds to 
 be the voluntary dedication and consecration of men for pious uses, and 
 to have continued in a tenth part from the example of Abraham, the 
 father of the faithful, and of the divine constitution in the judicial law; 
 but there is now no divine moral precept in the word for teinds, of which 
 there is no mention in the New Testament, even where the maintenance 
 of ministers is properly spoken to, but only that ' those who serve at the 
 altar should live by the altar,' — that ' those who sow spiritual things 
 should reap temporal things ;' which doth hold forth a moral duty of 
 recompense, to provide a competent livelihood for those who are separate 
 from the world for our cause, but doth not infer a tenth part, or any 
 other determinate proportion, but what is convenient." — Lord Stair's 
 Institutions of the Law of Scotland — 4th edit. vol. ii. B. ii. chap. 8. ^ 4. 
 
65 
 
 Few things have surprised or grieved me more, than the man- 
 ner of speaking- and Avriting in which some, even good men, 
 have indulged themselves in regard to the voluntary principle. 
 If, throughout the New Testament, this principle had been 
 pronounced incompetent, and its opposite had been plainly and 
 peremptorily inculcated, we might have had less ground of 
 astonishment at the acrimony of reproach, and the affectation 
 of pity, and the violence of contempt and ridicule, with which 
 it and its supporters have at times been assailed. The spirit 
 of the opposition we might still have had good cause to con- 
 demn, as being inconsistent with the genius of the New Testa- 
 ment, and with the manner there prescribed and exemplified of 
 opposing- even the opponents of the truths and laws of God ; 
 — but we should have had less reason to marvel at its extent 
 and decidedness. Surely it is not a little affecting, to find, for 
 example, that eminent individual, whose eloquence has so often 
 and so powerfully been expended in pleading for the abandon- 
 ment of all compulsory assessments for the poor, and for casting 
 them upon the mighty energies and unfailing resources of a 
 spontaneous benevolence, now depreciating the power of 
 Christian charity, and speaking of its " inherent mid essential 
 feebleness." For Avhat is the voluntary principle, but the 
 principle of Christian charity"? Yet " the Voluntaries''' has 
 become a designation of scorn, as if, in maintaining voluntary- 
 ism, we had been setting ourselves in an attitude of defiance to 
 the entire tenor of the precepts and the practice of the apos- 
 tles of Christ Have our brethren really and clearly made it 
 out, that there is no such thing as the voluntary principle to be 
 found in the New Testament, — that they allow themselves such 
 liberties in their treatment of it ? No such thing ! did I say ? 
 I rather ask them, if, searching it from end to end, they have 
 found any thing else ? Is there a single text, or a single ex- 
 ample, to the contrary ? How stands the fact ? The support 
 of the Gospel, — of the church, — of its ordinances, of its poor, 
 of its ministers, of its propagation, — ail was in the church 
 itself. It is more especially with the maintenance of the 
 ministry, that the question has been connected ; but the prin- 
 ciple applies to all those interests of the kingdom, for which 
 pecuniary contribution was in any way required. The Lord 
 Jesus Christ by his apostles committed all the concerns of the 
 church to the church itself. And in this it may be observed, 
 he did the same that he had done of old. Formerly, when 
 F 3 
 
66 
 
 the nation of Israel was the chnrch of God, the support of the 
 ordinances and ministers of his sanctuary was found within 
 itself. Under the new dispensation, the church ceased to be 
 national, except as consisting of " the holy nation and peculiar 
 people;" but still, the support of the ordinances and ministers 
 of its sanctuary Avas found within itself. It is just as much a 
 violation of the principles and obligations of the New Testament 
 kingdom, to ally it with the State for the support of its worship, 
 as it Mould have been offensive to Jehovah, had the <;hurch of 
 Israel allied itself, for the maintenance of his institutions, with 
 Egypt or Assyria, Avith Philistia or Amalek. 
 
 Tlie transference of the support of divine ordinances, and of 
 the advancement of the cause of Christ, from the church itself 
 to the civil power, I cannot but regard as an act of equal 
 presjimptio7i and meanness. — It is an act of presumption: — for 
 if the great Head of the church has vested the upholding of 
 the interests of his kingdom in his own subjects, — whence 
 comes their right to transfer that burden, — even supposing it 
 were felt one, — to the shoulders of others ? Are the people 
 of Christ to be considered as entitled, at their pleasure, to 
 exonerate themselves of the obligations Avhich their Lord and 
 King has laid upon them ? — are they Avarranted to say, It is no 
 matter, provided the thing be done, Avhether it be done by 
 ourselves or by others for us, — Avhether it be done in our 
 Master's Avay or in our OAvn ? They have not — they cannot 
 have — a right to act thus. — And Avhile there is presumption in 
 such procedure, there is something more, — there is mean?iess : 
 — yes — meanness, — pitiful, contracted, abject littleness of spirit. 
 I can never, Avithout a rising emotion of indignant scorn, hear 
 the inducement held out to the people of our city and country, 
 in order to ingratiate the Establislied church in their affections, 
 that it is the church Avhich costs t/tem nothing — Avhich provides 
 them their religion free of charge! I ask my brethren 
 on the other side of the question, Avhether this bears any re- 
 semblance to the spirit of the Kcav Testament. There, it is not 
 merely inculcated as a duty, it is held forth as a privilege, and 
 an honour, and a blessing, to do any thing, however little, 
 according to ability, for the kingdom of Jesus Christ. There, 
 I find the high-toned, the divine principle — " It is more 
 blessed to give than to receive I" — Let me not be told, the 
 consideration of cheapness and gratuitousness is urged only in 
 behalf of the poor; — and that the Establishment is " tJie poor 
 
67 
 
 man's church.''* — Most cordially do I grant, that " to the poor 
 the Gospel must be preached." But I ask, is not this, too, a 
 part of the charge committed to the church of God ? — Yes ; 
 and a charge which she dare not relinquish to others, without 
 dishonour to her Lord. What ! are there not resources within 
 the kingdom for the kingdom's own exigencies? There weeb 
 FOR CENTURIES. There ARE STILL. It is to the sliamc, — the 
 burning shame, of the subjects of tiiat kingdom, that they 
 should allow themselves to be the taunt of all the infidels and 
 ungodly worldlings in the country, that they cannot get on 
 without tJieir help ! Our brethren may call this, if they will, 
 " the earth helping the Avoman :" — I call it the church be- 
 traying its Lord; — "^ the Bride, the Lamb's wife," doing dis- 
 honour to her kind and liberal husband. It is a mean-spirit- 
 edness, unworthy the followers of Him '' who, though he was 
 rich, for their sakes became poor, that they through his poverty 
 might be made rich." Where now are those who, in the days 
 of his flesh, followed the lowly Redeemer, ministering to him 
 of their substance ? — Where are the Barnabases of apostolic 
 times ? — Vv'here is the fragrance of that costly spikenard, of 
 which the memorial accompanies the Gospel Avherever it is 
 preached, in testimony of the Saviour's approbation, and in 
 reprehension of the murmurings of the ungenerous ? Where 
 is the remembrance, and where the spirit, of our blaster's own 
 test of discipleship — '' Whosoever he be of you, that forsaketh 
 not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple ?' — The derelic- 
 tion of the support of his church, and the devolving of it on 
 the governments of this world, — and glorying in exemption 
 from the burden, as if it were quite an achievement for his 
 cause, — is a procedure of the same character, only that its tur- 
 pitude is still more flagrant and its baseness more abject, with 
 Israels having recourse, in their straits, to the enemies of their 
 God. And it has been, in the experience of the church, as in 
 that of Israel. What has the State been, as to all the best in- 
 terests of the spiritual community, but what Egypt was to Israel 
 — a broken reed, that '' pierces the hand," and '* rends the 
 shoulder" of him who trusts to its support? 
 
 I have said, that the principles on which the gospel and 
 gospel ordinances are to be maintained, are laid down in the 
 
 * The legitimacy of this high chum in behalf of the Established 
 Church it is not mine to disprove. In Lecture V. by the Rev. Mr 
 King, delivered ere this was finished at press, it will be found set in its 
 proper light. 
 
68 
 
 New Testament uith all possible simplicity and precision. 
 Without dwelling- on the great general maxims and motives of 
 liberality to every good work by which it is pervaded, — let mo 
 come, for a few moments, to the maintenance of the Christian 
 ministry. — On this important subject, then, we have two things 
 plainly stated : — first, the general ordinance for the support 
 of such a ministry, and, secondly, tlie source of the supply. 
 — The former Ave find, in the midst of a spirited discussion of 
 the subject, on the grounds of generosity, and equity, and the 
 example of ancient institution, — 1 Cor. ix. 14. *' Even so hath 
 the Lord ordained, that they Avho preach the gospel should live 
 of the gospel." — Nothing can be plainer. I certainly must 
 decline all argument with the man Avho is so inconsiderate, or 
 so disingenuous, as to insist that the words " Even so," — or 
 ** so also" — (a^Tw Kcci) ought to be interpreted as meaning, that 
 the preachers of the gospel should be supported in the same 
 way as of old, namely, amongst other Old Testament means, 
 hy tithes ; — Avhich is to represent an inspired apostle as an- 
 nouncing, Avith all authority, an ordinance of the Lord, — to 
 Avhich, notwithstanding, there Avas, at the time, no required 
 obedience, and to Avhich there is not a single recorded hint of 
 any subsequent conformity, in any one of tlie apostolic churches ! 
 In this, as in not a fcAV other instances, Ave are entitled to in- 
 terpret precepts by facts. Had there been anything in the 
 narrative of the New Testament churches, indicating a confoi'- 
 mity to Old Testament practice in this particular, this Avould 
 have given countenance to such an interpretation of the apos- 
 tle's Avords, — although, even then, it Avould have been a very 
 undefined and a very unwonted mode of expressing his mean- 
 ing : — but, not only is there nothing in the record to favour it, 
 — there is every thing that could Avell be, in the form of fact 
 and principle, directly against it.* The simple and peremp- 
 tory ordinance is, — "^ that they Avho preach the gospel should 
 live of the gospel." — From whom, then, is their support to 
 come ? This is the next question ; and the ansAver to it is not 
 less explicit. I refer you to two texts. The one is in the 
 same connexion with the former, — I Cor. ix. 11, 12. "If Ave 
 *' have soAvn unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we 
 " shall reap your carnal things ? If others be partakers of 
 *' this poAver over you, are not we rather?" — This latter ques- 
 tion clearly shoAVS the ground on Avhich the apostle rests the right 
 
 * Mr Fleming actually takes the ground referred to. Critique, pp. 
 
 47, 48. 
 
69 
 
 or power nhicli lie asserts. It is on the ground, that they on 
 >vhoia labour is expended are bound, according to their ability, 
 to recompense the labourer. " If others — are not we rather f 
 Why ? certainly because he had labom-ed more than others for 
 their benefit. — Thus too, in the precept of Moses, of which he 
 applies the principle, — "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that 
 treadeth out the corn,"^ — it is the owner's corn the ox eats, for 
 whom he performs the labour. — The second text is Gal. vi. G. 
 *' Let him that is taught in the word conmiunicate unto him 
 " that teacheth in all good things." — Mr Scott's note on these 
 words is — and with his comment I satisfy myself, as quite suffi- 
 cient, — " The Lord had appointed the office of the ministry, 
 *' for the conversion of sinners, and the edification of believei-s : 
 " and accordingly the apostle exhorted the Galatians to contri- 
 ** bute to the comfortable maintenance of their teachers, who 
 " instructed them from the word of God ; communicating- to 
 " them a proportion of their temporal good things, according 
 " to their ability." 
 
 Such, then, is the principle. And it is the same that, in 
 other passages, is inculcated on the churches in regard to their 
 pastors, in some\vhat more general terras, though inclusive, at 
 the same time, of attention to their temporal comfort : — 1 Thes. 
 V. 12, 13. " And we beseech you, brethren, to know them that 
 " labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish 
 " you ; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's 
 *' sake." — The principle is not, of course, to be interpreted, as 
 if it precluded the strong from helping the weak, — the richer 
 cliurches, as well as individuals, from imparting voluntary aid 
 to the poorer. There is a general obligation that lies upon 
 the entire Christian community, to maintain the interests of 
 their Lord's cause, by a reciprocation of benevolent assistance, 
 and a generous combination of common resources : — " For I 
 *' mean not that other men be eased, and you burdened ; but 
 *' by an equality, — that now at this time your abundance may 
 "be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be 
 " a supply for your want, that there may be equality." 2 Cor. 
 viii. 13, 14. — And there cannot be a more serious mistake, 
 than that it matters little whence the support comes. I might 
 show you, in many respects, how much it does matter, both as 
 to the giver and as to the receiver. I satisfy myself for the 
 present, however, with remarking, that it is one of the purposes 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ to present to the world, in the fellow- 
 ship of his church, and the practical working of the spiritual 
 
70 
 
 affections by Avhicli its members are united, an exhibition of 
 the poiver of principle. But the exhibition is lost, and the 
 purpose frustrated, >vhen the church transfers any part of her 
 own peculiar duties to the world. Where, in the case before 
 us, is the manifestation of principle, — where is the glory of 
 Christ, — when it becomes a matter of doubt, even according to 
 the terms in which they speak of themselves, whether the min- 
 isters of the gospel, in receiving their support, are to be re- 
 garded as servants of Christ or servants of the crown ? Where 
 Avere the New 'lestament views of this subject, when the follow- 
 ing sentences were penned ? — " We do not pretend to have a 
 *' right, as members of the church of Christ, to use compulsion 
 *' to make good our stipends. But if the State confer upon us 
 *' certain civil privileges, we have a right, as members of a 
 ** civil kingdom, to make these good in the ordinary way. It 
 " is not on the ground of our being ministers of Christ, that 
 " we are entitled to make demand, or that you are obliged to 
 " make payment ; but it is on the ground of our being subjects 
 " of a civil kingdom, in whose favour certain civil rights have 
 " been legally constituted. The most ridiculous misapprehen- 
 " sions prevail on this subject, as if the revenues of the ecclesi- 
 " astical establishment were an exaction of the church, an ex- 
 " action of one body of Christians upon another. But the 
 " fact beyond doubt is, that the claim is a purely civil one, 
 ** although it may be loosely termed ecclesiastical, as being 
 '' about an ecclesiastical matter. It is a claim of the State upon 
 " its subjects ; and in that view alone are they required to make 
 '* it good under the usual penalties of laAV."* — Is Christ honoured 
 or disgraced, in this avowed degradation of the ministers of his 
 kingdom to the situation of State pensioners ? Many and 
 painful are the thoughts Avhich this extraordinary statement 
 forces upon the mind. I shall only put it to the respected 
 brother in the ministry by Avhom it Avas Avritten, Avhether, in 
 making it, he does not renounce entirely, in his capacity of 
 minister of Christ, his right to the support which he receives. 
 I say '-entirely;" and I mean by the Avord, in both his rela- 
 tions, his relation to the State, and his relation to the Church. 
 My position is, — and I beg his attention to it, — that in his ca- 
 pacity of minister of Christ he does not receiA^e his stipend (on 
 the supposition of its coming from State-endowment) on the 
 ground of any right or title Avhatever. For, on the one hand, 
 
 * Brown's Civil Establishments defended, p. 1-10. 
 
71 
 
 it is not in this capacity that the State pays him, or gives him 
 his right to payment, seeing it is not in this capacity that he is 
 entitled to exact the payment : it is avowedly, and exclusively, 
 " as a member of a civil kingdom." But then, on the other hand, 
 if it is not as a minister of Christ that he receives his stipend, 
 it follows that he has not his right to it from the IVew Testa- 
 ment canon ; for it is only for ministers of Christ as such that 
 that canon enacts provision. Thus, as a minister of Christ, he 
 has no right to what he receives in either statute-book, — that 
 of the civil kingdom, or that of the spiritual ; and himself and 
 brethren appear before us, on their own showing, as mere pen- 
 sioners of the crown. — I beseech them, at the risk of being re- 
 buked for my presumption, perhaps for my impertinence, to 
 lay it to their consciences, whether such a state of things be in 
 harmony with the representations of the New Testament, and 
 to honour the divine Head of the church by a return to " the 
 simplicity that is in Christ," and a fearless submission .'o the 
 manifest and peremptory dictates of his will. 
 
 I am not one of those, if such there be, who, with the full 
 and firm conviction of the authority of the Voluntary principle, 
 as the principle that stands out in the New Testament in all the 
 prominence of precept and example, close their eyes to the 
 existing defectiveness of its influence. In too many places, 
 and churches, and persons, is this defectiveness apparent. But 
 it ill becomes those to taunt us with it, Avhose system, along with 
 causes that are seated in human nature, has so sadly contri- 
 buted to its production. — If it is the principle on Avhich the 
 kingdom of the Bedeemer was originally constituted, it is the 
 principle which he Avill bless ; and the aim of all should be, to 
 rouse the whole church of God to a due consideration of the 
 sin and shame of such deficiency, and of the necessity of a re- 
 turn to the spirit and the practice of primitive times. — It is a 
 cheering spectacle, to see our friends of the Establishment setting 
 themselves of late, so vigorously, to the process of " restoring 
 suspended animation" to that body; and even their partial 
 success is not a little gratifying. But it can only be partial, — 
 only temporary. The benumbing paralyzing influence remains. 
 It cannot be till the church shall thoroughly emerge from the un- 
 healthy vapours — the heavy, sickly, deadening malaria — of her 
 State connexions, and shall inhale, on the mountains of Zion, 
 the purer and more salubrious air of a spiritual independence, 
 that she can go forth again in the flush, and freshness, and 
 
/ 
 
 72 
 
 energy of her early prime. May the Lord, by his word, and 
 providence, and Spirit, hasten her deliverance ! — Then, she 
 shall " go out with joy, and be led forth Avith peace : — the 
 ** mountains and the hills shall break forth before her into 
 *' singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands : — 
 *' instead of the thorn shall come up the fir-tree, and instead of 
 " the briar shall come up the myrtle-tree ; and it shall be to 
 *' the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign, that shall not 
 '' be cut off!" 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 FULLARTON AND CO., PRINTERS, TILLAFIELI). 
 
LECTURE THIRD 
 
 UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF THE 
 
 GLASGOW VOLUNTARY CHURCH SOCIETY. 
 
 CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION 
 
 UNJUST IN THEIR PRINCIPLE, 
 
 AND INJURIOUS IN THEIR EFFECTS. 
 
 DELIVERED ON THE EVENING OF MARCH 17th, IN THE 
 RELIEF CHURCH, JOHN STREET. 
 
 By HUGH HEUGH, D. D. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 
 DAVID ROBERTSON, 188, TRONGATE; 
 JOHN WARDLAAV, EDINBURGH. 
 
 I8S5. 
 
LECTURE. 
 
 The chief inquiry on the subject of Civil Establishments 
 of Religion unquestionably is, Whether they have the 
 sanction of the sacred Scriptures? If they have, the 
 question is decided in the judgment of every consistent 
 believer in the perfection and authority of Divine revela- 
 tion, and all reasonings against them must be vain and 
 sinful. If they have not this high sanction, but, on the 
 contrary, are opposed to the revealed will of God respect- 
 ing the constitution, the support, and the extension of his 
 church, then all reasonings in their favour must be falla- 
 cious and wrong. And while I freely acknowledge that to 
 this aspect of the question I feel myself drawn by my 
 strongest preferences and inclinations, I rejoice that the 
 examination of this department of the controversy has 
 fallen into the hands of that distinguished person,* who, 
 with a clearness and a strength of reasoning, and a fe- 
 licity and elegance of diction, equalled only by that pure 
 and elevated tone of Christian feeling in which all his 
 reasonings were conducted and expressed, has instructed 
 and delighted his friends, without, I am sure, affording 
 any just cause of offence to his opponents. 
 
 But while I pay this tribute to the scriptural argumenty 
 as it has been denominated, for the sake of distinction, I 
 am far from supposing that it exhausts the subject. A 
 large field remains to be examined ; and that department 
 of it which I have been induced to undertake, will be 
 readily admitted to be only second in importance to the 
 former, as it is scarcely less ample in its limits; — namely, 
 that Civil Establishments of Religion arc unjust in their 
 principle^ and injurious in their effects. 
 
 There are two forms in which Civil Establishments of 
 Religion may be conceived to exist. They may equally 
 sanction and support the various denominations of religion- 
 ♦ Dr. Wardlaw. 
 
 a2 
 
4 
 
 ists existing within the nation ; or they, may be limited to 
 one denomination, or to more than one, excluding others. 
 Something approaching to the first form existed in Ameri- 
 ca, and exists in France ; the second is the form in which 
 they appear in this country, and in the European States 
 generally. As I believe our opponents unite with us in 
 condemning the first, and as it is, on obvious grounds, so 
 utterly indefensible, inasmuch as it affords the positive 
 sanction and influence of the nation, to the encouragement 
 and support of the very worst, equally with the very best, 
 forms of religion, I shall confine myself in the observations 
 that follow, to the second — that is, to institutions common- 
 ly denominated, exclusive Civil Establishments of Heli- 
 gion. 
 
 Now, the proposition which I shall endeavour to defend, 
 affirms, first, that they are unjust in their principle — and, 
 next, that they are injurious in their effects, I begin with 
 attempting to make out the first. 
 
 They are unjust iii their principle. What is the princi- 
 ple on which these exclusive institutions are based? It is, 
 that the state, by its civil power, may interpose for the sup- 
 port and extension of the religious opinions entertained by 
 some one portion of the community. Or, more particular- 
 ly, it is that the state has the right to select the religious 
 creed of some portion of the nation, to sanction that creed 
 by its legislative approbation, and to extend special favour, 
 by pecuniary endowments raised at the public cost, to those 
 who hold, or who profess to hold, this favoured creed. We 
 assert that the principle of this arrangement, and that the 
 arrangement itself founded upon it, are unjust. 
 
 Justice demands of the state, that it extend to the whole 
 body of the people equal laws, and an equal administration 
 of them; but by the arrangement in question, the nation 
 is divided into two parties, and laws are made, and these 
 laws are carried into effect, in favour of one party exclusive- 
 ly, and yet at the cost of the other party also. Does not 
 this arrangement bear on the face of it an obvious departure 
 from that equality which justice demands? Is not the ar- 
 rangement, therefore, and is rot the principle of the ar- 
 rangement, unjust? 
 
 The injustice is rendered more striking, by attending 
 to the following circumstances which accompany it: — first, 
 no crime is alleged against the discountenanced party, it 
 
being understood that they may be good and loyal subjects 
 equally with the favoured party — next, they are required, 
 equally with the favoured class to obey the laws, and bear 
 the burdens appointed by the state — and, finally, the pri- 
 vileges extended to the favoured, are, at the expense of the 
 other class, equally with them. The injustice, then, appears 
 in this arbitrary form : — we demand of you the same alle- 
 giance, we exact from you the same services, we lay upon 
 you the same burdens, as if you belonged to the favoured 
 denomination; and we demand that you contribute, under 
 pains of law, to the cost of certain privileges which we have 
 bestowed on them ; but we do not command them to con- 
 tribute in their turn to the support of those institutions 
 which we permit you to maintain among yourselves. It is 
 difficult to conceive any civil arrangement which should 
 bear the character of injustice, if this does not. 
 
 This injustice will become still more apparent by the 
 supposition of analogous cases. — Suppose courts of law 
 instituted by the state for the benefit of one class of the 
 subjects exclusively; suppose the building of the court- 
 houses, the keeping of them in repair, the salaries of the 
 judges and of the other officials, and the very costs of the 
 suits, should be defrayed, not exclusively by that class of 
 the community who alone have access to these courts, but 
 from funds raised by compulsory exactions from the whole 
 body of the people, would there be two opinions in any 
 enlightened country respecting the injustice of such an ar- 
 rangement? — Or, suppose that the state should form a 
 medical instilutioii for the advantage of one class of the 
 community, that the expense incurred by the erection of 
 the medical schools, by the salaries of the teachers, or the 
 medical halls for the preparation of medicines, should be 
 raised by a tax, not confined to those who alone would de- 
 rive benefit from the national institution, but extended to 
 those excluded from it, and who had institutions of their 
 own to provide for, would the injustice of the principle on 
 which the state proceeded in forming this institution be 
 doubted by any man? — Or, to take a municipal case; — 
 suppose that the magistrates in this city were to provide a 
 police establishment^ the protection afforded by which was 
 specially confined to one class of the inhabitants, the other 
 class being left to provide at their private cost, for the pro- 
 tection of their persons and their property by night and by 
 
 A3 
 
6 
 
 day, while the legal establishment was maintained by the 
 public funds to which the whole citizens equally contribut- 
 ed, where should we find defenders of the justice of this 
 arrangement? — But I ask confidently, can that be just in 
 regard to religion, which is unjust when applied to law, 
 or medicine, or police ? The injustice is the same, apply 
 it to what objects you may. 
 
 Even at the risk of multiplying unnecessarily illustrations 
 of so plain a subject, I shall take one other example. As 
 far as the character of the arrangement is concerned, the 
 case would not be altered, were the favoured and discoun- 
 tenanced parties separated by place rather than by serdiment* 
 As it is, those connected, and those unconnected, with the 
 Established churches, are locally mingled, inhabiting to- 
 gether the same towns, villages, and rural districts over the 
 country. But suppose the religious establishment were 
 local, the favoured and discountenanced classes being thus 
 separated by place, and the injustice would become more 
 palpable, but in truth, not more real. If I am compelled to 
 pay for some caprice, or some comfort, of another person, 
 it is the same to me, and the act compelling me has the 
 same character, whether that person lodge in the next house, 
 or live a hundred miles from me. Suppose that the inhab- 
 itants of Edinburgh had a religious establishment for which 
 the inhabitants of Glasgow were forced to contribute equally 
 with those of the favoured metropolis — suppose that the 
 annuity-tax of Edinburgh were extended to Glasgow, and 
 that the inhabitants of this city were by express statute com- 
 pelled to pay five or six pounds on every hundred of their 
 rental, not for the support of their own religious institutions, 
 but to eke out the Edinburgh tax for the support of its 
 own, would not Glasgow unanimously and indignantly de- 
 nounce the injustice of this arrangement? Many plausible 
 arguments would be brought forward in its favour, I have 
 no doubt, for what unjust law, or usage, has not found spe- 
 cious, able, and even honest defenders? — and many impos- 
 ing pleas would be advanced by the ingenuity and talent 
 abounding in the favoured capital, whose clever sons would 
 exhaust their eloquence in speeches and pamphlets in sup- 
 port of their own monopoly, and would labour hard to en- 
 lighten the inhabitants of the West on the many advantages 
 which even they might derive from the blaze of religious 
 light, which, by their payment of this annuity-tax, they would 
 
contribute to preserve in splendour, in the metropolis of 
 their own land ; but all would be in vain, for no unpervert- 
 ed mind would be able to reconcile itself to the injustice of 
 the impost. It may be less obviousl}^ but it is not less 
 really unjust, to compel the community mingled, than it 
 would be to compel the community separated^ to support 
 one favoured denomination of its members. 
 
 Objections may be brought against the statement which 
 I have now given; and it is fit that these should be obviated. 
 
 1. It may be said, that the statement I have made pro- 
 ceeds on the supposition, that the Establishment is only for 
 the benefit of a party, whereas it is national, and no indivi- 
 dual in the land is excluded from its advantages. To which 
 I reply, it may he denominated national, but this will not 
 render it so. It is the Establishment of one party in the 
 nation, which not only fact shews, but vvhich its exclusive 
 character assumes. In this view, it is no more for the 
 benefit of the dissenters, who form part of the nation, than 
 their institutions are for the benefit of it. And although 
 no legal prohibition excludes any one from its advantages, 
 any more than the members of the Established church are 
 thus excluded from the advantages to be enjoyed in the 
 churches of the dissenters; yet in the one case, as in the 
 other, conscience interposes — conscience that ought to be 
 more powerful, and is entitled to higher respect, than any 
 appointments or prohibitions enacted by human laws. 
 
 2. It has been argued, that it will not follow that a tax is 
 unjust merely because those on whom it is imposed may pre- 
 tend, or may have, conscientious objections to the paying of 
 it; and our opponents delight to amuse themselves by re- 
 marking how abundantly conscientious the community would 
 quickly become, if the plea of conscience would exempt them 
 from taxation. It belongs to another department of this 
 course to shew, that civil force ought never to be employed 
 to compel the support of religion; but to answer the objec- 
 tion, it suffices to remark, that the injustice is not rested on 
 the opinion formed of it by those whom it affects, but on the 
 nature of the case itself independently of particular opin- 
 ions respecting it, namely, that it is unjust to tax one por- 
 tion of the community for institutions from which they can 
 derive no benefit. In any one of the analogous instances 
 supposed, it would be no proper reply to the complaint of 
 injustice by the parties affected, to tell them that it is ab- 
 
8 
 
 surd to think that the pretext of conscience can exempt 
 men from paying taxes ; when the reply could be instantly 
 made, we do not rest our claim on what you cannot be 
 supposed to judge of, the dictates of our consciences, we 
 rest it on the proved injustice of the case.* 
 
 3. It has been very plausibly remarked, that under the 
 Old Testament an exclusive religious establishment existed 
 by the express authority of God, and that the objection to 
 such institutions now, grounded on their supposed injustice, 
 would affix the character of unrighteousness to a system 
 which had God for its author, and would thus impeach the 
 rectitude of the Judge of the whole earth. " Do you mean 
 to say," our opponents ask us, " that what God himself did 
 was unjust?" Were such an inference deducible from our 
 principles, it would be fatal to them. We ascribe right- 
 eousness to our Maker, and we believe that " justice and 
 judgment " shone conspicuous in all his arrangements re- 
 specting the ancient church. But we deny that the facts 
 connected with the Divine establishment of the Jews invali- 
 date, in the slightest degree, our assertion of the injustice 
 
 * The inconsistency and the levity with which some defenders of 
 Establishments treat the plea of conscience has been frequently and 
 justly exposed. If we say, we have conscientious objections to this 
 tax, they reply, " Is it only to religious matters that conscience ex- 
 tends? You ought to be conscientious in all you do. And thus, you 
 may pretend conscience against paying any tax, with the object of 
 which you say you are dissatisfied." And again they tell us, " con- 
 science has nothing to do with the matter — it is an affair of the purse 
 only." It is for them to reconcile these inconsistencies. But surely 
 it ill becomes clerical writers to sneer at difficulties which a conscien- 
 tious man feels, in honestly attempting to reconcile his duty to his 
 country, with his duty to Christ; to get quit of the mental embarrass- 
 ment he cannot but feel, in being compelled to lend his support, even 
 indirectly, to a system which, in his conscience, he condemns. To 
 quote the words of an able writer, '* Churchmen carry their contempt of 
 conscience imprudently far. Their animadversions on our religious 
 scruples, if they have any weight whatever, prove that conscience should 
 never be heard — that subjects should in all cases do whatever kings bid 
 them. Though a deed the most atrocious, the most unchristian and 
 irreligious, should be enjoined by royal pleasure — though a tax should 
 be imposed to aid in extirpating Christianity altogether, they might still 
 rebuke complaints of conscience, by exclaiming as formerly, " Is reli- 
 gion, we ask, the only subject over which conscience holds empire? We 
 doubt not but all men would become very conscientious, if they were 
 allowed to plead exemption from the payment of a tax, because of their 
 scruples respecting the object to which that tax is to be applied." 
 
of exclusive human establishments of religion, I do not 
 rest this on the fact, that the Jewish establishment did not 
 include compulsory taxation for its support, much less a 
 compulsory tax on those who could derive no benefit from 
 the national institution; although it deserves to be remarked, 
 that no arrangement resembling this is to be found in the 
 whole word of God. To tax a whole nation for the benefit 
 of one party in that nation, is purely and exclusively human ; 
 under no Divine economy have we the least trace of such 
 an arrangement. I take other ground ; and hold that God 
 may justly do, or require to be done, that which, without in- 
 justice, we dare not do. God has rights in regard to his 
 creatures, which they have not in regard to one another; 
 and it is unjust and impious in creatures to usurp these 
 rights, or to act towards others as if they possessed them. 
 God is the author of human life, which his guilty creatures 
 have forfeited by sin, and he can deprive them of that life 
 when he pleases. Dare we do so? — It is the right of the 
 sovereign Lord to employ, if he chooses, some of his crea- 
 tures to execute his judgments upon others, for offences 
 which the victims have committed, not against their execu- 
 tioners, but against God. Thus, he employed the Israelites 
 to exterminate the Amorites, and his procedure was just. 
 Dare we act so, without injustice and inhumanity, to any 
 tribe around us? — God has a right to the property of others, 
 and may justly deprive the guilty of his abused property in 
 their possession ; and by a special and divinely authenticat- 
 ed grant, he might transfer the property of one to another; 
 as he gave the substance of Egypt to Israel, as he gave also 
 the land and the cities and the whole wealth of the Canaan- 
 ites to that people. Dare we thus interfere with the pro- 
 perty of others, without incurring the guilt of injustice and 
 robbery? — God is Lord of the conscience. He can justly 
 inflict penal visitations on his moral subjects for their reli- 
 gious errors; or, as in the penal statutes of the ancient 
 economy, respecting Sabbath-breaking, idolatry, blasphemy, 
 and other religious offences, he can justly appoint that the 
 offenders should " die the death " by the hands of their 
 fellow men. But will any man be bold enough to say, that 
 without injustice, and the guilt of murder, we could thus 
 shed the blood of sinners against God, unless by special 
 appointment, the Judge of all were to constitute us the exe- 
 cutioners of his vengeance? " The wages of sin is death;" 
 
10 
 
 but it belongs to God to assign the doom, both as it regards 
 the first and the second death ; and we dare not usurp his 
 throne, and inflict the first, any more than the second, for 
 sin done against God, and of which he alone is the just 
 avenger. I have dwelt so long on tliis objection, because 
 it is so often, and so confidently urged ; and I trust you are 
 satisfied that it does not follow that we impute injustice to 
 God, because we affirm that he gave institutions to Israel 
 which it would be unjust in us to imitate. 
 
 4. On the head of objections, I shall allude only to one 
 other topic, which, indeed, most frequently meets us as a 
 vague, though prevailing feeling, than as a defined objection 
 to our views. Yet it is also brought forward in the more 
 tangible form of an objection ; and, I doubt not, has 
 considerable influence with the many. It is this — that 
 if Civil Establishments of Religion are unjust, it is in- 
 conceivable that they should not only have obtained the 
 sanction of so many good men, who are as hostile to 
 injustice as we can be, but that they should have found 
 their way into the legislation of the most enlightened 
 states in the world. Plausible as this is, and well suited to 
 influence those who are averse to the labour of thinking for. 
 themselves, it is, at the best, but an argument from human 
 authority, which may be brought to prove the most absurd 
 positions; and which, beside withdrawing the mind from the 
 subject itself, to human opinions respecting it, destroys itself 
 in various ways. From the opinions of those who defend, we 
 can appeal to the opinions of those who reject, Civil Estab- 
 lishments of Religion; and then the question returns. Which 
 of them are in the right? Again, this appeal to opinion, 
 or to human law, would operate as a barrier to all improve- 
 ment, would extinguish free inquiry, and would lead to this 
 worst species of optimism, that whatever is^ by the sanction 
 of opinion and law, is right, and ought to be perpetuated 
 — a principle which would have kept Europe in the slum- 
 ber and midnight of the dark ages, would have crushed the 
 Reformation in its birth, and would render all future gener- 
 ations, not the freemen of God and truth, striving to out- 
 strip, in the race of improvement, those who have gone be- 
 fore them, but the abject vassals and slaves of the past 
 generations. It is the birthright of Britons to examine 
 with freedom, yet respect, even the laws and institutions of 
 their country, and with faithful and honest intrepidity to 
 
11 
 
 expose their injustice, if they are unjust, in order to their 
 amendment; nor is it possible that the great and salutary 
 changes which have happily taken place in the legislation 
 of Great Britain, from the earliest history of the constitution 
 down to our own times, could have been effected, had not 
 the folly and the injustice of many laws which once dis- 
 graced the British statute-book been faithfully exposed, in 
 opposition to those optimists and pseudo-loyalists, by whom 
 they were defended and extolled, as the very perfection of 
 righteousness and wisdom. And were the attempt made 
 to recal those laws which have happily been abrogated, 
 it would be resisted now, on the ground of their injustice, 
 as well as their impolicy ? 
 
 I have thus endeavoured to shew you the injustice which 
 belongs to exclusive Establishments of Religion, and I 
 have endeavoured to set aside those objections which our 
 opponents are accustomed to adduce. But I am persuaded 
 that I should present the case very partially and inadequate- 
 ly, were I to leave this part of the subject without adverting 
 to some other circumstances which are fitted to shew the 
 amount and magnitude of the injustice which is done. 
 ' Among these circumstances, the first I select is this — that 
 the injustice complained of receives the sanction of public 
 law. It is, in this view, the nation acting unjustly to a 
 portion of its own member^. Injustice does not alter its 
 quality, when it is done by one, and when it is done by 
 many. An unjust act is criminal, though committed in 
 the least important and most private transaction, and by 
 the most obscure and most uninfluential individual; and 
 that act becomes worse, when it is the result of the 
 adoption of an unjust principle. But when such an act 
 is done, and such a principle is adopted, not by an 
 individual, but by a community, and by those in that 
 community who ought to be the examples and the guard- 
 ians of righteousness, and by them incorporated with 
 the decisions of the state, injustice then appears in its 
 worst and most perilous form — it is iniquity decreed by a 
 law. 
 
 The result of this ascent of injustice into the highest 
 places, and into the laws of the state, is, that it tends to 
 perpetuate itself by acquiring a great accession of influence 
 in its favour. How much easier is it to prevent bad laws 
 from being enacted, than to procure their repeal after their 
 
12 
 
 enactment has taken place. The subject of the enactment 
 becomes venerable in the eyes of multitudes, by having 
 the great for its supporters, and law for its authority and 
 its defence. It insensibly incorporates itself with the modes 
 of thinking and feeling prevalent in the community. Op- 
 position is first discouraged as being hopeless, and then, as 
 hopeless, is laid aside. Reason apart, a national prejudice 
 is apt to be created in its fiivour, and it is looked upon as 
 unnational, unpatriotic, to oppose it. The public mind 
 becomes torpid to all appeals on the subject, usage pre- 
 vails over reason; suffrage over argument; might over 
 right. The principle takes root in the country as if indi- 
 genous in the soil; its roots strike deep, its seeds are scat- 
 tered every where ; and long and severe labour is necessary 
 to eradicate them. A prejudice is created against all who 
 attempt the work, as reckless innovators, as a set of vain 
 speculatists, who have the presumption to prefer their own 
 rash theories and modern dogmas, to the wisdom of their 
 ancestors, and the experience of all antiquity ; as men fitted 
 to root up, but not to plant ; to cast down, not to build 
 up; to revolutionize, rather than to preserve and to es- 
 tablish. 
 
 The injustice is directed against whole bodies of people. 
 It is criminal to be unjust to one; but injustice is mul- 
 tiplied, if I may so speak, when it is applied to many. 
 Embodied in legislation, it is extended to all whom that 
 legislation affects, and if we apply this principle to time^ as 
 well as local exterit, then this injustice is multiplied in its 
 acts indefinitely, extending to every individual dissenter in 
 past, as well as in present times. 
 
 The highest aggravation of the evil, however, remains 
 to be noticed. It is, that this injustice is done ostensibly 
 in the cause of religion, and for the professed object of 
 establishing the kingdom of Him who loveth righteousness 
 and hateth iniquity, the sceptre of whose kingdom is a right 
 sceptre. " It may be wrong," say our opponents, " to 
 establish a false religion; but can it be wrong to establish 
 the ti-ue? It maybe wrong, and it is so, to lend the sanction 
 of public law, and the support of public wealth, to the 
 cause of error and sin ; but how monstrous the assertion, 
 that it is wrong to lend any sort or anrount of support to 
 the cause of truth, and of righteousness? " To say nothing 
 here of the question, Who has authorised you to come 
 
13 
 
 between God and your fellow men, and after He has given 
 to all equally a plain revelation of his will on religious and 
 moral truth, to determine for them what that revelation 
 implies; and having made the bold decision, to impart to 
 it the authority and the sanction of national law — to say 
 nothing; of such a question, " Who hath required this at your 
 hands?" — can we conceal from our minds the application 
 to the case before us of the maxim, that the end will in no 
 instance sanctify the means? We must not do evil that 
 good may come. We are not to speak or act wickedly for 
 God, or for the cause of God. And if injustice must 
 never be resorted to in order to accomplish any common 
 end, can we conceive it farther or more mischievously mis- 
 placed, than when it is resorted to, and that on the plea of 
 necessity, for supporting a system the most hostile to all 
 unrighteousness, and which has God himself for its De- 
 fender and its Author? 
 
 The second position implied in the subject of the Lec- 
 ture now comes to be considered, that exclusive Civil 
 Establishments of Religion are injurious in their effects. 
 If I have succeeded in the preceding reasonings, my task 
 here is comparatively easy; for injustice acted upon be- 
 comes injury. The unrighteous law may slumber in the 
 statute-book; and reasons may be found in the benevo- 
 lence or the fears of the rulers, or in the intelligence and 
 spirit of the people, forbidding the practical operation of 
 the unjust enactment, as, I believe, many of the laws of 
 the Stuarts respecting Dissenters remain unrepealed to 
 this day, though now inoperative. But let the statute be 
 acted upon, and injury is the result. The laws constitut- 
 ing our Establishments of Religion are no dead letter; 
 they have been living and producing their effects for ages ; 
 and, as is the fountain, so have been the streams — as I 
 shall now endeavour to shew. 
 
 Let me, first, however, anticipate an objection. When 
 we represent Civil Establishments of Religion as injurious, 
 and in proof of this appeal to facts, our opponents meet us 
 by facts also. They assert, that in place of being injurious 
 they have been great blessings to the country; and they 
 appeal to their thousands of churches— to the talented and 
 pious ministers who serve, or have served, in many of these 
 churches — to the writings, as well as to the pastoral labours 
 
 £ 
 
14 
 
 of many of these ministers — and to the souls savingly bene- 
 fited under the ordinances dispensed within the walls of the 
 Establishments. Now, I do not stop here to show that this 
 is a partial statement of the case — to remark on the small 
 comparative extent to which evangelical truth, as exhibited 
 in the standards of the British Establishments, is taught 
 within these Establishments, (England and Ireland being 
 included;) even up to this hour, according to the statements 
 of the best friends of these churches — to the long-standing 
 distinction betwixt moderate and evangelical in Scotland, 
 the former so long predominating, and to similar distinctions 
 in England— or to the extent to which the direct and indi- 
 rect influence of the Voluntary principle has been appealed 
 to by the members of these churches themselves, as ac- 
 counting, to a great extent, for the measure of evangelical 
 administration in these churches; I say, I do not here insist 
 on this statement, although I do not set it aside. I admit, 
 with pleasure, the facts of our opponents, as far as they can 
 be maintained. Far from wishing to shut our eyes to such 
 facts, we hail them with satisfaction. But to whatever 
 extent these facts exist, we hold they are not the result of 
 the churches being established, but of the ministry of 
 divine truth, under the blessing of God; and were proof of 
 this necessary, additional to the mere statement of it, we 
 can appeal to facts in abundance, which our opponents 
 never have questioned, nor can question — to the saving 
 effects of the truth during those first centuries of the Christ- 
 ian era, when Establishments were unknown — to the same 
 effects among the faithful who kept separate from the 
 Established Churches during the long and dark reign of 
 superstition — to the triumphs of the first reformers, ere ever 
 their systems received the sanction of the European states 
 — and to the amount of true religion, which, notwithstanding 
 all that has passed, very few of our opponents will deny, 
 among British Dissenters, and in the American churches. 
 In a word, as the friends of Establishments do not question 
 that spiritual good is done in churches who plead the Vo- 
 luntary principle as the exclusive mean of upholding and 
 propagating Christianity, or who have never resorted to any 
 other means, notwithstanding this alleged error in the con- 
 stitution or practice of these churches; so there is no incon- 
 sistency in the admission, on the part of the friends of the 
 Voluntary principle, that spiritual good is done in churches 
 
15 
 
 established by law, notwithstanding their erroneously resort- 
 ing to conipulsion and state alliance for the support of 
 their institutions. I shall now adduce particular illustrations 
 of alleged injury. 
 
 And I begin with noticing the pecuniary injury sustained 
 by Dissenters. This, I acknowledge, is the least of it; but 
 still it ought not to be overlooked. Had Dissenters the 
 power, and were they to employ it, of compelling, by legal 
 force, the friends of Establishments to supply funds for 
 erecting and repairing the churches, paying the ministers, 
 and conducting the worship of their party, would not a pe- 
 cuniary injury be manifestly inflicted, and would it not be 
 loudly and justly complained of, by those by whom it was 
 sustained? The injury cannot be less when sustained by 
 Dissenters for the sake of Churchmen. I shall not advert 
 here to the attempt which has been made to prove, that 
 the churches established cost the country nothing ; satisfied 
 as I am, that this is just as palpably absurd, as it would 
 be to attempt to prove, that the civil government, or 
 that the military establishments cost the country nothing. 
 But an expedient of another kind is adopted, not for 
 denying the injury, but throwing an air of ridicule on all 
 complaints on account of its infliction. The sum contri- 
 buted by Dissenters is calculated — the small item which 
 would fall to each is given — and the minuteness of the 
 payment is made to contrast with the loudness of the com- 
 plaint. This may be good humour, but it is very bad mo- 
 rality. If, against his will, and unjustly, I take from an in- 
 dividual the most inconsiderable sum, 1 shall find the ridi- 
 cule poured on the man for his complaining of an injury so 
 small, a sorry shield for my conduct in this unwarranted inter- 
 ference with his property. It is an old and sound adage, 
 " Majus et minus non variant speciem — greater and less do 
 not change the quality^' The truth is, however, that the 
 amount is not small. One million given at once to the Church 
 of Ireland — another to the Churches of Scotland and England 
 — £600,000 annually for church rates — tithes and tiends — 
 annuity-tax, and church dues, of many names ; is the amount 
 of this list small, or even that proportion which falls upon Dis- 
 senters? Is it small in one year? Has it been small during 
 the lapse of ages? Or does the injury lose its quality be- 
 cause unjust laws compel it ? If Dissenters had to as great 
 an amount, and for as long a term of years, thus taken for 
 b2 
 
16 
 
 their own purposes the property of Churchmen, what an out- 
 cry would have been raised against Dissenting rapacity! And 
 what showers of ridicule would be justly poured on Dis- 
 senters, if they proceeded, in self-vindication, to divide the 
 items contributed by the number of the contributors, and 
 to palliate or deny all moral blame, on the ground of the 
 smallness of the sum abstracted from each individual! 
 
 But Civil Establishments of Religion injure Dissenters 
 by other means. They tend to create an extensive preju- 
 dice against Dissenters. The unrecognized is virtually a 
 stigmatized church ; the merely tolerated is virtually a dis- 
 honoured and branded parly, a sect, which you must bear 
 with, since you cannot get quit of it; and a conventional 
 standard is formed by which the favoured are elevated, and 
 the discountenanced depressed. The extent to which this 
 practical wrong is done, the advantages taken of it, and the 
 manner in which it is even gloried in by the more unworthy 
 among our opponents, who need be told? The language of 
 ignominy becomes the current language of the land; it 
 finds its way into the legislature itself, where equity and 
 impartiality should for ever bar its entrance; it is engrossed 
 in the statute-book ; and although by a wise and gracious 
 law of providence, and by the blessing promised by God on 
 the evils which he assigns to his children, it works for their 
 good, the injury is not the less criminal in those who inflict, 
 nor less wrongful to those who sustain it. Need I refer 
 you to such well known phrases as these, which, I believe, 
 are found among the written laws of our country — " The 
 church and the sectaries — churches and conventicles — cler- 
 gymen and ministers — those in holy orders, and those in 
 pretended holy orders?" 
 
 Nor is this all. It is a fact in human nature that injury 
 tends to its own increase — that if you injure a man once, 
 there is a hazard of your repeating the wrong — and, espe- 
 cially, if you subject men to a course of injurious treatment, 
 you will endeavour to justify your proceedings by allega- 
 tions, perhaps hardly less injurious than the conduct they 
 are intended to vindicate. If you treat a man ill, your 
 consistency and your pride lead you to shew that he ought 
 to be so treated. All manner of evil was alleged against 
 the first Christians to justify the persecution of them on the 
 part of their heathen oppressors. And what opprobrious 
 allegations have not been brought against British Dissent- 
 
17 
 
 ers, in vindication of the treatment to which they have 
 been subjected? They are illiterate, and the church must 
 be preserved, were it only for the literature of the land. 
 They are fanatics or enthusiasts, and the church must be 
 maintained, to repress that flood of folly with which they 
 would otherwise inundate the country. They are weak and 
 narrow-minded; and the church must be the sanctuary of 
 whatever is commanding in intellect, and liberal in feeling. 
 They are worse than useless for the religion of the land ; 
 for they only stand in the way of its evangelization by the 
 holy enterprizes of churchmen, multiplying, or wishing to 
 multiply, churches by scores and by hundreds ; or they are 
 actually formed into an impious league with the infidel and 
 atheistical enemies of the religion of the Son of God, com- 
 bined to overthrow the church which he bought with his 
 blood ; nay, they are held up to the special odium of the 
 powers that be, as a set of restless and guilty agitators, who 
 would turn this nation upside down, and would spread the 
 frenzy of revolution, and the reign of anarchy, over this free 
 and enlightened realm. Scarcely ever was any thing worse 
 laid to the charge of the persecuted, in the days of Laud, 
 and Lauderdale, and Jeffries, — or in the pagan era of Nero 
 or Domitian. If there be truth in these allegations, which 
 Churchmen affirm there is, what are the additional injuries 
 which the Dissenters should not incur ? And if the language 
 of their ecclesiastical enemies were to gain general credence, 
 and the spirit by which it is dictated to animate the rulers 
 of this nation, who can doubt that overt violence would 
 speedily follow — violence for which its authors would find 
 ample justification in the crimes which they assiduously lay 
 to our charge ? 
 
 I cannot avoid remarking, that the parties themselves are 
 injured by whom these establishments are created and main- 
 tained. We cannot be unjust without suffering for it. We 
 cannot injure others, and be ourselves unscathed ; and the 
 injurious, for the most part, ultimately suffer more than the 
 injured. In the formation of these institutions, church and 
 state must be regarded as socii criminis, joint partakers in 
 the injustice, and in the injuries which th^t injustice implies, 
 or to whicli it gives origin. And if the history of what 
 churches have suffered by the direct influence of their con- 
 nection with the state, were recorded, from the days of 
 Constantine down to this hour, in the real or virtual sur- 
 b3 
 
19 
 
 render of their independence to another head than Christ 
 — in the accommodation they have been constrained to 
 make to the humour of kings, and courts, and parliaments, 
 in the construction of their creeds, and their rituals — in the 
 temptations which, with lamentable success, they have held 
 out to hypocrisy, by subscription to articles and canons 
 which were disbelieved in the heart, and unacknowledged 
 in the life — in the open dictation, or secret influence, or 
 ruinous patronage on the part of the secular powers, 
 to which they have willingly or unwillingly bent their necks 
 — in the adulation, servility, and time-serving, on the part 
 of those who, by the fear of God, should have known no 
 other fear, and who ought to have remembered, that if they 
 sought to please men they were not the servants of Christ — 
 in breaking down, to a great extent, almost every distinction 
 of a visible nature betwixt the holy and the profane, and 
 throwing wide open the gate of the sanctuary for the ad- 
 mission of the impure — in the teaching of almost every 
 variety of contradictory religious doctrine, within the same 
 church; alas, what a picture should we have of the effects 
 of these institutions on the church of Christ, and how dearly 
 bought would her secular honours and emoluments appear 
 to be ! And, on the other hand, could we set before our 
 minds, in the light of historic truth, a representation of 
 what states have suffered from their unwise alliance with 
 some party which they chose to call the church, and, which 
 they delighted to load with wealth, to invest with honours, 
 and to raise to power — could we have before us what poison 
 ecclesiastical malignity has often instilled into the breasts 
 of statesmen and kings — what cabals have been formed— 
 what intrigues have been conducted — what counsels have 
 been confounded — what thrones have been shaken or sub- 
 verted^ — what national convulsions have been produced — 
 what sanguinary wars have laid waste nations, by priestly 
 influence, and for ecclesiastical objects, — we should come 
 10 the conclusion, that among all the causes of disquiet and 
 suffering, which agitated and afflicted Europe has known 
 for ages, church establishments have been the most fertile. 
 And at this hour, it is a problem, apparently as far from 
 solution as ever, how nations can be united under govern- 
 ments which, by common consent, shall be regarded as pa- 
 ternal and just, while those perilous institutions remain to 
 separate man from his fellow. Perilous I presume to call 
 
19 
 
 them, and perilous they must be ; for no state can be but 
 in peril, under tlie reign of the righteous Ruler of the universe, 
 which incorporates injustice and injury with its laws and 
 its administration. 
 
 But I am persuaded that the chief view of the injury re- 
 sulting from these institutions remains to be given. I have 
 said that the worst view of the injustice which they include, 
 is, that it is associated with the sacred cause of religion, 
 and I make the same observation respecting their injurious 
 influence. They are wjurious to religion itself. That a 
 divine religion never can be advantaged, but on the con- 
 trary must be injured, by human additions to its institu- 
 tions, and especially if these institutions are at variance with 
 its character, cannot be doubted. But if civil establish- 
 ments of religion are unjust, their association with it must 
 be injurious. — Besides, Christianity is to make progress in 
 the world, not solely by the proposal of its doctrines in the 
 written oracles, or by the living language of its friends and 
 teachers, but also by the exhibition of the nature and ten- 
 dency of these doctrines in the practical working of the 
 system, in the plans and operations and lives of Christians. 
 How do church establishments harmonize with this maxim ? 
 So important is it that Christians walk in the truth, and 
 love one another, that our Saviour refers to it as a power- 
 ful mean which he should himself employ for the general 
 diffusion and reception of his religion. And no wonder; 
 for a more intelligible and attractive display of the nature of 
 his religion cannot be afforded. But if the professed fol- 
 lowers of Christ are artificially and forcibly divided into two 
 classes, by the authority of human laws,- the one injuring, 
 the other injured, the one allied to the state, the other dis- 
 avowed by it ; can religion fail to suffer by such an exhibi- 
 tion of it? On this ground, as well as on others, it seems 
 probable, that no great or general revival of true religion 
 can be expected in this country, till this wall of partition 
 that separates Christian from Christian, be finally thrown 
 down. — Nor is this all. Were the actual state of religion, 
 within the only bodies recognized by law as the church in 
 this land looked at, whether among the clergy or the people, 
 at least in the chief establishment of the country, as this 
 has been given, not by foes but by friends, it would be 
 generally ackovvledged that it is not such as to advance, 
 but rather to repress, true religion. — Besides, the pleadings 
 
20 
 
 set up for these institutions are injurious to the cause of 
 religion. The ablest of our opponents allow that they i'orm 
 no part of Christianity ; yet, they are contended for, as neces- 
 sary to its very preservation and progress. And can it be 
 honouring to a divine religion, to represent that to be neces- 
 sary to its existence or prosperity, for which its own Author 
 has made no provision ? Does this representation impress 
 the mind with the wisdom and foresight of the Author of 
 Christianity ? — Or, to take a more enlarged view of the 
 case, is it honouring to Christianity to affirm, that un- 
 less the state uphold it, it will fall — that unless men are 
 compelled by violence to support this religion, it will not 
 be supported — and that while the friends of error in every 
 form are sanguine, that if they are only let alone, and have 
 fair play, they will maintain and promote their opinions, 
 Christians alone should fear for the divine doctrines which 
 they believe, unless the stern authority of human law, the 
 coarse arm of human violence, should be called in to sus- 
 tain them ? Is there any species of acknowledged truth 
 under heaven with which its friends would take such un- 
 ceremonious liberty as this, or which would fail to suffer, if 
 they did ? When shall we hear the chemist say, unless 
 the doctrines of chemistry are legislated for, they will be re- 
 jected, and the dreams of alchemy will supplant chemical 
 discovery ? When shall we hear the astronomer protest- 
 ing, that he cannot get on without violence in his favour, 
 and the doctrines of Newton and Kepler, and the disco- 
 veries of Herschel, will all be thrown aside as rubbish, and 
 the nonsense of astrology, become all the rage, unless 
 these doctrines are forcibly legislated for ? And might not 
 Christians well blush for themselves, when they weakly and 
 tremblingly declare, that unless these doctrines which have 
 descended from God, and which his own Son promulgated, 
 the evidence of which is bright as the sun at noon-day, and 
 for the triumph of which, the mighty power of their Author 
 is guaranteed by holy covenant, shall all but perish from 
 tlie earth, and a second heathenism gain the ascendency, 
 unless civil legislation lend its puny sanction in their 
 favour, and unless human violence compel friend and foe 
 to contribute to their support? 
 
 In these illustrations, I have been treating the subject, to 
 a considerable extent, abstractly from its relation to the 
 specialities of the establishments of this country. If we ad- 
 
21 
 
 vert to some leading facts connected with tliesc, we shall 
 see our case considerably strengthened. 
 
 The mere fact, that there are various relif/ioiis establish' 
 ments in the empire deserves notice. The principle, so much 
 contended for, that the true religion should be established 
 by law, certainly supposes that there should be one estab- 
 lishment and not more, for assuredly truth is not many, but 
 one ; the religion of the Bible is one, not many. Upon 
 the principle, that in the one empire, under the one legis- 
 lature, we have two or three, we might have twenty or 
 thirty. Upon the principle that you defer, in your estab- 
 lishment, not to the independent claims of truth, but to 
 local opinions, habits and wishes, how many establishments 
 might you set up ! The injury to religion becomes pal- 
 pable by this arrangement. The same state shews so little 
 regard to the unity of divine truth, that it varies the system 
 sanctioned, with the locality. Its establishing religion seems 
 to h.ave other reasons, and some other modifying principle 
 to govern it, than regard to revealed truth, and to these hit>h 
 human interests for which that truth has been revealed. It 
 acts as if religion were one thing in Scotland, another thing 
 in England, and a third in the Dependencies. Is this ar- 
 rangement honouring to divine truth, and to the univers- 
 ahty of its obligation? 
 
 The Scottish establishment has this great disadvantage — 
 it is ohjioxious to nearly the ivhole empire. The English 
 Dissenters, (the Presbyterians excepted, who are a small body 
 in England,) dislike its government. The Episcopalians can 
 hardly regard it as a church at all ; having no duly ordained 
 ministers — none who can properly confer ordination — 
 no liturgy — nothing of the primitive, comely, dignified, 
 apostolical order, by which the English hierarchy regards 
 itself as distinguished. In these views, her Irish sister cor- 
 dially harmonizes with the English church. I need not say 
 how the Roman Catholics in Ireland are affected to the 
 Scottish church. Here, some Dissenters object to her order, 
 all of them to her patronage, most of them to her state-con- 
 nection. Can it be regard to religion that induces the com- 
 mon state to extend its sanction and its resources to this 
 small body, so generally disaproved of? 
 
 The English church is inconceivably more objectionable 
 than the Scottish. There can be no doubt that the mem- 
 bers of this church are now a minority in the empire. 
 
22 
 
 Deduct those who unhappily acknowledge no church — de- 
 duct the English Dissenters of every name, the Methodists 
 and the Roman Catholics — deduct the church of Scotland, 
 that has abjured Prelacy, and is now in some quarters 
 reviving the remembrance of these ancient deeds, (so ex- 
 cellent in their religious matter, so faulty for the spirit and 
 the language of intolerance that distinguish them ) in which 
 Prelacy is denounced for extirpation — deduct the Scottish 
 Dissenters, and the millions in Ireland unconnected with 
 the Episcopalian church, and the English church will ap- 
 pear a very decided minority.* Is it just that the whole 
 empire should be implicated by its legislature, by its laws, 
 by such enormous appropriation of public property, in the 
 
 * When some modern defenders of the British estaLlishments praise 
 the covenants of our ancestors, and seem not unwilling to renew these 
 deeds, it is worth while to ask, whether their southern friends, the 
 members of the chief ecclesiastical establishment in the empire, can 
 help regarding them as sxvorn foes — as enemies more deadly than even 
 the members of voluntary churches ? The following is the 2nd Article 
 in the Solemn League. " That we shall in like manner, without re- 
 spect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, (that 
 is, church-government by Archbishops, Bisliops, their Chancellors and 
 Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other 
 ecclesiastical office-bearers depending on that hierarchy, J superstition, 
 heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be con- 
 trary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness ; lest we partake 
 of other men's sins, and thereby, be in danger to receive of their 
 plagues ; and that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the 
 three kingdoms." Will the Scottish church still call for this extirpa- 
 tion of Prelacy, "as the most powerful mean, by the blessing of God, 
 for settling and preserving the true Protestant religion, with perfect 
 peace in his Majesty's dominions, and propagating the same to other 
 nations, and for establishing his Majeslifs throne to all ages and gen- 
 erations F" Act of Ass. Aug. 17, 1643. Will the Scottish church 
 at this day, true to the sentiments of our reformers in those days, 
 league together for the extirpation of Episcopacy, as inconsistent, next 
 to " Popery," and even before " heresy, schism, and profaneness," 
 with "the true Protestant religion," the " perfect peace " of the realm, 
 and the " establishing his Majesty's throne to all ages and generations ?" 
 jye may denounce Episcopacy to be thus pernicious, but will they ? 
 Nor, if they will rigidly follow the example of the church in those 
 days, need they be very scrupulous as to those "with whom \\\^.y league ; 
 for the Scottish Parliament enacted (July 15, 1644,) that "the 
 League and Covenant shall have the full force and strength of per- 
 fect laws and acts of Parliament, and be observed by all his Majesty's 
 lieges." If therefore the Scottish church get her wish, (for surely she 
 can have no wish inconsistent with her own unrepealed Acts,) Episco- 
 pacy must be extirpated root and branch ! 
 
23 
 
 support of a hierarchy which the majority condemn? — But 
 it is not by any merely local or hereditary antipathy that 
 this powerful body is repudiated; it has sufficient charac- 
 ters, internal and external, to merit this rejection. With 
 every allowance which truth dictates in its favour, its creed 
 must be regarded as in some important points unsound 
 and delusory. Few, I trust, in this audience, believe that 
 every cliild on whom her baptismal water is sprinkled is 
 regenerated, becomes a child of God, and an inheritor of 
 the kingdom of heaven. This wicked delusion that church 
 has held and propagated from its institution to this hour; 
 has been instilling it into the unsuspecting minds of the 
 young, and into the hearts of careless, credulous, or super- 
 stitious parents; and thus has done what she could, by the in- 
 fluence of her sacerdotal authority, her imposing administra- 
 tion, and the blind reverence which she has so extensively 
 enjoyed, to spread the blight of delusion, and the death of 
 false security, over the minds of her millions, from generation 
 to generation. This delusion is strengthened by the burial 
 service, which teaches that all whom she accompanies by her 
 ceremonial to the grave, are sent there in sure and certain 
 hopes of a blessed resurrection. Who gave to that church the 
 power she arrogates to " decree rites and ceremonies? " 
 Where did she find her catalogue of officials, Archbishops, 
 Bishops, Deans, Archdeans, Prebends, Canons, Priests, 
 and so forth; claiming for the whole the character of 
 Apostolical? These inventions she ascribes to Christ, or 
 his Apostles. Who taught this church to denominate a 
 secular prince, be his personal character what it may, her 
 supreme head on earth? Oh, daring insult to that Divine 
 anointed King whom Jehovah hath set upon his holy hill, 
 to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth, and 
 who alone is Head of his body the church! After such 
 usurpations, is it much to add, that this church has been 
 intolerant and persecuting from her origin? The blood of 
 saints is in her skirts. Her principles leading to persecu- 
 tion are unchanged; and although restrained by the spirit 
 of the age, under a merciful Providence, even at this 
 day, this church speaks as loftily as ever, and acts as 
 wrongfully as is permitted to her, spoiling of their sub- 
 stance, and endeavouring to exclude from their standing 
 within the church of the Redeemer, dissenting Christ- 
 ians of every name. Is it just — ^just to conscience — just 
 
24 
 
 to the spiritual interests of the nation — ^just to the sacre.^ 
 cause of scriptural religion, that the whole empire shouK^ 
 be implicated, by its laws and its public countenance, 
 in the support of this erroneous, deluding, persecuting 
 body? 
 
 I know well to what all this tends. I know it is no light 
 charge to bring against any system, especially any religious 
 system, that it is in its principle unjust, and in its working 
 injurious. It is a grave matter to bring this charge against 
 the legislation of our land. But truth must be spoken, cost 
 what it may. I know the sentiments I have now uttered, 
 and which I hold in common with the great body of Dis- 
 senters in Britain, imply, that in the principle, and in the 
 working of the principle, of the Civil Establishments of re- 
 ligion in this land, there is, and there has been, great nation- 
 al guilt. I believe this, and I speak out my belief. I 
 should be a timid and a dishonest man if I did not. We 
 hear of many national sins, (and we cannot too deeply lay 
 to heart the prevailing sins of our country) and, at least in 
 times of national warfare and peril, we were accustomed to 
 hear of what was called national fasting. But when will 
 this course of national sin be acknowledged and deplored, 
 that from the days of the profligate tyrant Henry — down 
 by the haughty Elizabeth — and the hollow and arbitrary 
 James — and his false and bloody royal offspring — aye, and 
 down the Hanoverian line, even to the days of our present 
 honoured Monarch, (to whom I desire to have a heart as 
 loyal as the most favoured of his subjects,) there has 
 flowed from the throne of this country, through the legis- 
 lature, and in the channel of the laws, one continuous 
 stream of injustice, which has poured itself over the whole 
 dissenting body, and has not left unpolluted religion itself? 
 Here is, indeed, national sin — here is cause for national 
 mourning. Let the king weep — let the nobles humble 
 themselves — let the prelates disrobe them of their sacer- 
 dotal attire, and for the mitre put dust upon their heads 
 — let the people of the land mourn, until justice, eternal 
 justice, get her due, establish the king's throne, and purify 
 the national administration. 
 
 In this hasty sketch I should fail exceedingly did I not 
 repeat here a caution, which, since these discussions began, 
 I have often taken the liberty to suggest to my iViends. 
 Because the system is wijust, ice must ?iot, in our turn, be 
 
25 
 
 unjust to its defenders. While we expose the system, we 
 must spare its friends. To them I do not impute the con- 
 viction that the system is unjust. If they were persuaded 
 of this, they would renounce it. Who knows not the influ- 
 ence of system over the best minds; how it often clouds the 
 clearest intellect, and embitters the kindest and gentlest 
 nature? When I think of a Knox, getting the hicottish 
 legislature to decree that whosoever should say mass, or re- 
 ceive mass, or be present thereat, should, for the third 
 offence, be put to death, a law, you know, the execution of 
 which, at this day, would amount to the butchery of nearly 
 all Ireland — when I think of the devotional Rutherford 
 writing, with all imaginable animosity against the vile Inde- 
 pendents, for their intolerable toleration of all religions — 
 when I think of the heavenly, the seraphic Leighton, ally- 
 ing himself with as unjust and bloody a system, (Bishop 
 Burnet himself being judge,) as religious tyranny ever at- 
 tempted to impose on this country — when I think of such 
 a man as Dr. M'Crie appealing to the decree of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, as an authority, which decree appoints that those 
 who should speak against the God of Heaven should be cut 
 in pieces — above all, when I think of the two disciples of 
 Him who was meek and lowly in heart, whose soul was 
 gentle as a Iamb, and who preached and breathed good will 
 to men, requesting from him miraculous power, not to con- 
 vert their enemies, but to burn them with fire, I see abund- 
 ant cause for tolerance, and for kindness, and I blame the 
 system more than the men. I say deal kindly with the 
 men, but spare not the system. It is in this way alone that 
 I can account for many manifestations on the part of our 
 opponents; and very particularly for that one, otherwise 
 unaccountable, which is at this moment exciting such gen- 
 eral attention. To refer only to the case of the metropolis, 
 what but system can so blind men to facts, as to induce 
 them to call for additional compulsory accommodation and 
 endowments, when in the Old Town alone, nine additional 
 congregations, averaging the size of the existing ones, can 
 be accommodated in the pews now empty ? Or what but 
 system can lead them to make the poor their plea, when of 
 sittings costing two pounds a-year, there are only two in the 
 hundred unoccupied, while of those costing two shillings 
 a-year, eighty-eight in the hundred are empty? 
 
 As a prospective illustration of this effect of system, let 
 c 
 
26 
 
 me suppose that at some future period, near or distant, the 
 civil establishment of these churches were removed, would 
 any one then, with the apparent injustice of the proposal 
 to face, be found stout-hearted enough to call for its re-ap- 
 pointment? Suppose the dominant parties, which are by far 
 the richer, supporting their own institutions, as the various de- 
 nominations of Dissenters are now doing; and suppose a pro- 
 posal then made to tax all Ireland for the benefit of a hand- 
 ful of rich Episcopalians; and to elevate into influence, and 
 endow at the public charge, the Episcopalians in the South, 
 and one dass of the Presbyterians in the North of Great 
 Britain ; and to give to these favoured parties accommoda- 
 tion, at the national expense, not for all their own members 
 only, but also for all the members of all other denomina- 
 tions whatever — we may confidently affirm that such a pro- 
 posal would not obtain a hearing, on the ground of its in- 
 justice, not less than of its impolicy and its folly, and would 
 as certainly be repudiated by the Commons, and possibly 
 even by the Peers of England, as a proposal to abolish our 
 mixed government, and to substitute the feudal system in 
 its place *. 
 
 * The argument from the injustice of Religious Establishments is 
 plainly making its way, with great rapidity, among the members of the 
 Established Churches themselves. There is something in their breasts 
 that readily responds to our appeals. They begin to feel in this way — 
 " Would we deem it just were the Dissenters to possess such a mono- 
 poly as we have, particularly if they were, as we are, the richer party? 
 If the rest of the nation support their own religious institutions, with- 
 out leaning on us, is it not just that we should support our's without 
 leaning on them? Is it right that they should be forced to support both 
 their own and our's? Can we continue to sanction this, and be just to 
 our brethren, to our churches, or to ourselves ? Can the Almighty re- 
 gard such exactions with favour?" — Indications of these sentiments 
 appear everywhere. In the disputes respecting the church accovimo- 
 dalion scheme, in which, so much to their honour, multitudes of 
 Churchmen have taken part with Dissenters, the injustice of the pro- 
 posal has been as loudly reprobated by them as by us. In English 
 movements respecting church rates, honest Episcopalians, in great 
 masses, have strongly expressed their virtuous indignation that Dis- 
 senters should be taxed for the support of Episcopalian worship. And 
 who has not observed that in the recent discussions in the House of 
 Commons on the Irish Church, the same sentiments have been expres- 
 sed by the majority of that assembly ? I do not refer to the important 
 principle sanctioned by the decision of the House, that church property 
 is national property, although it is something to have that point ruled 
 by the authority of the Commons; nor to the general exposui:e of the 
 
27 
 
 Irish Church, as not less hateful to tlie nation on which it is imposed, 
 than Episcopacy was to our Scottish ancestors ; but to the conslant 
 assertion of the injustice of burdening Ireland with a church from 
 which few of her people derive any advantage — a charge which, it is 
 plain, as really, if not as glaringly, applies to the other Ebtablishments, 
 as to the Irish. The subject is only beginning to attract national 
 attention ; but it only requires to be dispassionately thought of, (and 
 that thought, events existing and prospective cannot but compel) and 
 the essential injustice of the system will flash with the power of light- 
 ning on the minds of the British people; the voi: Dei will become 
 the vox populi : and the highest in the land will be forced to obey it. 
 The sooner the better. Churchmen may attempt to persuade us that 
 by virtue of these Establishments the nation is Christian; but, while 
 they stand, we never, I fear, can claim the character of a " righteous 
 nation." 
 
 W. Lang, Printer, Olasgoiv. 
 
LECTURE FIFTH: 
 
 UNDER THE PATRONAGE 
 
 OF I 
 
 THE GLASGOW 
 VOLUNTARY CHURCH SOCIETY, 
 
 ON CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS OF CHRIS- 
 TIANITY, AS IMPEACHING ITS 
 INTRINSIC EFFICIENCY. 
 
 niXlVERED ON THE EVENING OF MARCH 31st, IN THE RELIEF CHAPEL, 
 JOHN-STREET. 
 
 By the Rev. DAVID KING. 
 
 THIRD THOUSAND. 
 
 MDCCCXXXV. 
 
 GLASGOW:— JOHN REID & CO. 
 
 EDINBURGH:_JOHN WARDLAW. 
 
 DUBLIN:— JOHN ROBERTSON & CO. 
 
 LONDON :— W HITTAKER & COMPANY. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 The Lecturers by whom I have been preceded, have already 
 introduced the subject under discussion, and shown the 
 connexion of Church and State to be unscriptural, unjust, 
 and injurious. It now falls to me to vindicate the Gospel 
 from the suspicion of requiring inadmissible assistance. In 
 treating of this branch of the argument, I shall endeavour 
 to show — 
 
 I. That the Civil Establishment of Christianity charges it 
 with inefficiency; and 
 
 II. That the charge is altogether unfounded. 
 
 My first position is — That the Civil Establishment of 
 Christianity charges it with inefficiency. The incorporation 
 of the Church with the State has sometimes, indeed, re- 
 ceived from its friends explanations and defences, which, if 
 admitted, go far to obviate this objection. It has been 
 averred that a State Endowment is not an essential con- 
 stituent of a National Church; that though it were with- 
 drawn, the chartered Churches of these realms would still 
 subsist, and be more prosperous than ever; and that the 
 Civil Establishment of Religion is, on the whole, to be 
 vindicated rather as due rom the magistrate, than necessary 
 for the Gospel. These views of the cause which we combat, 
 will be found in the speeches and writings of some of its 
 ablest supporters. And, assuredly, if the Church be so very 
 independent as they allege, and receive State assistance as a 
 mark of respect, which could have been well enough dispensed 
 with, though very becoming in the respectful statesman, none 
 can impute an acknowledgment of weakness to such a repre- 
 sentation of the question. But if this ground is taken, let it be 
 maintained, and not exchanged for contrary positions as con- 
 venience may require. Let it be distinctly understood that 
 
4 
 
 Establishments are held to be right, because it is conceived 
 a duty in the ruler to aflford help where it is not needed, — 
 where it can be of no service, — and where its only effect is 
 to impair the prosperity of the religion of Jesus. Let us 
 hear no more, likewise, about the Highlands and other 
 needy portions of our country, as justifying State interposi- 
 tion; for, according to this theory of our opponents, they 
 have no necessities which the Church cannot as well meet by 
 its own resources, as by the amicable alliance of earthly 
 governments. That our brethren take their stand on this 
 footing, is all fair and reasonable; and it is withal so like 
 our own, as to present cause for friendly congratulation 
 rather than hostile conflict. We may still diflPer a little 
 about the duty of the magistrate doing what is confessedly 
 useless, and even hurtful; but about the innate stability of 
 the Church we are, in this case, at one ; and so soon as the 
 ruler shall be persuaded to quit, as ruler, the courts of the 
 Temple, then, since we shall mutually account no damage 
 to have been sustained, our agreement will be perfected. 
 
 It is to be lamented, however, that this moderate ground 
 is not generally or consistently occupied by Churchmen. 
 The calm statement of magisterial duty is exchanged for the 
 timid cry of ecclesiastical danger. The ruin of religion, and 
 the prevalence of heresy, infidelity, and crime, are despair- 
 ingly anticipated, as the inevitable results of withdrawing 
 civil aid, and entrusting the Church to its inherent energies. 
 Such gloomy forebodings are most lamentable, whether weli 
 or ill grounded. If the Gospel be so weak and so dependent 
 for its endurance on an arm of flesh, as these alarming ap- 
 prehensions suppose, then we have to mourn its weakness 
 and dependence, and hide our heads from the contempt of 
 the scorner. But if the Gospel be not so feeble and ineffec- 
 tive ; if it can look with dauntless courage from its own walls 
 and battlements on a combined and hostile world ; if it can 
 not only maintain the defensive, but send forth its armies 
 and repel its assailants, and plant its banners on their con- 
 quered countries; — then how calamitous is it that the friends 
 of Zion should so depreciate its strength, and bring dishonour 
 upon its Lord, and distress upon themselves, by quaking 
 and wailing for imaginary perils. 
 
 To profess belief in the Gospel, and yet pronounce it 
 unequal to its ends, is not very reasonable or pleasant; and 
 the abettors of Establishments try to escape from the dilemma. 
 
by averring that the Gospel has no efficiency which super- 
 sedes the use of means, and by pleading for civil aid as a 
 part of its appropriate instrumentality. 
 
 To this reply, as being the only one conceivable, I propose 
 giving all manner of dutiful consideration. 
 
 And I set out vpith readily conceding that the religion of 
 Christ does not dispense with means, but, on the contrary, 
 requires their use as indispensable to personal profiting and 
 general usefulness in every province of faith and practice. 
 But surely no person of any sense or conscience will regard 
 this admission as deciding the controversy. The charactef 
 of the means proposed is still subject of debate. A 
 country cannot be defended from invaders without means of 
 defence; but who will deny that help might be resorted to 
 which would be indicative of weakness; as, for example, the 
 alliance of foreign powers, and still more of hostile powers, 
 obtained by humiliating petitions and mercenary proffers. 
 Such means would surely not be comparable for a moment 
 to the native prowess and resources of the country itself. 
 Sparta might have repelled the haughty Xerxes by entering 
 into league with potent kingdoms ; but how much did it 
 exalt the fame of her glory, that her own three hundred sons 
 preserved her independence, and baffled, at Thermopylae, 
 invading millions. The whole question turns, then, on the 
 nature of the aid to which we betake ourselves. And a 
 little reflection will be sufficient, I think, to convince a 
 candid inquirer that the State assistance called in by National 
 Churches, is exactly of the hostile character above supposed, 
 and consequently disparaging to the native independence 
 and power of the kingdom of the Redeemer. 
 
 Let us inspect the State assessing for the church, the com- 
 munity assessed, and finally, the penalties of law enforcing 
 assessment. These present all the stages of Legislative inter- 
 position, and all of them we embrace in one condemnatory 
 indictment. 
 
 First in order is the State; and it is needless to look 
 beyond our own, consisting of King, Lords, and Commons. 
 It goes by the name of a Christian State, but we must not 
 be misled by courteous terms. Is any security provided 
 that its members shall be Christians? Jews, it is true, are 
 excluded, but free admission is afforded to Socinians, and 
 Infidels, and Papists, and all those reviled classes who are 
 held to pollute us bv participation in our sentiments. In 
 a2 
 
6 
 
 what sense, then, do such an indiscriminate confederation 
 constitute a Christian magistracy. We may be told that 
 they should be Christians ; but this evasion is pitiful. See 
 how it would apply in any other case. Suppose we should 
 collect at random a heterogeneous mob, comprising the sober 
 and the sensual, the decent and the abandoned, would we 
 be justified in calling this mongrel throng a Christian Church, 
 because all of them should be Christians ? No : it is clear 
 as day, that before any association of persons, in whatever 
 capacity they may be associated, can be considered Chris- 
 tian, they must enter through some ordeal which is under- 
 stood at least to test their Christianity. But our Monarchical 
 throne and Parliamentary houses have no such discriminating 
 gateways; for neither gross ignorance, nor gross error, nor 
 gross immorality, would exclude any from their lofty seats. 
 In what sense, then, I again ask, are high places Christian, 
 which are equally open to the pious and the profane, to him 
 that sweareth and him that feareth an oath. 
 
 We may be told it is a pity that tests are not instituted, 
 and a sore calamity that some tests which did exist have 
 been abolished. As much of the controversy hinges on this 
 point, allow me to request for it, though it be not very fasci- 
 nating, a minute's attention. I observe, then, that if tests 
 are employed, they should, so far as possible, be sufficient 
 for their ends. This remark partakes of a truism, its justice 
 is so apparent. How can it be controverted that tests, 
 which are engaged for the purpose of making a State Chris- 
 tian, should be such as may prove those tested to be Chris- 
 tians in the judgment of enlightened charity. A criterion, 
 dividing, not between the righteous and the wicked, but be- 
 tween one grade of the wicked and another, and pronouncing 
 this class of sinners fit members, and that class of sinners 
 unfit members of a Christian State, is a mere figment, delu- 
 sive and destructive in itself, and unsupported by a syllable 
 of revelation. Where tests, therefore, are employed to 
 Christianize States, they should be such as we acknowledge, 
 needful in other cases to establish Christian faith and cha- 
 racter ; and so our Monarchs, and Barons, and Commoners, 
 will all pass through the same ordeal to their magisterial 
 seats, by which persons, in well disciplined churches, approach 
 to the institution of the Lord's Supper. This demand of all 
 civil posts for accredited saints, as the only lawful statesmen 
 will overturn every Government in Europe; and was, indeed. 
 
the very demand, which, at one period of the Reformation, 
 created confusion, and rebellion, and bloodshed, in Germany. 
 Yet there is no resting place short of this revolutionary ex- 
 treme, if religious tests are prefixed to civil office. But, I 
 observe farther, that we are presently speaking not to fancies, 
 but to facts — to existing substantial realities. The British 
 Constitution imposes no such tests, nor tests deserving the 
 name of any description; and our legislators consequently 
 are, or may be, just as fair a specimen of the world as any 
 group of men, any where and any how assembled. And if 
 then, the love of the world be enmity with God, if the love 
 of the world be so incompatible with the love of the Father 
 that they cannot co-exist, I appeal to every honourable mind, 
 whether Christianity, without confessing itself reduced to 
 the last shifts of weakness, can stretch an imploring arm to 
 these same wordly legislators, and cry out in plaintive misery, 
 O save us — we perish ! 
 
 Having surveyed the State assessing, we look now at the 
 community assessed, for the church. And this province of the 
 argument is so independent of the preceding, that in discussing 
 it we may allow the former reasoning to go for nothing. Let 
 it now be supposed then, that legislators are in every respect 
 what they should be; and that this has been ascertained by 
 some legitimate indications of Christian proficiency. Still, the 
 abettors of Establishments do not escape the serious charge 
 of impugning the sufficiency of the Gospel. It is not from 
 these statesmen themselves that the legal provision for the 
 Church is exacted, but fi'om the commonwealth at large. 
 They are simply the medium of access to the general com- 
 munity. To say, then, that the Church requires the aid of 
 the State, is to say, that it requires the aid of the body 
 politic. Nay, more, it cannot require the statesman's aid to 
 collect money that would be contributed at any rate; so that 
 the magistrate can be needed only to extort supplies from 
 the reluctant. To need the ruler, then, is to need the infidel 
 and sensualist whom he compels. To such classes Church- 
 men come through governors, and say, we must have your 
 help, or we are undone. We would like you, no doubt, to 
 believe our doctrines; and if you can make up your mind lo 
 that, good and well. But, if you hesitate about adopting, 
 there must, at all events, be no hesitation in supporting them; 
 for, if you withdraw your support they will sink, and there will 
 be shortly no such doctrines in the land to be believed. The 
 
8 
 
 scoflPer, it may be supposed, jeers and asks — Is this your 
 machinery for conversion ? Is it thus you expect to convince 
 me ? Would you have me believe your creed for its im- 
 becility ? Can I not do without a faith that cannot do with- 
 out the unbeliever; and must I depend on a godliness which 
 depends on my gain, even while that gain bears for its in- 
 scription the wages of iniquity? It must be so, is the 
 ignominious reply; we have no alternative; our religion 
 cannot dispense witli your constrained and scornful pittances. 
 OI What religion is it that is brought so low? Is it, can 
 it be the religion of Jesus, of Him who died the more 
 signally to conquer death, and descended into the grave to 
 show how easily he could spoil it for ever? High as party 
 feeling now runs, and strongly as it inclines to its parry views, 
 I cannot resist the conviction, that if the ministers and mem- 
 bers of our National Churches would still scan with some 
 composure, the dependence they assign to the religion of 
 Jesus, many of them would forbear to inflict on Him this 
 second humiliation. If, instead of terminating their view in 
 a supposed pious magistrate, about whom they are ever des- 
 canting, they would look beyond the magistrate of whatever 
 description, to the motley classes, whose succour he extorts, 
 I should think they would recoil from casting Zion's main- 
 tenance on her haters, and denounce as false and calum- 
 nious, her alleged need of their assistance. 
 
 Having surveyed the State assessing, and the community 
 assessed, and found the aid of both affronting to the Church, 
 let us look finally at the penalties of law enforcing assess- 
 ment. These furnish the Church, as Saul did David, with 
 armour and a coat of mail; and happy were it, if the former 
 could say, as did the latter, I cannot go with these, for 1 
 have not proved them. The Church has proved them ; and 
 hence is it smitten and discomfitted before the Philistines. 
 A mind which has learned at the feet of Jesus, and inhaled 
 the meekness and gentleness of the Prince of Peace, revolts 
 from the allegation of using arms in his service; and is ready, 
 from an impression of its enormity, to discredit and deny its 
 truth. But no discredit or denial amounts to disproval; an(i 
 it remains, after all, a certain matter of fact, that the sword 
 holds a principal place among the instrumentality of our Esta- 
 blishments. Of course, the sword is expressive generally of 
 those pains and penalties which the magistrate is empowered 
 
9 
 
 to inflict; and by tliem, and them only, does he elicit that 
 provision for the Churcl) which is solicited at his hands. 
 
 To say that the minister does not coerce personally, is a 
 miserable shelter. The magistrate engages the bailiff; but 
 who engages the magistrate? In whose service does he act? 
 All is for the Church, and with its sanction, and under its 
 auspices; and how then, with the semblance of fairness, can 
 it disclaim the solemn responsibility? This much, at least, 
 is perfectly obvious, that if Established Protestantism be not 
 accountable for its judicial inflictions, neither was Established 
 Popery for its guilty slaughters; for it shed the blood of 
 saints, by handing them over to the secular power, to whose 
 tender mercies it insultingly recommended them. 
 
 But the reply will be forthcoming — there are no such 
 scenes now. Are there not? It is true, where payment is 
 not refused, goods are not spoiled, and blood is not shed; 
 and merciless, indeed, is tlie despotism that needlessly tortures 
 unresisting victims. But let any conscientiously decline to 
 maintain a dominant faith, from a conviction of its untruth; 
 and then the imprisonments of Scotland, and the slaughters 
 of Ireland, sufficiently disclose and expound the last appeal 
 of our National Churches. But still this representation may 
 be held to be extreme. Whatever may be the case of cer- 
 tain localities, surely, it may be urged, the collection of tithes 
 or teinds is commonly peaceable, and has no affinity to the 
 battle of the warrior, with confused noise and garments rolled 
 in blood ! So the pious members of Establishments think, 
 and in this persuasion uphold the system. But let me 
 remind them, that prevailing quiet does not always argue 
 the absence of violence. Suppose that a country yields 
 despairingly to an invading foe without fighting at all, is it 
 not as truly, in that case, subjugated by arms, as if con- 
 flicting hosts had met, and thousands fallen. To change the 
 figure, is the slave never driven by the lash, unless when it 
 it is applied to his person ; and are his exertions independent 
 and free, when he works merely from observing a cart-whip 
 in the hands of the driver? Discussion on a point so plain, 
 is really waste speaking. It may be easily brought to an 
 issue. If an Established Church does not rest on pains and 
 penalties, then let them he abolished, for non essentials can 
 be dispensed with. But if it cannot surrender them, if their 
 extinction would be its extinction, then, we call on Church- 
 men, as men of uprightness, to own at once their obligations 
 
10 
 
 to the iTiiHtaiy. Do not at once retain lethal weapons and 
 disavow them. No means should he engaged which require 
 such equivocation; and seeing tliat violence is necessary 
 to State Churches, the necessity should be ingenuously con- 
 fessed, and courageously advocated. With the accoutrements 
 of the warrior, our opponents will then display something of 
 his courage. But there is scarcely one element of Esta- 
 blishments for which their abbettors thus unflinchingly de- 
 clare. Instead of avowing and vindicating their own articles 
 of belief, they are more anxious to appear in possession of ours ; 
 andmany a laboured attempt have they made to show that their 
 practices embody our principles. They scruple, for example, 
 to admit that magistrates interfere with religion in deciding 
 between creeds, and stamping law on the decision ; and unite 
 with us in condemning civico-ecclesiastical interference. 
 They will not allow that civil assessments for a Church in- 
 volve the aid of compulsion ; and pronounce the Church of 
 Scotland wholly Voluntary in her maintenance. They can- 
 not concede that an endowed Church derives one penny 
 from Dissenters, however largely they are taxed for its sup- 
 port; and while the fingers of the tax-gatherer are in our 
 pockets, proclaim and reiterate in our ears, that they subsist 
 like ourselves on their own exclusive finances, and that their 
 ecclesiastical fabrics and worship cost us nothing. And, in 
 short, speaking more immediately to the point in hand, they 
 deny that ultimate dependence on arms, at all implicates in 
 their use, and pretend to no less abhorrence than ourselves of 
 all resorts to violence in the service of religion. All these 
 paradoxes have been put forth to obtain for Established, the 
 favour of unestablished Churches. But the attempt is as 
 futile as it is self-condemnatory. To a mind retaining the 
 least power of impartial discernment, such strained assump- 
 tion of liberal maxims in upholding illiberal immunities, can 
 have no effect, except in disclosing a felt, though unconfessed 
 weakness in the system so defended. When strong and 
 tenable ground is occupied, there is no need for disclaiming 
 its occupancy, and urging ludicrous pretensions to an enemy's 
 position. Meanwhile, we must account it a palpable truism, 
 that a revenue is exacted by the sword, which is exacted by 
 its influence; and we put it, most solemnly put it, to 
 the conscience of all engaging civil penalties in promotion of 
 religious objects, whether they can repeat with unmisgiving 
 aiinds the Apostolic averment, — " The weapons of our warfare 
 
n 
 
 are not carnal." Scorn our interdict as you may; but O, 
 despise not him that speaketh to you from heaven, and who 
 is even now, if ye will only hear his voice, proclaiming over 
 your belligerant discipleship — " Put up thy sword into his 
 place, for all they that take the sword shall perish wiih the 
 sword." 
 
 From these illustrations, then, it appears that State alli- 
 ance is, throughout, foreign and hostile to the constitution of 
 the Church ; and hence, in all its stages, through rulers, 
 subjects, and penalties, disparaging to the essential efficiency 
 of the Gospel of Christ. That civil aid is a defence, I care 
 not to disprove. It is enough for me that its walls are not 
 salvation, and its gates are not praise ; and when you rear 
 such protection around Zion, and tell me, This is her secu- 
 rity, — I reply, in the indignant language of the Prophet, 
 " Take away her battlements, for they are not the Lord's." 
 
 That this charge of inadequacy is preferred by Establish- 
 ments against Christianity, I must now hold as proved. And 
 I proceed to show, under the Second Division of my subject, 
 that the charge is unjust — that the Gospel has no such im- 
 potency; but possesses, on the contrary, all requisite powers 
 for the accomplishment of its purposes. 
 
 In applying myself to this part of my work, I really can- 
 not help feeling as if it were superfluous. Prove the adequacy 
 of Christianity to Christians! — Surely the task might be 
 spared me. Were I debating with the idolater or infidel, I 
 might deem it reasonable to assert and establish the sufficiency 
 of the Gospel; and, in reply to his cavils, give him a reason 
 for the hope that is in me. But when reasoning with oppo- 
 nents whom I am much more inclined to call brethren, many 
 of whom I rejoice to consider partakers of like precious faith 
 with us, I really feel, when summoned by them to show the 
 Gospel equal to its exigencies, as if the summons were a 
 piece of friendly pleasantry, — as if with jocular gravity they 
 were asking a demonstration that the sun can dissipate the 
 shades of the night, or the ocean bear such gallant ships 
 as float in thousands on its waters. When they pronounce 
 the Church dependent on secular power, and implore its 
 enemies to preserve it from ruin, I feel as if creation were 
 pronounced in peril, and props were gathered to support the 
 heavens, or cords to fasten the foundations of the earth. If 
 the figure fail, it is from weakness; for heaven and earth 
 shall pass away, but the Church is the avowed care of Him, 
 
12 
 
 one word of whose sayings shall not pass away. As proof, 
 however, is demanded, let it be granted; and I shall be glad 
 if I succeed in one instance in dispelling a sceptical cowardly 
 alarm, though I should fail of commanding entire convic- 
 tion. I shall be glad if any troubled saint in this assembly, 
 alarmed at the agitation of the times, and fearing for the 
 ark of God, shall hear in the succeeding illustrations the 
 seasonable call, "Cry out and shout, O inhabitant of Zion, for 
 great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee !" In 
 proof, then, of the efficiency of the Gospel, I adduce- 
 First, The Character of its Doctrines. — These doctrines 
 are true, faithful sayings, and worthy of all acceptation. Once 
 more 1 must remind you, that I am not arguing with un- 
 believers. To set out with the assumption, in contending 
 with them, that Christianity is true, would be taking for 
 granted what required to be proved. But the truth of the 
 Gospel is ceded by our brethren; and as respects them, con- 
 sequently we are quite free to argue from its truth. In truth, 
 then, I maintain, is safety. Where opinion is false, it may 
 be exploded; and when its falsity is understood in high 
 quarters, it may be expedient, in the probable anticipation 
 of argument failing, to hold force in reserve ; but those shifts 
 and reserves are not needed in defence of truth, for its for- 
 tresses are impregnable. It admits, it courts, it demands 
 inquiry; and if it may defy the infidel's scrutiny, I humblythink 
 it may dispense with his services. What obstructions has not 
 truth surmounted. The astronomical system of Copernicus 
 and Galileo was opposed by virulent and protracted perse- 
 cution; but it was true, and it prevailed. The enlightened 
 maxims of Socrates occasioned his cruel death, but they were 
 true; and though he died, they live. Harvey's discovery of 
 the circulation of the blood was ridiculed by his cotempora- 
 ries; but it was true, and now its acceptance is universal. 
 And though, then, Christianity be violently resisted, yet, if 
 it be true, as we believe it is, it also will verify the maxim — 
 " Great is truth, and it shall prevail." 
 
 Perhaps it may be replied, that religion differs in this 
 respect from literature and science. But do we not witness 
 the reverse in facts? Do we not see that even in its cor- 
 rupted forms the encumbered truths ar& more powerful to 
 uphold than the encumbering errors to suppress. Observe, 
 for example. Popery in Ireland. It is there subsisting, it is 
 there advancing; and will Churchmen, with all their ab- 
 
13 
 
 horrence of Papists, cede to them the position, that Christ is 
 distinguishable from Anti-Christ, in being weaker and more 
 destructible? If asked by a Roman Catholic wherein their 
 faith differs from his, will they specify, as one of the more 
 obvious features of difference — Yours can survive and flourish 
 amid contempt, and discountenance, and exaction, and all 
 the evils of misgovernment for centuries; but ours has no 
 such inherent vitality; ours is upheld by royal favour, — while 
 the ruler smiles on it, it flourishes; and if, peradventure, he 
 should frown upon it, it would instantly wither! 
 
 But I argue not only from the truth of our holy faith ab- 
 stractly considered, I argue also and specially from the char- 
 acter of its truths. Tenets that are quite accurate, may be 
 so trivial as to be powerless — as to supply no potent stimulus 
 to action. But such are not the doctrines of the cross. 
 Their magnitude and importance transcend all expression 
 and conception. Their representations of sin and the perdi- 
 tion it incurs— of the blood of Christ, and the blessings it 
 procures, of the promised spirit and the renovation he effects, 
 all these fill earth and heaven, time and eternity, with their 
 magnificence. And I request your attention while I unequivo- 
 cally state it as my conviction, that we cannot conceive of 
 these doctrines being believed, and yet known duties accru- 
 ing from them fundamentally or habitually neglected. If a 
 man does not believe them, then of course they are pointless 
 to him as untruth; or if a man does believe them, but does 
 not perceive that they require this or that service, then of 
 course he will not obey when he does not suppose himself 
 commanded. But, to say that a man may have faith in 
 these doctrines, and knowledge of his consequent duties — 
 to say, for example, that a man may believe in the Son of 
 God having loved him and given himself for him, and yet 
 refuse, at the request of this Saviour, to sacrifice a little 
 substance for maintaining the very ordinances which convey 
 these tidings, the supposition seems to me intuitively 
 monstrous — I cannot help repudiating it as a self-evident 
 absurdity. These remarks are in the first person, because I 
 have no right to judge the mental impression of another. 
 But I entreat you to judge for yourselves — to survey per- 
 sonally the love of the Father, the mission of the Son, the 
 gift of the Spirit, and say if you can conceive of a person 
 truly receiving such a testimony, and yet refusing a reason- 
 
 B 
 
14 
 
 able sacrifice enjoined by this same testimony for its main- 
 tenance and extension. On sucli conduct, you will observe, 
 1 am not remarking as undutiful merely, but as impossible ; 
 for there is a connection between faith and faithfulness, just 
 as close and indissoluble as there is between the sun in the 
 heavens and the light which he sheds on encircling planets, 
 (^ur ministerial brethren of the Establishment are accus- 
 tomed, like ourselves, to contend, in their discourses, and 
 especially in their preparatory Sacramental addresses, called 
 Fencings, that habitual neglect of any known duty disproves 
 Christian profession. Now, surely they will admit, that if 
 state aid were withdrawn, it would be the duty of private 
 Christians to uphold the church rather than allow it to go 
 down; and if then the duty were declined, it. would prove, 
 by their own showing, that their church members are no 
 Christians at all. But this would not be the result. A 
 great portion of the members of the Established Church 
 are, we believe, true followers of the Lamb, and would 
 cheerfully follow him in this, as in every province of duty, 
 if you would only give them the opportunity. I hold, then, 
 the doctrines of Christianity to be such that when sincerely 
 believed they are and cannot but be sufficient to secure 
 their maintenance. 
 
 1 1 proof of the efficiency of the gospel, I adduce — 
 Secondly, its own explicit claims. To an unbeliever its 
 testimony in its own behalf is unconvincing, but with 
 Christian brethren it should be decisive. I aver, then, that 
 the gospel does not acknowledge weakness, but asserts its 
 possession of irresistible strength. In evidence, I adduce 
 the language of inspiration. " I am not," says Paul, Rom. i. 
 16, " ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of 
 God to salvation to everyone that believeth." Observe this 
 attestation. The gospel is the power of God : and what is 
 his power? It is omnipotence. Therefore did the apostle 
 of the Gentiles account it his glory and not his disgrace. 
 Could it have been shown him that any truly believed it, and 
 yet remained unreformed; that it failed, for example, to 
 subdue in tlie believer indifference to fellow-men, or that 
 mean and sordid avarice which would deny them needful 
 instruction, then would he have blushed for his faith. But 
 the contrary was the case. The gospel, he knew, could 
 persuade its recipients to discharge any, and every duty, and 
 
15 
 
 rJieretore he was not, aiul therefore we are not, ashamed ot 
 its profession. 
 
 Again, he observes, in another Epistle, (1 Cor. i. '2S,) 
 •' We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling 
 block, and to the Greeks foolishness. But unto thoni which 
 are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God 
 and tlie wisdoa) of God." The application of these verses to 
 the subject in hand is obvious. We are asked how people 
 can be induced to support and extend the gospel? We 
 answer, by preaching to them Christ crucified. Instruct 
 them faithfully in the doctrines and duties of the Cross, and 
 they will communicate the knowledge of Christ to the ends 
 of the earth. On this averment some may fall as on a 
 stumbling blocks and some may deride and cry foolishness. 
 But to all such cavils we oppose the reply — These means 
 cajmot fail through weakness, for in the emphatic and oft 
 repeated expressions of the apostle they are the power of 
 God, and we dare the professed disciples of Christ to exalt 
 above his power the might of Princes. Is it asked wherein 
 the potency of this preaching lies, that may enable it to 
 produce free ofl^erings, and is it averred that to all appear- 
 ance it is only weakness? 1 reply, it will nevertheless 
 prevail, " Because," (in the subjoined language of the 
 apostle,) " the foolishness of God is wiser than man, and 
 the weakness of God is stronger than man." The verses 
 which succeed are so important in this connexion, that I 
 request for them your especial attention. " But God," (says 
 the apostle, verses 27 — 29,) " But God hath chosen the 
 foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God 
 hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the 
 things which are mighty. And base things of the world, 
 and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and 
 things which are not to bring to nought things that are. That 
 no flesh should glory in his presence." 
 
 Look at the instrumentality of which the divine choice is 
 here alleged, and to which ultimate triumph is here pro- 
 raised, and say, in candour, whether you realize it most in 
 the offerings of voluntary churches or in the machinery of 
 state-favoured establishments? Whether, as respects the 
 world, is wisdom most predicated of the voluntary saint or 
 the imperial statesman? Which is pronounced weak and 
 which mighty? Which is despised? Which is overlooked 
 
16 
 
 in legislative privilege among things that are not? And 
 whether, by the success of the one or the other would the end 
 be best secured, "that no flesh should glory in his presence?" 
 I propose these questions, but I do not answer them. The 
 answers presents themselves with a clearness which cannot 
 be aided by illustration. Say not that humble means were 
 then employed for want of nobler, and till loftier aid should 
 present itself — God hath chosen them, and to this hour his 
 choice is unrevoked. Meanwhile, with these inspired state- 
 ments before me, I can listen with indifference, yea with 
 delight, to the fashionable aspersions cast upon our system. 
 We are assailed by the very terms of reproach which the 
 apostle counted it all joy to incur. Urge them then against 
 us. Call our church polity foolish. Descant on the weak- 
 ness of the voluntary principle. Denounce casting ministers 
 on its maintenance, and protest that such a support for 
 clergymen is base. Despise the proposal. Exhibit your 
 statistics for your allied state, and show us that from these 
 we are excluded with things that are not. Such accusation 
 may gratify the accusers, but in all this lordly disdain we 
 discern the selection of God and the insignia of victory. 
 
 Speaking elsewhere (2 Cor. iv. 7,) of the light of the 
 knowledge of the glory of (jod, the same apostle says, — 
 " But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the ex- 
 cellency of the power may appear to be of God and not of 
 us." I may be told this passage refers to preaching, which God 
 has confessedly devolved on weak imperfect men. I reply, that 
 though suggested by a particular instance, (and this remark 
 applies also to the passages already considered,) the language 
 of the apostle is general, and enunciates obviously general 
 principles. " He has put the treasure in earthen vessels." 
 No, say churchmen, not in all the process of conveyance. 
 At one stage these are too weak to be trusted, and too vile 
 to be honoured. A Christian ministry may be trusted to 
 preach, but not Christian churches to maintain them. The 
 all-important article of pastoral support we must assign to 
 vessels stronger and more splendid — to the power of the 
 state and the parade of royalty. Thus are the means 
 changed; and thus also is the end defeated, for how can the 
 power appear any longer to be of God and not of man ? How 
 can the terrors of civil law bespeak the excellence or promote 
 the praise of that divine faith which they are engaged to 
 
IT 
 
 succour under the insulting allegation that it would perish 
 without tliem? .0 cast away these gaudy utensils. Re- 
 store, we entreat you, the misplaced treasure to its origi- 
 nal and appointed earthen vessels. Pride and unbelief will 
 vociferate — Ruin. These vessels will never do. They are 
 utter frailty and baseness. They are ; but so much the more 
 will their preservation of the true riches prove the excel- 
 lency of the power to be of God and not of us; and again 
 will the ever-needful exhortation be enforced, — He that 
 glorieth let him glory in the Lord. 
 
 I might cite such passages from almost every page, and 
 certainly from every book of the New Testament. But 1 
 shall adduce only one more, — " Though we walk," says Paul, 
 (2d Cor. X. 3,) " in the Hesh, we do not war after the flesh; 
 for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty, 
 through God, to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down 
 imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against 
 the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every 
 thought to the obedience of Christ." On the explicit dis- 
 claimer of carnal weapons by the Apostle in these verses I 
 have already remarked. What I wish you to observe now, 
 is, his assigned reason for rejecting them and preferring 
 the spiritual. The carnal are now adopted by churchmen as 
 alone efficacious — Paul disowned them for their feebleness. 
 The spiritual are now relinquished by churchmen for their 
 inefficacy: faith, and love, and such principle!*, are pronounced 
 by them no security for the church — Paul chose them for 
 their power. He preferred them to the bow and the aiTow, 
 the sword and the shield, as being immeasurably mightier, 
 not indeed in themselves, but through God, to the utter de- 
 molition of all possible obstructions. All nameable difficul- 
 ties he includes within the sure conquest of this divine 
 armour. Point you to the dark desolate places of our land, 
 and ask how these are to be supplied ? What are they, I 
 respond, but satan's strongholds ? Speak you of the ungod- 
 liness and regardlessness of the people as precluding all de- 
 mand for religious instruction ? What are these, I ask, but 
 " things which exalt themselves against the knowledge of 
 Christ." The Apostle's language has no meaning, if not 
 applicable to such barriers, and with all consideration, I add, 
 that it has no truth, if the spiritual power of the gospel be 
 not adequate to their total subversion. True, the ignorant 
 b2 
 
18 
 
 may not request or provide instructors, but to say that the 
 gospel will not induce believers to make that moderate sacri- 
 fice which, without intrenching on the necessaries, or almost 
 the comforts of life, will enable them to send and to sustain the 
 messengers of peace, is to pronounce the plaudits of the 
 Apostle extravagant panegyi'ic, and nothing better than great 
 swelling words of vanity. But I will believe the Apostle of 
 our faith, and not its faint-hearted adherents. I will believe 
 that the Word of God, as the sword of the Spirit, can, .with- 
 out the aid of human law, outrival its achievements, and bring 
 provinces under subjection which set its authority at defiance. 
 In support of the efficacy of the gospel, I adduce — 
 Thirdly, the evidence of facts. Here I intended to con- 
 sider at some length the glorious conquests of a free-will 
 Christianity in the primitive age — its acknowledged preser- 
 vation of sound doctrine and worship in the valleys of Pied- 
 mont during the dark ages — its signal overthrow of the papal 
 establishment in different nations of Europe at the period of 
 the reformation, and more lately, its rapid supply of the 
 American states with the ordinances of Christianity. 1 find, 
 however, that I cannot review these, however cursorily, and 
 I pass from them with the less reluctance, that I entertain 
 hopes of another lecturer discussing them separately and 
 more satisfactorily at a subsequent stage of the course. 
 
 Meanwhile, 1 specify the testimony of experience only 
 where it is most disputed, namely, in om- own country; and 
 after all that has been urged to the contrary, I hold that the 
 ecclesiastical condition of Scotland makes out a triumphant 
 case for the voluntary principle. When so much is written 
 and published about the deficiency of church accommodation, 
 the subjoined tabular statement, drawn up at my request by 
 my esteemed friend, Mr. Elles of Saltcoats, will be heard 
 with interest.* 
 
 (1.) " The following calculation will show that though there 
 were no Dissenters in Scotland, there is no want of ministers, 
 if there was a fair distribution of them : — 
 
 * This communication was not received in time to be intro- 
 duced in the lecture as delivered in Glasgow. 
 
19 
 
 In 1831, the population of Scotland was, . . 2,365,807 
 Suppose that to this date the increase has been, . 134,193 
 
 The total amount at present is, ... . 2,500,000 
 
 Now, there are at present in Scotland, inclusive of 
 those admitted into the number last year by the 
 deed of the General Assembly, Parish Ministers, 1,007 
 
 Add those connected with chapels; but which, for 
 some reason, of which I am ignorant, are not put 
 down under the respective Presbyteries where 
 they are situated, ...... 18 
 
 Add Collegiate Churches, 30 
 
 Missionaries on Royal Bounty, .... 34 
 
 Do. employed by Society for promoting Christian 
 
 Knowledge, 8 
 
 Add for Chapels in progress of erection, and which 
 are likely soon to have Ministers, (very moderate,) 
 
 1.097 
 
 1,100 
 
 Now, this will give one minister in connection with the 
 Established Church for every 2,272 of the actual population. 
 In the Assembly's circular, Church accommodation is required 
 for the half of the population; and in this proportion there is 
 one minister for every 1,136 persons. But Dr. Cleland says 
 that two-thirds of the population above 12 years of age is in 
 proportion to the whole as 100 to 214. Accordingly, legal 
 accommodation is required only for 1,157,408 — and at this rate 
 there is a minister for every 1,052 persons for whom the law 
 appoints accommodation to be made. 
 
 (2.) The following shows the proportion of Presbyterian 
 Ministers to the actual population and legal accommodation : — 
 
 Established Ministers, .... 
 
 1,100 
 
 United Secession, (in Scotland,) 
 
 319 
 
 Reformed Synod, 
 
 33 
 
 Original Burgher Synod, (in Scotland,) 
 
 46 
 
 ReHef Synod, Do. 
 
 101 
 
 Original Seceders, 
 
 33 
 
 Ministers, 1,632 
 
 This is one Presbyterian Minister to every 1,532 of actual — 
 and one for every 710 — of the population to be legally accom- 
 
 modated. 
 
20 
 
 (3.) The following shows the proportion of Ministers of all 
 denominations to the actual population — and to the number for 
 whom accommodation is legally required : — 
 
 Established Ministers, 1,100 
 
 Presbyterian Dissenters, 532 
 
 Congregational Union, 84 
 
 Episcopalian, ....... 75 
 
 Baptists, (not mentioned in the Almanacs,) but say 30 
 
 Methodists, and other denominations, say . . 60 
 
 Total of Protestant Ministers, . . 1,871 
 
 Now, this is one Protestant Minister to every 1,336 of the 
 actual population — and one for every 619 persons that the law 
 says church accommodation should be provided for ; and I 
 believe you will admit that my estimate of those bodies of 
 professing Christians, at whose numbers I have guessed, as I 
 have no means of ascertaining their real number, is considerably 
 below the truth. My authority for the other numbers is the 
 County Almanack for this year. It gives 50 Catholic Ministers 
 and Congregations — and of course this shows that the provision 
 is still greater. I may remark, that I have not in these calcu- 
 lations taken into account any assistants in parishes, of which 
 there are some regularly employed and provided for, such as 
 St. Ninian's ; nor have I included many of our stations, such as 
 those in the Glasgow Presbytery, where we have a number of 
 preachers regularly labouring." 
 
 Whatever increase of accommodation these computations 
 show is almost wholly to be ascribed to voluntary benevo- 
 lence. Dr. Chalmers," I think, observes somewhere, that 
 owing to the amalgamation of parishes, two having in many 
 instances been blended into one, they are not more numerous 
 now than at their original division — setting aside the fact 
 that the late chapels of ease, though now parish churches, 
 are still upheld by voluntary contribution. In the establish- 
 ment, then, there has been stagnation, if not reduction — 
 to the voluntary principle belongs all the praise of progres- 
 sion. But let us examine the representations and pleadings 
 of our establishment brethren. 
 
 The Committee of the General Assembly own, in their 
 circular, that " there might be no reason for their present 
 application to government, were it safe to let m9,tters pro- 
 ceed spontaneously." " Could the supply," say they, " of 
 
21 
 
 the enormous deficiency be confined to the energies and 
 resources of the Voluntary system, any extension of the 
 Establishment might be unnecessary and uncalled for. But 
 the contrary," they allege, '•' is the lesson and the demon- 
 stration of all experience." They proceed to stigmatize the 
 Voluntary system for " its own inherent and essential feeble- 
 ness," and dissuade the community from a delusive " con- 
 fidence in its sufficiency to accomplish that which it is 
 unable for." And all this, they appropriately conclude by 
 the assertion, " A people left to its operation alone will 
 perish for lack of knowledge." Now, what is the principle 
 that is so disparaged? It is not, you must observe, our 
 Voluntary Church Societies. Whether our cause would 
 have progressed better with or without these associations, is 
 disputed by its friends. But it is not the mode of defending 
 the principle: — it is the principle itself which churchmen 
 charge with impotency. And what is the Voluntary prin- 
 ciple? It is the power of the Gospel to influence the will — 
 to realize its own promise, " Thy people shall be willing in 
 the day of thy power." The contemned principle is nothing 
 else and nothing less than ''the power, which," in the language 
 of an apostle, " worketh in us," and according to which, he 
 assures us, God " is able to do exceeding abundantly above 
 all that we can ask or think." This is the principle now 
 branded, I do not say designedly, but inconsiderately, with 
 inherent essential feebleness ; and which, instead of getting 
 credit for doing exceeding abundantly above all that we can 
 ask or think, is accused of doing exceedingly little, be- 
 neath all we can ask or think; so that no terras of contempt 
 can be too contemptuous to express its incompetency. A 
 people left to it, are left, we are told, to perdition: to 
 what worse alternative could they possibly be consigned? 
 Let none then deceive themselves with names. I repeat, 
 that the Voluntary principle, for which we contend, is only 
 and wholly the efficiency of the Gospel. This is the princi- 
 ple which is called in question ; this is the principle, which, 
 as one set for the defence of the Gospel, I now endeavour to 
 defend. And I warn every professor of religion against the 
 rash utterance of a syllable to its prejudice. Dispute, if 
 you will, the warrior's pretensions to courage, or the states- 
 man's to wisdom, or the orator's to eloquence; a disparage- 
 ment of their claims may be peevish, prejudiced, unworthy, 
 
22 
 
 yet towards fellow-creatures it is scarcely presumptuous. 
 But, O beware of impugning the adequacy of His arm to 
 whom all power is given in heaven and on earth, and tlee 
 the end of those over whose judicial doom the sentence is 
 written — " They limited the Holy One of Israel." 
 
 These general remarks, however, will still be met by the 
 allegation of experience, " The Voluntary principle," says 
 an expounder of the Assembly's circular, " has limits beyond 
 which it is found in practice to be utterly powerless." I 
 reply, the limits of the voluntary principle cannot have been 
 found, for its progression is not yet terminated. The Secession 
 was originated by four ministers, the Relief by one. The origin 
 of other dissenting denominations had a like resemblance to 
 the mustard seed, and under all the Tiisadvantages of small 
 numbers, slender means, civil disabilities, general opprobrium, 
 competing with a church, comprehensive, wealthy, endowed, 
 chartered, fashionable, we have gained every year in relative 
 strength, till our demand for equal rights is hung this day in 
 doubtful balance with the attempt to withhold them. And 
 still we are progressing. What, then, is found about limits ? 
 How can you find the limits of the ocean's tide while it is 
 yet rolling onwards at your feet, and the sand marks of last 
 hour are surmounted this hour by the exulting billow. But 
 though we are gaining upon the general community, we are 
 making no impression, it is alleged, on the poorer classes. 
 Are we not? Look at our churches and the established 
 churches, and say whether the great proportion of church- 
 going poor are not in our fellowship. The fact that in all 
 the nine old town churches of Edinburgh, there are only seven 
 hundred and fifteen of the old town inhabitants (mostly the 
 poorer classes) who are seat holders, and that the poor, with 
 this small exception, go to the dissenting churches when they 
 attend church at all, is a most extraordinary disclosure, and 
 presents a ^^ample of what will be found to prevail more or 
 less throughout the kingdom generally. Our churches then, 
 the poor themselves being judges, are best adapted to supply 
 their wants. But the establishment, it is answered, is so 
 limited, that it is untried. Extend it, say our brethren, and 
 then see what wonders it will accomplish. Whatever it may 
 do, this is an acknowledgment, that its doings are as yet 
 prospective ; that, from whatever cause, the Church of Scot- 
 land has not proved hitherto the instructress of the poor. 
 
23 
 
 This much, as concerns limits, is confessed to " have been 
 found by experience." And why expect belter things in 
 time coming? In some cases high seat rents may be affirmed 
 to have excluded the poor. But go to country parishes, 
 where the sittings of voluntary churches cost the labourer 
 some shillings yearly, while those of the establishment might 
 be obtained almost or altogether gratis, and still the result is 
 the same, still we have the body of poor worshippers ; and 
 there can be no hesitation over which church to say most 
 appropriately — To the poor the Gospel is preached. The 
 case, then, is plain ; if you wish to benefit tlie poor, alleviate 
 their burdens, and enable them to fulfil a desire, so plainly 
 evinced by them, and so honourable to their character, not 
 to serve God with that which cost them nothing. But 
 though we have the poorer classes, we are told we have not 
 the poorest — the wretched dregs of society ! And who has 
 them ? Have our brethren got them ? If not, we are on a 
 level. But there is a gross deception in this representation. 
 Why are our poor not deplorably destitute ? Just because 
 they are our poor — I mean in contradistinction to the un- 
 godly poor — because they are our church members; because 
 they hear and obey the message, that saith " seek first the 
 kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all things else 
 shall be added unto you ;" and because, when they cannot 
 labour, they receive from their brethren, though less amply 
 than I could wish, the benefit of the precept, " Bear ye one 
 another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." Extreme 
 wretchedness is commonly the attendant of crime, and it 
 would say little for our churches, if the poor, on entering 
 their fellowship, did not better their circumstances by amend- 
 ing their practice. We could point to not a few, once indo- 
 lent and evil doing, who are now industrious and well doing 
 from attendance in our churches. And besides those re- 
 covered, who may estimate the numbers preserved from 
 guilty destitution ? Who will affirm that but for voluntary 
 churches the thousands of outcast population would have 
 been ten thousands ? And who may ascribe powerlessness 
 to the principle that has averted such a fearful accumulation 
 of ignorance, iniquity, and wi'etchedness ? This much we 
 can say of our churches. To these we must add our missions 
 and schools, instituted directly and exclusively for the igno- 
 rant and careless of the population, and without adducing 
 
24 
 
 tlie details of reports, I pronounce it a calumny refuted by 
 broad indisputable proof, to affirm of this free-will me- 
 chanism that it is utterly powerless. It is proving yearly, 
 and monthly, the power of God unto salvation to many a 
 poor sinner that belie veth ; and whenever the national 
 church has made an inroad on Scottish heathenism, it has 
 been by casting aside the state trammels, and acting on the 
 reviled voluntary system. Taking up the facts, then, just 
 as they stand in this country, the worldng of the voluntary 
 system proves, we maintain, its decided superiority. 
 
 But, as our brethren tell us, their system is not yet 
 fairly tried, I affirm, in response, that our system is only 
 approximating a fair trial. The disadvantages of our com- 
 mencement were prodigious. It seems almost miraculous to 
 think that Voluntary Churches should so speedily have 
 sti*uggled from such weakness into such strength; from such 
 penury into such resources; from such prevailing contempt 
 into such general acceptance. No wonder they had enough 
 to do, for a time, in supporting the Establishment and in 
 promoting their individual prosperity ; and hence, compara- 
 tively neglected more comprehensive exertion. But now 
 their own circumstances are becoming, in many cases, easy, 
 and now, therefore, from this vantage ground they are more 
 free to look around with compassionate eye on that field, 
 which is the world. Besides, the obligation to disseminate 
 divine truth is only now receiving that full exhibition which is 
 requisite to its full influence. I have before remarked, that 
 if a person do not believe the truth, it cannot be expected to 
 persuade him, and that even though he do believe it, yet if 
 he is not instructed in its resultant duties, we cannot look 
 for him complying, where he does not suppose himself 
 enjoined. And such exactly has been the case with the 
 support and extension of the gospel. Not only have miserly 
 worldlings been falsely styled Christians, and then cited 
 against the power of Christianity, but true Christians them- 
 selves have not been taught to estimate adequately the claims 
 of Christian benevolence. They have not been taught that 
 theirs is the undivided and overwhelming responsibility of 
 promoting or neglecting the evangelization of the world. 
 They have been and are assiduously taught the reverse. It 
 is daily and hourly urged on them that nothing but ex- 
 travagance or wickedness can expect so much at their hands. 
 
25 
 
 Take a case too common. Here is an easy-minded Christian 
 giving the pounds to mammon and the pence to righteous- 
 ness, serving the flesh with the feast and the Spirit with the 
 fragments; making sacrifices for his credit, for his family, 
 for all and any objects but for his Saviour and for souls; 
 and to him Churchmen come and say, " Do you know 
 what these Voluntary Christians would have you to do? 
 They would actually have you to spend considerably 
 more for Christ and his kingdom! What absurdity I 
 We look for nothing sof irrational: at farthest, we enjoin 
 a very moderate generosity ; give us a pittance, and we 
 will go to the state for the rest — they must be wrong- 
 headed or wrong-hearted individuals who would draw more 
 largely on your love to your Lord." I am aware that strong 
 urgency is sometimes employed, but it generally contains 
 even then some self-destroying reservation. Witness the 
 following clause in the Assembly's circular: — " With their 
 utmost strenuousness the Committee will not raise more, 
 and that too in the course of years, than the requisite build- 
 ing expenses, after which the requisite endowment would 
 need to be provided for." Was there ever a more suicidal 
 appeal? A Christian community are told before hand how 
 little they will raise ; and this is the only sort of prophecy I 
 know of that can be safely made, because it has the virtue 
 of securing its own fulfilment. Yet, even with this hint 
 before them, exerting all its counteracting influence, the 
 Established Churches were beginning to do well. Many 
 noble subscriptions of £200 each were made in this city, 
 and also large collections obtained, which would have honoured 
 any ecclesiastical communion, when, lo ! reviving benevo- 
 lence is stifled by a clamorous application for additional 
 endowments I ! How is it possible for the Voluntary principle 
 to work fairly in these circumstances? What principle ever 
 wrought powerfully so distrusted, deserted, trifled with? 
 Now you appeal to it, now pronounce it powerless, now 
 adopt it for a moment, and now exchange it for its opposite. 
 The duty being divided with the magistrate, is half extin- 
 guished; a sense of obligation is proportionally impaired; 
 and, what is more, and worse, he who sliows himself strong 
 in behalf of those whose heart is perfect towards him, refuses 
 to bless a stinted dependence on his spirit. The church, 
 equally as the saint, must relinquish these earthly depend- 
 
 c 
 
26 
 
 ences, if it would prove and incontestibly evince the power 
 of the grace of God. How different from this contradic- 
 tory and vacillating appeal is that of our simple and 
 Scriptural system to the conscience. We come to pro- 
 fessed Christians, and say to them, — Now, don't deceive 
 yourselves; your Lord has devolved on you the conveyance 
 of his gospel. The trust is momentous, and it is unqualified. 
 In vain you invoke earthly powers to share it with you; you 
 have the whole accountability. In your hands is the trea- 
 sure. If you transmit it not, you are standing between the 
 blood of Christ and those for whom he died. You are in- 
 curring all the terrors of their destruction and his wrath. 
 But if you do transmit it; if, in love to the Saviour and to souls, 
 you do communicate his message to the perishing, then in the 
 greatest and most glorious work which the universe and eter- 
 nity ever contemplated, you enjoy the celestial honour of 
 working together with God; and when your work is closed 
 with your day on earth, you shall thereafter, having turned many 
 to righteousness, shine as the stars for ever and ever. The 
 mind which can resist these claims is dead to all godliaess. 
 They must tell on Christian sympathies. They are telling, 
 and that effectively. The standard of liberality is rapidly 
 rising, and the more all frigid legal resorts are abandoned, 
 and the more all defences of them are discredited, and the 
 more the one plea of Christian duty is enjoined and ad- 
 mitted, the more the standard of munificence will rise, till 
 the heretofore disheartened, disparaged charity — not the icy 
 charity of law, but the fervent charity of faith — shall rear 
 her gentle head into the heavens, and smile benignantly on 
 grateful nations, the glory and the joy of the whole earth. 
 
 BELL AND BAIN, PRINTERS, ROVAL EXCHANGE COURT. 
 
WORKS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 \o\iiiitary Clmrcli Controversy 
 
 TO BE HAD OF 
 
 JOHN KEIB Sc CO. 
 
 LECTURES ON 
 CXZUHCZI SSTABI-ISHMENTS. 
 
 Just Published, Price 3c?., Third Edition, Enlarged^ 
 
 LECTURE FIRST, 
 
 Under the Patronage of the Glasgow Voluntary Church 
 Society, 
 
 THE OPENING OF THE CASE, 
 By the Rev. Wm. Anderson. 
 
 Also, Price 6d. 
 
 Lectures Second and Fourth of the Series, By Dr. Wardlaw. 
 
 And Lecture Third, By Dr. Heugh, Price 3d. 
 
 Reid & Co. are preparing for Publication, Lecture Sixth by 
 the Rev. J. C. Ewing, Lecture Seventh by Mr. James Beith, 
 Lecture Eighth by the Rev. A. Harvey. 
 
 Dissertation on Church Polity. By A. C. Dick, Esq., 
 Advocate, 12mo., 48. 6d. 
 
 Spence on the Voluntary and Compulsory Systems of sup- 
 porting Religion, Is. 6d. 
 
 Dr. Brown's reply to charges brought against him in the 
 Scottish Guardian of April 10th, 1835, 2d. 
 
 Testimony of the Dissenting Wesleyan Methodists, against 
 the Union of Church and State, 3d. 
 
Dialogue on Church Establishments, Is. per. doz. 
 
 Second Report of the Glasgow Voluntary Church Associa- 
 tion, containing Speeches by Rev- A. Marshall, Rev. 
 Dr. Brown, and Rev. W. Anderson, 2d. 
 
 Short Catechism for the consideration of the Rev. James 
 Esdale, and others, 2d. 
 
 The Lame Restored ; being an Exposition of the Principles 
 of the Voluntary Church Association. By the Rev. W. 
 Anderson, 4d. 
 
 The Interference of the Civil Magistrate, with the Religious 
 Concerns of his Subjects Considered. By the Rev. D. 
 Crawford, Is. 
 
 Illustrations of Social Depravity, No. II. The Voluntary 
 Churchman, 6d. 
 
 National Churches allied to Despotism, and incompatible 
 with the Rights of Man. By Andrew Nicol, 2s. 
 
 Wardlaw's Sermon on Establishments, 6d. 
 
 Speech on Separation of Church and State, 4d. 
 
 Heugh's Considerations on Civil Establishments of Christi- 
 anity, Is. 
 
 The Principles of a Church Constitution opposed to Estab- 
 lishments. By the Rev. R. Hogg, 8d. 
 
 Toryism in Church and State Considered, in connection with 
 past events, Is. 
 
 Political Christianity — ineffective as a means of propagating 
 divine truth — pernicious to the nation, and obstructive 
 to religion, illustrated in the Statistics of Ireland, 2s. 6d. 
 
 Beverley's Letter to the Duke of Gloucester on the present 
 corrupt state of the University of Cambridge, Is. 
 
 Beverley's Letter to Lord Henley on Church Reform, Is. 
 
 Beverley's Reply to Sedgwick's Defence of the University of 
 Cambridge, Is. 
 
 Beverley's 1st and 2d Letter to tlie Archbishop of York on 
 the corrupt state of the Church of England, Is. each. 
 
LECTURE SIXTH: 
 
 UNDER THE PATRONAGE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE GLASGOW 
 VOLUNTARY CHURCH SOCIETY. 
 
 ON CHURCH REFORMS, ESPECIALLY THOSE 
 
 RECENTLY ATTEMPTED IN THE 
 
 SCOTTISH ESTABLISHMENT. 
 
 DELIVERED ON THE EVENING OF APRIL 7th, IK THE RELIEF CHAPEL, 
 JOiiN-STREET. 
 
 By the Rev. J. C. EWING. 
 
 MDCCCXXXV. 
 
 GLASGOW:— JOHN REID & CO. 
 
 EDINBURGH:— JOHN WARDLAW. 
 
 DUBLIN:— JOHN ROBERTSON & CO. 
 
 LONDON :— W HITTAKER & COMPANY. 
 
LECTURE Vr. 
 
 The department of the general subject which has been 
 assigned to me is that of Church Reforms. It merits cer- 
 tainly an attentive consideration, and may well claim to be 
 taken up as a distinct topic. Our opponents at least make 
 much of it. As in common life men of infirm virtue and 
 feeble resolution quiet their own conscience, and appease 
 their friends, by the purpose and the promise of amendment, 
 and live and die, resolving to change their plan; so the 
 friends of Church Establishments have unfailing recourse to 
 those reforms which are proposed, or in progress, or to be 
 accomplished, in order to avert the condemnation due to the 
 corruptions, inefficiency, and mischievous operation of their 
 system. It is not exactly that which has been or that which 
 is they engage to defend, but that which may be — the 
 Church as she will be when their favourite reforms have 
 been completed, and the improved machinery is in smooth 
 and unimpeded operation. The Reform of the Church is 
 the one sheet anchor by which she hopes to ride out the 
 tempest of controversy that is at present blowing about her. 
 Her advocates escape from the demonstration of the iniquity 
 and mischief of the system derived from the past by turning 
 to the future. They oppose to the veritable facts of history 
 the veriest fictions of hope; they imagine that the experience 
 of the past is to go for nothing as a test of the operation and 
 eflfects of the system : and they willingly would have it con- 
 ceded, that nothing should be brought into view as evidence, 
 but the harvest of good which they fondly hope is to spring 
 from the Reforms which are in progress, when once they are 
 perfected. These are to remove whatever is unsightly, ano- 
 malous, or detrimental — to silence all detractors, to reconcile 
 
4 
 
 all who have been alienated from the Churchy gently to 
 constrain them again to return within her pale, and to ex- 
 tinguish dissent. 
 
 When our opponents, then, make so much of their Church 
 Reforms, when they trust to these for blunting the edge of 
 every argument, and parrying every thrust, we may well be 
 excused ifor looking at them a little narrowly, for attempting 
 to estimate their character and amount — to ascertain the 
 direction in which they operate, the length to which they 
 go, and the results which will probably flow from them. 
 Such an inquiry is the more proper and necessary at pre- 
 sent; for we have at last, in the revolutions of time, come to 
 an age of Church Reform. We have got what, if it is not 
 strictly a new thing in the earth, is at least novel to us — 
 never before seen by the existing generation. We have, at 
 last, got something more than mere talk. We have, at 
 least in the Church of Scotland, got what is represented as a 
 thorough-going Church Reform, proposed, discussed, and 
 perfected, in one short Assembly. It might be invidious, 
 and it is perhaps unimportant to inquire, what is the precise 
 origin, and whence the speedy ripeness of this Church 
 Reform? — whether the honour of it is due to the pressure 
 from without, or the wisdom within? Perhaps rather it is 
 owing to a combination of both ; the reality of it being due 
 to the pressure from without, and the cautious and curiously 
 nice limitation of it to the wisdom within. Be that as it may, 
 — when our friends of the endowed Church invite us to 
 inspect their reforms — to contemplate their Ecclesiastical 
 Institution new- modelled, re-invigorated, and restored to 
 pristine strength and beauty by the wonder-working Veto, it 
 would certainly show a grievous lack both of courtesy and 
 curiosity on our part, did we not comply with their invita- 
 tion, and consider and report on their Church Reforms, pro- 
 posed or completed, fancied or real. 
 
 In the further consideration of the subject, we intend to 
 make some general observations on the subject of Church 
 Reforms, and then consider specifically the Reforms re- 
 cently attempted in the Church of Scotland. 
 
 We begin, then, by making some general observations on 
 the subject of Church Reforms. Our first remark is sug- 
 gested by the topics and the object of the preceding Lectures 
 in this Course. It has been shown you, that the civil 
 endowment of any form of Christianity is unscriptural and is 
 
unjust. And the process of argument on these points is so 
 simple, satisfactory, and conclusive, and has been so lumi- 
 nously exhibited, that we trust you are now in some measure 
 satisfied tbat Church Establishments are unscriptural and 
 unjust, and that it is a doing of evil that good may come, to 
 take a man's money from him without his consent, and 
 against his will, to propagate Christianity. Now, no correc- 
 tion of minor deformities, or incidental evils that attach to 
 existing Church Establishments, no improvements in their 
 structure or administration, no change in the mode of 
 levying tbeir compulsory support, so as to make it least 
 annoying, no transfer of the liability to pay tithe from the 
 tenant to the landlord, can alter the est^ential character or 
 destroy the distinguishing features of the system, can sanctify 
 injustice, or render robbery acceptable to God as burnt- 
 offering. You may, by reforms and alterations, conceal or 
 remove their more glaring defects, render their deformities 
 less conspicuous and offensive, limit the amount of inischief 
 they cause, make their evil tendency somewhat less malig- 
 nant and decisively marked, and somewhat increase the 
 amount of good from the preaching of the word and the 
 administration of the ordinances of Christianity within them ; 
 but after you have reformed, to your heart's content, the 
 principle of compulsory support on which they are based 
 remains unaffected; and while based on this principle, they 
 are and must be unscriptural and unjust. By all your ame- 
 liorations and reforms, you have merely enacted injustice in 
 its least oppres>ive form ; you have merely exhibited what is 
 unscriptural in its least repulsive aspect. Your reforms 
 cannot render that which is opposed to the law of Scripture 
 and the rule of right consonant to these, cannot render 
 Churches dependent on compulsory support, or a mainten- 
 ance for the ministers of Christ levied by the sword, less an 
 infraction of decency, religion, and equity. No; State 
 Churches must be wholly changed, not modified; they must 
 be revolutionized, not reformed; they must doff the king's 
 livery, which sits awkward on them, emancipate themselves 
 from their voluntary bondage, and be purely and merely 
 Churches of Christ. Their tribute-money must bear the 
 image and superscription of Christ, not that of Caesar, and 
 must be rendered from respect to Christ's law, not from 
 respect to Csesar's decree. 
 
 And as no Reforms can alter their essential injustice, 
 
6 
 
 so neither can they destroy their inlierent evil tendencies, 
 though they may modify the exhibition of tliese. As what 
 is unjust is always injurious, and as what is iinscriptural is 
 always unwise, so Churches maintained by compulsory 
 support must always be, however reformed, an offence 
 against enlightened expediency, as well as against Scriptural 
 truth and equal justice. They still must keep " in a state 
 of unnatural separation those who ought to be united; and 
 in a state of unnatural union those who ought to be separ- 
 ate." Their tendency, as exhibited in their effects, must 
 still be " to secularize religion, promote hypocrisy, perpetu- 
 ate error, produce infidelity, destroy the unity and the 
 purity of the Church, and disturb the peace and order of 
 civil society." The laws of eternal justice cannot be des- 
 pised, or Scriptural principles departed from with impunity. 
 If men trust to -the wisdom of man for their guidance, they 
 will find that it is foolishness with God; if they labour in 
 vanity, they must reap vexation of heart ; and if they resign 
 themselves to the operation of a false principle, it must 
 conduct them to mischievous results. Every thing acts 
 according to its nature; and so must a principle which, like 
 that of Church Establishments, is unjust and unscriptural. 
 No management can make it innocuous. You may dam up 
 the stream; you may bank it in; you may cut new channels 
 for it; yet still the water flows downwards, and seeks through 
 every devious cliannel, and finds at last the level of ocean. 
 So you may reform Church Establishments as you please, as 
 far as their distinguishing principle of compulsory support 
 operates, it will lead to evil. The paltering of Churchmen 
 in their attempted reforms, is like the vain efforts of the 
 mariners of Tarshish in rowing against the tempest, when 
 they had the fugitive prophet aboard. They carry with 
 them an unhappy freight; and Jonah must go overboard 
 ere the sea be calm and heaven propitious. 
 
 A very instructive light is thrown on the character and 
 operation of the system of Church Establishments, by the 
 lateness of tlie period at which these Church Reforms have 
 been seriously proposed, and the terms in which, at this late 
 period, the friends of the endowed churches speak of the 
 perishing necessity in which they are of such reforms. These 
 reforms have been seriously proposed — at the eleventh hour, 
 w^hen the existence of Church Establishments was in peril — 
 when their partizans had been driven successively from every 
 
position to the very boundary, and had turned to bay in the 
 last field of their domain. They have made a show of seri- 
 ously setting about the reform of their institutions, when it 
 was no longer a question whether they could retain their 
 abuses entire, when the question had become, whether they 
 should be reformed, or altogether abated as an intolerable 
 nuisance. That matters had come to this point, is not our 
 statement merely. It is that of their own friends. Mr. 
 Ewing, late member for the City, when presiding at the 
 Glasgow Anti-Patronage meeting, declared, that the " ques- 
 tion was not now, whether we should have a reformed or an 
 unreformed church ; but whether we should have a reformed 
 church, or no churclj at all." If, then, the Church of Scot- 
 land has at last, in any degree, shown a disposition to accept 
 of reform, it has, on the showing of her own friends, only 
 been when she could do no better^ when she stood on the 
 brink of annihilation as an endow^ed church, when her ex- 
 istence was perilled by the continuance of her abuses, in 
 their entire and unreformed state, — when the question was, 
 " non an imperet, sed an esset" Now, at all times, men 
 acquainted with human nature, have had a salutary distrust 
 of the sincerity of death-bed repentances, of compulsory 
 reformations, of confessions of guilt, and promises of amend- 
 ment, made to prevent the enforcement and execution of the 
 the last sentence of the law. They are seldom sufficient 
 and satisfactory in themselves, or of good promise as to their 
 results. When the excitement of terror is allayed, and the 
 pressure of constraint is removed, these death-bed penitents 
 commonly relapse into their old courses. We are distrust- 
 ful, therefore, of the Church's reforms ; for on the testimony 
 of her own sick nurses and quack doctors, she has yielded 
 to them, not till she was at the point of extremity. 
 
 While the lateness of the period at which reforms have 
 been seriously proposed, throws suspicion on the heartiness 
 with which they have been gone into, it also throws most 
 grievous suspicion on the worth of the institutions them- 
 selves. On the acknowledgment of their friends, they are. 
 and have been intolerable. And yet it is only late in the 
 evening of tlieir day, and when urged on them from without 
 by the voice of public sentiment, in a tone which they dare 
 not disregard, that tardily and unwillingly, tliey have at last 
 turned to the consideration of Church Reform, as a practical 
 ijuestion. To avail myself of the words of one of the Lee- 
 
8 
 
 turers who preceded me, on another occasion, it may be re- 
 marked, that " the most esteemed writers on the other side 
 distinctly declare, that unless the reforms which they pro- 
 pound, be speedily effected, the connexion of Church and 
 State must inevitably be dissolved. Such representations 
 embody a most important acknowledgment. The civil es- 
 tablishment of Christianity has beeri tried on a wide scale, 
 and for a long period. It was introduced first into the Ro- 
 man Empire, then into all the nations of Europe, and has 
 subsisted from the fourth century to the present time. It 
 might be supposed, then, that the proof of experience would 
 be considered complete. But, after all that has transpired, 
 we are required to believe on the one hand, that the attempt 
 to improve Christianity by legal assessments, has been 
 hitherto so unhappy, that the Scottish Establishment, ac- 
 knowledged to be the purest on earth, depends for its very 
 existence on immediate and extensive reforms ; and yet, on 
 the other hand, our modern churchmen are equally resolute 
 in exacting the conviction, that the experiment has only to 
 be tried a little longer, modified according to their wise 
 suggestions, in order to be absolutely successful. Surely, 
 they must have a very good opinion of their own judgment, 
 if they charge us with presumption, because we confide less 
 in their prospective planning, than in historical testimony, 
 so extended and enduring."* 
 
 This is an important and instructive view of the point. 
 There must be some thing inherently and incurably wrong 
 in the system — there must be some mischievous and malig- 
 nant tendency in the institutions, which can neither be re- 
 moved nor restrained, since after being tried through suc- 
 cessive centuries, in all variety of forms, and in all diversity 
 of circumstances, their more enlightened and dispassionate 
 friends, cannot accept the best of them as it stands, without 
 reform. After so lengthened and so diversified an experience 
 of them, we may warrantably conclude, that their pervading 
 evils and defects are not incidental or adventitious, but 
 essential and inherent ; that their evils are part and parcel 
 of them, and must live and die with them ; that they are the 
 native and necessary effects of the principle of establish- 
 ments, and that it has been not the misfortune, but the crime 
 
 * Speech of Rev. D. King, at the meeting of the Edinburgh Vo- 
 luntary Church Association. 
 
of Church Establishments, that they have been miserably 
 constructed, have worked ill, and have generated and gathered 
 abuses as they waxed old. 
 
 To take the single point of Patronage ; where have we 
 ever seen an Established Church, secure in her endowments, 
 free from this stain? And were Patronage extirpated root 
 and branch from any Established Church, how long would 
 the civil powers leave her in the undisturbed enjoyment of 
 her endowments? Yet what is the estimate formed by the 
 warmest advocates of Establishments, of the worth of a 
 Church with Patronage as its concomitant? Take it in the 
 words of Mr. Sinclair, chairman of the committee of the 
 House of Commons on the subject of Patronage, at the 
 Anti-Patronage meeting in Edinburgh. " Whatever effect 
 may be produced by the declaration, I have no hesitation in 
 declaring, that if I was asked whether I would rather see the 
 church destroyed as an establishment, than patronage co-ex- 
 isting along with it, I must say, that although I utter this 
 with pain and sorrow at heart, but yet still I must say, that 
 I would not hesitate to prefer the former alternative." Now, 
 we call upon you not only to mark the solemnity with which 
 this declaration of sentiment is made, but also the tenor and 
 the terms of it. He does not say, that if he were asked 
 whether he would see an Establishment erected with patron- 
 age co-existing with it, or none, he would rather have none 
 at all ; but if he were asked whether he would see the church 
 destroyed as an Establishment, or patronage co-existing with 
 it, he would rather have it destroyed. Well, then, as his 
 patronage committee has ended in smoke, as clerical church- 
 men on a nearer view and a more careful consideration of 
 the matter, think it safest not to touch patronage, as there is 
 no present prospect of its being abolished, we count on the 
 vigorous and efficient co-operation of Mr. Sinclair. As an 
 honest man, he will doubtless, this very session, and in the 
 teeth of Sir Robert Peel, move, in the terms of his own 
 solemnly recorded sentiments, that as patronage is found co- 
 existing with her, the Church be destroyed as an Establish- 
 ment. 
 
 My hearers, and especially those of them who are church- 
 men, must not suppose that there is in my mind the slightest 
 feeling of regret at the recent agitation for Church Reform, 
 late as is the period at which it has commenced. From the 
 bottom of my heart, I rejoice in the activity and the success 
 A 2 
 
10 
 
 of the agitation for Church Reform, both as beneficial in its 
 direct effects on the endowed sect, and in its ultimate opera- 
 tion, as eminently auspicious to the success of our cause. 
 There is one effect it necessarily produces, which is instruc- 
 tive to all, and which cannot be without its influence on those 
 pious and candid churchmen who are sincerely concerned for 
 the interests of religion, and the honour and independence 
 of the Church of Christ. The agitation of topics of Church 
 Reform ever tends to bring the church and state into colli- 
 sion, and to force attention on that dependence of their 
 institution on the civil power, which churchmen willingly 
 forget, and on which they suffer a convenient obscurity to 
 rest. Pensioned churches must be more or less tributaries 
 to the treasury. If " nourished by the king's country," they 
 must desire peace with him. In the words of the biographer 
 of Wycliffe, if Christian societies " will look for something 
 more than protection, let them look for something less than 
 independence. Let them descend to become pensioners, and 
 they will cease to be free." It galls, however, the honest 
 pride and praiseworthy independence of the better sort of 
 churchmen, to have the real state of matters told them, or 
 to have it practically brought home to their feelings by events. 
 T hey would willingly hide even from themselves the chain which 
 they wear ; they make a virtue of necessity. They console 
 and amuse themselves with the forms of freedom, with the 
 show of independence, when they have lost their spirit and 
 substance. They put a bold declaration, perhaps, in their 
 standards, like our Scottish Church, that Jesus Christ is the 
 sole Head of the Church, and direct their Moderator to dis- 
 solve their Assembly as an ecclesiastical act, contemporane- 
 ously with its dissolution by His Majesty's Commissioner, as 
 a civil act. They vapour a little in words, and talk big, as 
 if they would not suffer the honour and independence of their 
 church to lie under impeachment; — all the while, however, 
 cautiously taking care not to provoke the superior power to 
 put an authoritative negative on their proceedings. And it 
 is an amusing instance of the facility of self-deception, to 
 see how far they succeed by these arts, in concealing from 
 themselves the degradation of their position, and persuading 
 themselves into the belief of their unshackled freedom, and 
 entire independence. But let a time of agitation for Church 
 Reform come about, let them outstep the limits of their ac- 
 
11 
 
 customed caution, let them venture on bolder and more 
 efficient measures than the small matters of ecclesiastical 
 regulation in which they usually deal, let them touch a stone 
 of the fabric which the state has compacted, and alter what 
 has been defined and limited by Act of Parliament; — and it 
 requires no prophet's mantle to foresee what will be the re- 
 sult. There will be collision with the state ; the slumbering 
 independence of churchmen will be roused ; and when the 
 state authoritatively enforces its control over the church, 
 checks and chides her for acting- for herself, the more honest 
 and faithful churchmen will come out from her, and be se- 
 parate. There will be a new Secession, in order to the 
 following out of begun reformation. These newest of all 
 new light Seceders, will for a time occupy the position, and 
 hold the language, and assert the general principles of the 
 Original Seceders. But more favourably circumstanced as 
 practical separatists from the endowed church, for the un- 
 biassed consideration of the question, they will eventually 
 become voluntary churchmen. And we may venture to 
 predict, that from the altered state of matters, and the pro- 
 gress of enlightened views in the public mind, it will not, 
 this time, take a hundred years to perfect the revolution of 
 sentiment. Nay, we think it probable, that as to the general 
 question of the voluntary support of the gospel, the scales 
 will fail from the eyes of many of them, in the very act of 
 coming out of the endowed church. 
 
 Let us revert to actual circumstances as illustrative of our 
 general reasonings here. AVe will afterwards take occasion 
 to show, how paltry and inefficient, except for the gendering 
 of strife, is the measure of last Assembly as to the veto. 
 And yet even as to this small matter of reform, Dr. Cook 
 has clearly shown, tliat they have outstepped their province 
 and their powers. They may, indeed, give him pamphlet 
 for pamphlet, and reply to his arguments by a show of rea- 
 soning, and carry on the warfare with the " paper pellets of 
 the brain." Tliat, however, is child's play. When the 
 question is brought into the civil courts, (as who doubts it 
 will, from the number of cases depending, and the obvious 
 interest of presentees?) then comes tlie real tug of war. 
 And when the civil courts decide, in accordance with the 
 declared opinion of the best legal authorities, that the pre- 
 sentee, rejected by the veto of the majority of heads of 
 
12 
 
 families, has, notwithstanding that rejection, the legal right 
 to the benefice, will the vaunted pretences of our church- 
 men about the independence of their chnrch, go for nothing? 
 Shall we think them so dead and cold of heart, so poor in 
 spirit, as after having magnified this pet reform, after having 
 spoken of its vital necessity and importance, after having 
 represented the very existence of their church, as depending 
 on its being carried, tamely to submit to have it nullified by 
 the civil courts? Will they eat in their declarations, or will 
 they act on them ? Will they openly wear their dishonour, 
 or will they wipe it off? Doubtless we will have the reform- 
 ing majority of last Assembly, renouncing connection with 
 the Church of Scotland, and organizing churches, in which 
 neither kings, nor courts, nor commissioners dare interfere 
 to abridge their Christian liberties. They must either pur- 
 sue this course, or stand condemned before the world, out of 
 their own mouth, as dishonest and insincere, as having merely 
 sought, by plausible and hollow pretences, to amuse and 
 mislead the people. 
 
 So much for the necessary effect of actively pushing 
 Church Reforms, in bringing Church and State into colli- 
 sion, and enlightening Churchmen on the actual and de- 
 grading dependence on the State in which their Institution 
 is placed. There is another effect that must necessarily 
 result from pushing Church Reform actively. It must tend 
 to sunder the discordant elements which in the State Church 
 are held in strange and unseemly combination. It has been 
 well stated that the principle of a compulsory support of 
 religious Institutions, not only keeps in a state of unnatural 
 separation those who ought to be united, but in a state of 
 unnatural union those who ought to be separate. There is 
 obviously, on the part of the clerical members of Church 
 Establishments, an extensive, and flagrant, and dishonest 
 compromise of religious principle. This, which is avowedly 
 and undeniably the case in the English and Irish Churches, 
 is also, to a considerable extent, the case in the Scottish 
 Church. There meet in her Church courts, there mingle in 
 her communion, there stand together in her pulpits, men 
 who, as to religio s spirit and character, are as opposite and 
 irreconcileable as light and darkness. In saying so, we are 
 merely re-echoing the statements made by their own minis- 
 ters. It is the statement of Dr. Burns of Paisley, in a 
 
13 
 
 sermon preached before the most Evangelical of their Synods, 
 approved by its sanction, and published at its request, that 
 there are in the Scottish Church " men who can eat her 
 bread, while they do not her work — men who can preach 
 Socinian, Pelagian, or Antinomian heresies, while they sub- 
 scribe a Calvinistic creed — men who can prostitute the 
 chair of truth to the gratification of a base and brutal spirit 
 of personal revenge— men who can abuse the holy discipline 
 of the Church to the purposes of fell malignity — men whose 
 zeal never kindles save only when ' the rights of the Church,' 
 as they term them, are supposed to be in danger — men who 
 disgrace their calling by the grossness of intemperance, and 
 the scandals of profligacy." He adds, moreover, that among 
 these may sometimes be seen the loudest and boldest of the 
 Church's defenders. Now, along with these, we all know- 
 that there are in the Scottish Church many holy, faithful, 
 and Christian men. We suppose we must not say what is 
 the nature of the bond that links together these ill-assorted 
 materials. We suppose that we must not hazard the con- 
 jecture that it may be a golden one, and therefore the 
 heavier and the harder to break. But we may at least state 
 the fact, that in our State Churches there are held in unna- 
 tural union those who ought to be separate; that the chilling 
 breath of Church Establishments has frozen into one hetero- 
 geneous mass, water, sticks, and straws. Now, what will 
 separate the discordant mass? A genial thaw will do it: 
 the raising of the temperature to a sufficient height will do 
 it; for it is only at or under the freezing point that the union 
 is perfectly safe. The infusion of a spirit of searching 
 inquiry into religious abuses, of a spirit of honest, thorough- 
 going, and efficient Chiirch Reform, would pass through the 
 mass like the electric spark through the chemical mixture, 
 resolving it into the dis-similar elements which are held in 
 artificial combination. Let Church Reform be pushed with 
 sufficient activity, and you infallibly divide the Church. The 
 parties cannot drag on together; and, as aversion increases, 
 the couples must either be unloosed or broken. The truth 
 is, that such are the discordant elements combined in State 
 Churches, that either extreme, in the progress of corruption 
 or in that of purification, is fatal to their entireness. They 
 are like the glass globe filled with water, and hermetically 
 sealed, which is in danger of being broken from either ex- 
 
14 
 
 treme of heat or cold. Cool it down too far; and the globe 
 is shivered by the expansion of the water in congealing. 
 Heat it too much ; and the globe is shivered by the expansion 
 of the water in passing into vapour. 
 
 We have said that we rejoice in the activity and success 
 of the agitation for Church Reform, as in its ultimate opera- 
 tion eminently auspicious to the success of our cause. Every 
 act of efficient Church Reform makes the connection be- 
 tween Church and State more awkward and unseemly; 
 makes the ministers and members of the Church more ill at 
 ease in that connection, and paves the way for the gradual 
 transmuting of her into a purely Voluntary Church. All 
 thorough-going Church Reform verges on the grand result 
 of the separation of Church and State. This is not only, in 
 our estimation, its tendency, and would, according to our 
 belief, be its result ; — even the dullest Churchmen them- 
 selves, amid some confusion of idea, often stumble on the 
 acknowledgment ; and the more clear-headed distinctly re- 
 cognize it. The acknowledgment has been made equally by 
 those who are averse to thorough-going Church Reform, and 
 by those who are favourable to it. It has been made by 
 those who are averse to it, as by Dr. Cook, who bluntly 
 stated that they must break their compact with the State, 
 and renounce their dependence on it, before they could do 
 all acts to which a Church of Christ is competent. It has 
 been made by those who are favourable to it, as in the late 
 pamphlet of Mr. Bridges, the brother of the well-known 
 expositor of the cxix. Psalm. He is a Churchman, and a 
 member of the English Establishment; he would stand by 
 her to the last, and reform her. He blames those of the 
 Evangelical party who are quitting the Church, from con- 
 scientious, but, he thinks, mistaken motives. Now, here is 
 his pattern of Church Reform. After proposing that the 
 bishops be withdrawn from their parliamentary duties; that 
 the discipline and ecclesiastical affairs of each diocese be 
 managed by a convention of clergy, and lay delegates, with 
 the bishop as chairman; that the bishops be chosen by these 
 conventions, he adds: — "I do not see why every one of the 
 alterations here enumerated could not, together with the 
 annihilation of pluralities, be included in a single comprehen- 
 sive, well-digested measure, to be entitled the Church Re- 
 form 1)111. Its preamble might recognize the principle of 
 
15 
 
 separation between church and state, enacting all the above- 
 mentioned improvements, as the incipient results of such 
 recognition; leaving it for time and circumstances to com- 
 plete the divorced You will see, then, that while a suspicion 
 of the truth occasionally comes across the dullest of them, 
 the more clear-headed, whether averse to efficient Church 
 Reform, or favourable to it, distinctly recognize the fact, 
 that it verges on the grand result of the separation of Church 
 and State. 
 
 We now proceed to consider the Reforms recently at- 
 tempted in the Scottish Establishment. In proceeding to 
 consider these, perhaps we ought to say something here in 
 reference to the oft-repeated remark, that had those who 
 seceded from the Church of Scotland remained within her 
 pale, and so strengthened the hands of the reforming party, 
 had they not weakened it by their secession, practical, 
 effective, and important reforms would have been carried 
 much sooner. We think such an expectation wholly un- 
 founded; and the blame cast on those who retired from the 
 Church of Scotland, rather than wound their conscience by 
 remaining, as if this were a selfish and ungenerous course, 
 is eminently unreasonable and indecent. 
 
 As to the retirement of those who commenced the Seces- 
 sion, they had been censured at the bar of the Assembly 
 merely for petitioning against its acts. They had the liberty 
 of entering their dissent from the acts of any of the Church 
 courts, however nefarious, taken away. Mr. Erskine was 
 censured for preaching against the corruptions of the Church, 
 and, with those who adhered to him, suspended from the 
 ministerial office, because they protested for liberty to testify 
 against the defections of the Church on proper occasions. 
 And Mr. Gillespie, who commenced the Relief, was deposed 
 simply because he declined being present at the induction of 
 a presentee, who was opposed by the whole body of the 
 parishioners. Now, after having thrust good men out of 
 the Church, because they ventured to express their disap- 
 proval of her policy, or even simply because by their conduct 
 they tacitly indicated their disapproval, it is the height of 
 indecency for Reforming Churchmen to turn round and 
 hypocritically say, they ought to have remained within the 
 Church. Why! the Church thrust them out, because they 
 dared move a lip, or wag a finger, in disapproval of its 
 
16 
 
 acts. If they had remained, it must have been gagged and 
 bound; — precluded from any ecclesiastical resistance to the 
 tyranny of the dominant party. 
 
 Again, we have the testimony of Dr. Chalmers, that the 
 Church cannot dispense with Dissenters, cannot continue in 
 any moderate degree incorrupt, or active, unless kept from 
 settling on her lees by the rivalry of opposition on the part 
 of the private adventurers. On the Doctor's own showing, 
 then, those who seceded from her supplied the preserving 
 salt, and the exciting stimulant, without which she would 
 have become incurably lethargic and corrupt, would, "amid 
 the darkness and silence she had herself induced, have drawn 
 the curtains around her, and retired to repose." 
 
 Moreover, by seceding from the church, the four brethren 
 who originated the Secession brought the church a length, in 
 four years, which, had they remained within her pale, they 
 would not have done in forty. In 1732 the Church of Scotland 
 was verging fast to the lowest point of corruption; and, in 
 her defections and ecclesiastical tyranny, had forgotten even 
 vulgar decency. The General Assembly had refused per- 
 mission even to record dissents against its own acts. Yet 
 four men, at first treated with scorn and contumely, by 
 resisting the fulminations of the church, and threatening to 
 erect a separate religious party, brought the assembly, in 
 four short years, to make the memorable declaration in 
 1736, that " it is, and has been, ever since the Reformation, 
 the principle of the Church, that no minister shall be in- 
 truded into any parish contrary to the will of the congrega- 
 tions; and therefore, it is seriously recommended to all 
 judicatories of this church, to have a due regard to the said 
 principle in planting vacant congregations, as they regard 
 the glory of God, and the edification of the body of Christ." 
 There is nothing operates upon a corrupt church with so 
 speedy and powerful effect as a little wholesome secession. 
 It is like blood-letting to an inflammatory patient. The 
 quantity withdrawn may bear a small proportion to the 
 whole body; but, small as it may be, it suflices to abate the 
 fever, arrest the inflammation, restore the patient to a 
 measure of reason, and delay, at least for a time, the doom 
 of death. We will promise the small section of clerical 
 Churchmen, who are honestly for having patronage removed 
 root and branch, that if they pursue that course which 
 
17 
 
 honesty and conscience dictate to them — if, denouncing 
 patronage as unscriptural, they will come out from the church 
 with which it is incorporated, and refuse to have any longer 
 connection with what is unscriptural, they will do more for 
 Church Reform, by this one act of secession, than they have 
 done by half a century of struggles within her bosom. 
 
 We add, as of itself sufficient justification of those who 
 at any time retired from the Church of Scotland, that we 
 are not to do evil that good may come; and that these good 
 men did right without calculating consequences, to obey the 
 dictate of conscience, by renouncing unscriptural connections. 
 The effects have justified the wisdom of this course, as well 
 as its honesty. Had it not been for the separations from 
 her, the Church of Scotland would never have been arrested 
 in her course of corrupt defection and ecclesiastical tyranny, 
 and at this day she would not have been in the state of com- 
 parative purity in which she is. And had it not been for the 
 increasing numbers, and imposing attitude of DisL^enters, 
 who is so simple as to believe that any one of the recent re- 
 forms in the Scottish Church, whatever be their value, would 
 have been effected. 
 
 The recent enactment of the Assem.bly, in reference to 
 Patronage and Calls, claims our special attention; as afford- 
 ing a measure both of the honesty and the wisdom of our 
 Reforming Churchmen in the Scottish Establishment. Let 
 us mark not only what they did, but what they declined 
 doing. They adopted the Veto; but they rejected the pro- 
 posal to take measures for procuring the abolition of patron- 
 age. 
 
 The circumstances connected with the anti- patronage 
 movement are too recent to have yet dropped from your 
 recollection. Evangelical churchmen went all lengths in 
 denouncing patronage. Language seemed to fail them m 
 describing its mischievous operation and mournful effects. 
 Anti-patronage petitions were got up in every part of the 
 country. An anti -patronage lecturer perambulated the 
 country, to enlighten the people on the subject, and rouse 
 their slumbering zeal. The table of the Assembly groaned 
 with anti-patronage overtures. The Grey ministry were 
 soundly rated for their want of zeal and forwardness, in 
 taking measures to remove that mother of mischiefs — patron- 
 age ; and a parliamentary committee endeavoured, by labori- 
 
18 
 
 ous examinations, to ascertain what would be the probable 
 effects of abolishing patronage, and having recourse to 
 popular elections in the ecclesiastical as in other corporations. 
 Well, what has it all issued in? Why, the act restoring 
 patronages still stands on the statute-book unrepealed and 
 unaltered. Patrons still present: still as of yore, the patron 
 may be an infant, an idiot, or an infidel. Even the papist 
 has still his right unabridged to present to the benefice in 
 the Protestant Church. Yet there has come a perfect lull 
 in the anti-patronage tempest. Even the pink of Scottish 
 Presbyteries — the Paisley one — does not venture on an anti- 
 patronage overture. And the anti-patronage lecturer's occupa- 
 tion is gone ; and he has had to sheathe his sword, as if for 
 lack of argument. And what is the explanation of all this? 
 Why, they have discovered that the parable of the tares 
 may have an application to the case. The patronage tare 
 has certainly been sown by an enemy's hand ; and their first 
 thought — and the most honest one — was to have the field 
 cleared of it. But, on reflection, there sprung some doubt, 
 whether this might not incur the hazard of disturbing the 
 good seed of endowments. Therefore, they have let the 
 tares stand untouched, lest the endowments should be up- 
 rooted; not, I suppose, that they hate patronage less, but 
 that they love endowments more. This course is liable to 
 the objection, that it may be a little awkward and inconveni- 
 ent should .iheir parishioners, who responded so promptly to 
 their call to petition against patronage, think of asking them 
 if they were really in earnest, and meant what they said. 
 As, however, they have chosen their own course, it is their 
 part, not ours, to defend it, and to explain to their parishion- 
 ers its entire consistency with their former professions. 
 
 The Assembly's recent enactment is to the following 
 effect. A list of communicants is to be made up every year 
 in each parish. In the event of a vacancy, the patron still, 
 as hitherto, presents whom he chooses; but, if a majority of 
 the male heads of families enter a dissent on the day of the 
 call's being moderated, and if, after repeated hearing of the 
 presentee, and being dealt with by the Presbytery, and being 
 called on individually to make a solemn declaration that 
 they are not influenced by factious motives, but by a regard 
 to their spiritual welfare, a majority shall still he against the 
 presentee, he shall be rejected. 
 
19 
 
 It is evident that in this enactment the Assembly have 
 gone beyond their province and their powers, and have 
 ventured to provoke a trial of the question — which must 
 speedily be brought to issue in the civil courts — whether an 
 enactment of the Assembly can, in certain cases, and to a 
 certain extent, nullify and effectually obstruct the exercise 
 of a right, secured by parliamentary statute. On this point 
 the reasonings of Dr. Cook, in his late pamphlet, are clear 
 and satisfactory. The law assigns, on the one hand, to the 
 patron the right to present to the benefice, and on the other 
 to the church courts the right to induct; and, as a prelimi- 
 nary, to judge of the moral and literary qualifications of the 
 presentee. If the church courts pronounce the presentee 
 disqualified from defect of morals or of literary qualifications, 
 their judgment legally and sufficiently obstructs the patron's 
 presentation from taking effect. But the recent enactment 
 of the Assembly does not define or declare any personal 
 qualification necessary in the presentee — a thing within their 
 province. It sets up an arbitrary rule, that the objection of 
 a majority of the male heads of families, being members, 
 shall render the patron's presentation null and void: and we 
 have no doubt that the civil courts will hold the presentee 
 rejected by this arbitrary rule, legally entitled to the benefice. 
 
 Passing by this, let us gather up the anomalies included 
 in the enactment. It gives the right of objecting only to 
 the male heads of families, not to females. This cannot 
 arise from any strained or mistaken interpretation of the 
 apostle's rule, that a woman is not permitted to speak in the 
 church; for they allow a woman to appoint a minister, but 
 not to object to him. The Countess of Sutherland can 
 appoint to nearly all the parishes of a Presbytery, as they 
 su(?cessively fall vacant; but the godly Mrs. Janet Brown 
 cannot state her dissent to the Countess's presentee, who is 
 to be over her in the Lord. The countess is elevated to an 
 imscriptural height of prerogative in the church, lording it 
 over God's heritage; but the matron is depressed beneath 
 the common level of Christian privilege, as being of no 
 account. 
 
 Again, the enactment arbitrarily assigns to a certain class 
 — heads of families — the exclusive privilege and power of 
 objecting against the presentee, as not calculated to be a 
 suitable pastor to them— a point the other communicants 
 
20 
 
 may be as well qualified for deciding on as tliey. A man 
 may be a licentiate of the church, qualified to receive a pre- 
 sentation, and to take the charge of a parish, yet not be 
 qualified to enter a dissent against the most imbecile trifler, 
 that ever, by the arts of sycophancy, recommended himself 
 to a worthless patron. 
 
 While the Assembly affect to concede to the male heads 
 of families the right of objecting, they are careful to obstruct 
 its exercise, by as many impediments and limitations as 
 possible. Dissents can be notified only at one time and 
 place — in the parish church, on the day of moderation. 
 After that, the dissentients are open to the arts, influ- 
 ence, and solicitations of the patron, the presentee, and the 
 Presbytery, to induce them to fall from their dissent: but, 
 however the unfavourable impression against the presentee 
 may spread, no additional dissents can be received. The 
 patron, the presentee, or any member of Presbytery, may 
 require the dissentients, individually and severally, to declare 
 that they are not influenced by factious feeling, but by a 
 regard to their spiritual welfare; and if any hesitate or refuse 
 to do this, their names are to be struck off the list of dissen- 
 tients. Yet the patron is not required to make any declara- 
 tion that he is influenced by a regard to the spiritual welfare 
 of the parishioners, in his selection of the presentee, though 
 this were more natural, and is more necessary than the 
 other. 
 
 The most indecent part of the enactment has yet to be 
 brought into view. If the patron neglect to present within 
 six months of a vacancy occurring, the right of presentation 
 <levolves on the Presbytery. Dr. Cook has shown, that, 
 according to the regulations of the enactment, a Presbytery, 
 if they have an opposing majority in the vacant parish to 
 work with, can without any great artifice, commonly prevent 
 the patron from having an opportunity of presenting a 
 second time in the six months, should the first presentee be 
 rejected. And should the right of presentation devolve on 
 the Presbytery, the right of objecting on the part of the 
 male heads of families at once falls to the ground. There 
 is one law for patrons, and another for Presbyteries. The 
 patron's presentee is fair game. The arrows of the veto 
 may be let fly at him ; and the dissents stuck in him may 
 bristle all over him, like the quills of the fretful porcupine. 
 
21 
 
 But the Presbytery's presentee is a tabooed personage. The 
 shield of ecclesiastical privilege is thrown over him. Not a 
 voice may be lifted against him. 
 
 We avail ourselves of the language of Dr. Cook, in cha- 
 racterizing this piece of clerical ambition and encroachment 
 on popular rights by our zealous Church Reformers: — " The 
 exposition which has been given of the new scheme, renders 
 it most manifest, that it is perfectly vain, and almost insult- 
 ing, to talk of it as a great boon conferred on the people. 
 With a view to what is the purpose of all nominations to 
 parishes, it actually confers on them nothing at all. It gives 
 them, it is true, the strange right of rejecting, without the 
 shadow of a reason, the person named by the patron, but it 
 does not give them the slightest power to procure the object 
 of their own choice. When they have succeeded in nullify- 
 ing one presentation, they may, in rare cases, have the satis- 
 faction, if they so regard it, of nullifying another; but the 
 issue of all this is, that they serve merely as a stepping-stone 
 to the Presbytery to seize the patron's right, that the clergy 
 themselves may exercise it; and when they have once got 
 the right, the nullifying process is at an end, and the congre- 
 gation are, as to the induction of their minister, just as they 
 were before the enactment, with this one difference, that 
 instead of getting their pastor from the patron, they get 
 him from the neighbouring clergy, who had amused them 
 with the idea of having struggled for popular privileges, but 
 which, without scruple, when it suits their inclination, or 
 their interest, they wholly disregard." 
 
 In short, the operation of the enactment will be, that in 
 some cases it may take the appointment of the minister out 
 of the hands of the patron ; but in no case does it give it to 
 the people: it merely transfers it to the presbytery. And, when 
 this does take place, in many Highland and rural districts, 
 the appointment will be in most miserable hands. 
 
 Observe, too, that this enactment, which, when the pre- 
 sentation devolves on the Presbytery, takes away all right 
 from the people to object to their presentee, and requires 
 them to receive him, however obnoxious to tbem, proceeds 
 from those who, in the very same act, " declare that it is 
 a fundamental law of this church, that no pastor shall be 
 intruded on any congregation contrary to the will of the 
 people." The preamble and principle of the law, and this 
 
22 
 
 enactment, stare flat contradiction at each other. They are 
 as directly opposed, and as wide asunder as East and West. 
 The preamble declares that it is a fundamental law of the 
 church, that no pastor shall be intruded on any congregation 
 contrary to the will of the people. And, in order that this 
 principle may be carried into full effect, as they ludicrously 
 pretend, it is enacted that the Presbytery's presentee shall 
 be inducted whether the people be pleased or whether they 
 he displeased — that should he be unacceptable to them, still 
 he shall be intruded contrary to the will of the people, and 
 that they shall have no remedy. I may make bold to say, 
 that in Ecclesiastical procedure this stands nearly without a 
 parallel for gross inconsistency, barefaced hypocrisy, and 
 contempt of common decency. 
 
 The review we have taken of this recent attempt at Re- 
 form in the Scottish Church, naturally throws us back on 
 our opening remark, that no reform of an Ecclesiastical 
 Institution, which is based on an unscriptural and unjust 
 principle, can, in the nature of things, be sufficient or satis- 
 factory. You might as well hope to give stability to a 
 building whose foundation was insecure, by repairs of the 
 roof, or the plastering of the walls. It is constructed on a 
 false foundation; and the foundation must be changed, 
 before the structure can be mended. If you would effectu- 
 ally reform our Established Churches, you must re-construct 
 them on the platform of Scripture, on the gospel plan. As 
 it vv^as justly said in the recent debate in Parliament on the 
 appropriation question, it is not a modification of the tithe- 
 law we want, but a new principle. Till we get that, all 
 Church Reforms will be but skinning over the festering 
 wound ; but wreathing with flowers the fetters in which the 
 church is bound; but easing the yoke on one part of the 
 shoulder, to make it press more painfully on some other. 
 
 " Reform and ameliorate," is now the watch-word of 
 Churchmen. And, however alien to their spirit in other times, 
 such has ever become the cry of the defenders of systems 
 radically wrong, whenever the progress of enlightened views 
 in the community has brought into peril the precious and 
 gainful mischief. Such was the hollow pretence set up by 
 the friends of Negro Slavery. And to them it was justly 
 replied, that the grand, the efficient, the only worthy reform, 
 was to loose every bond, and let the oppressed go free. 
 
23 
 
 And so now, to our Reforming Churchmen, it may with 
 oqual justic(; be replied, that the grand, the efficient, the 
 only worthy reform, is to reclaim the Church of Christ 
 from adulterous connections with the rulers of the earth, and 
 to restore her to Him who is her Maker and her Husband, 
 — the Lord of Hosts is his name. 
 
 BELL AND iJAlK, I'ttlNCKKS. 
 
LECTURE SEVENTH: 
 
 UNDER THE PATRONAGE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE GLASGOW 
 VOLUNTARY CHURCH SOCIETY, 
 
 " THE POWERS THAT BE." 
 
 DELIVERED ON THE EVENING OF APRIL Uth, IN THE RELIEF CHAPEL, 
 JOHN-STREET. 
 
 By JAMES BEITH. 
 
 MDCCCXXXV. 
 
 GLASGOW :_JOHN REID & CO. 
 
 EDINBURGH:— JOHN WARDLAW. 
 
 DUBLIN:— JOHN ROBERTSON & CO. 
 
 LONDON :— W HITTAKER & COMPANY, 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 The subject to which our attention is this evening to be 
 directed, according to the general statement in the Adver- 
 tisement, is, " The Voluntary Church principle in relation 
 to the duties of ' the Powers that be,' " 
 
 In treating this branch of the Voluntary Church question, 
 I shall endeavour to show — 
 
 First, That the legislative authority, and the executive 
 power of the kingdom of Christ, are such as to preclude all 
 magisterial authority and interference in the management of 
 its affairs. 
 
 Second, That all Christian magistrates are nevertheless 
 bound to regulate their official conduct by the revealed will 
 of God. 
 
 Third, That " the powers that be" may be " ministers of 
 God for good" to the people, in the Scripture sense of the 
 terms, without setting up a national establishment of Chris- 
 tianityi 
 
 Fourth, That there is nothing in the provisions of the 
 social compact that authorizes the supreme power to estab- 
 lish any religion by means of a forced assessment; and — 
 
 In the last place, I shall endeavour to point out the only 
 principle on which Christian magistrates ought, or can pro- 
 mote the interests of true religion. 
 
 At this stage of the discussion of this most important 
 question in this place, and after the varied and comprehen- 
 sive views which have been taken of it by the gentlemen who 
 have preceded me, it will not be expected that in what 
 follows I can keep entirely clear of the whole of the posi- 
 tions which they took up, and so well and so nobly defended, 
 
4 
 
 not of course with the poor soulless arts of special pleading, 
 ijor by the still more reprehensible method of attempting 
 to depreciate the heads and the hearts of their opponents, 
 even although thinking themselves, as these opponents do, en- 
 titled to go their own warfare on other men's charges, but by- 
 clear and fervid appeals to the understanding and best affec- 
 tions which can distinguish between the '' voice of the chief 
 shepherd of Israel" and "the voice of strangers." 
 
 To follow, in some things, in their tract, to me is not 
 grievous, and, as to you, it will be safe; permit me, in a few 
 sentences, to remind you of the vital importance of a right 
 understanding of the present question, as bearing on the 
 spirituality of the kingdom of Christ, in as far as this is 
 necessary to the making good of our first proposition, 
 namely, — 
 
 That the legislative authority, and the executive power of 
 the kingdom of Christ, are such as to preclude all magis- 
 terial interference in the management of its affairs. 
 
 That the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, either as 
 to its origin or its results, is confessed by our church friends, 
 but in practice they appear to be greatly mistaken in their 
 views respecting several important departments of its legis- 
 lative and executive government. Like all other kingdoms, 
 the kingdom of Christ has laws for the regulation of its 
 subjects, but it has no legislator other than its supreme 
 King and Head, Jesus Christ. Moses foretold this when he 
 prophesied saying, " The Lord thy God shall raise up unto 
 thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like unto me, unto 
 him ye shall kearken. ' I,' saith God, ' will put my words in 
 his mouth, and he shall speak all that I command him, [and 
 who will presume to add thereto,] and it shall come to pass 
 that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he 
 shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.'" Isaiah, 
 adds his testimony to the same truth where he says, 
 " The government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name 
 shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the 
 Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace. Of the in- 
 crease of his government and peace there shall be no end, 
 upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order it, 
 and to establish it [not with compulsory endowments, but] 
 with judgment and justice from henceforth even for ever. 
 The zeal of the Lord of Hosts v/ili perform this." In strict 
 accordance with this, we read, in the last chapter of the 
 
gospel by Matthew, that " Jesus came to his apostles " and 
 spake unto them, saying, " All power in heaven and in earth 
 is given unto me, go ye therefore unto 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 connna7ided you ; and lo I am with you alway, even 
 unto the end of the world." And with this agrees what 
 Paul says in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 " He is far above all principality and power, and might and 
 dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this 
 world, but also in that which is to come. He is above all 
 things, and by him all things consist. He has all things 
 under his feet, and He is the head over all things to the 
 church which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all 
 in all." 
 
 Thus, is Jesus Christ the supreme, the only lawgiver in 
 the New Testament kingdom. Like himself, His laws must 
 be perfect; nothing defective, nothing inapplicable, iii conse- 
 quence of which we find they provide for all that is to be 
 done in his service, and not only this, but they also deter- 
 mine by whom it is to be done. It is in overlooking, or not 
 understanding these truths, that the whole malady — and it is 
 a gi'ievous one — which afflicts churchmen, as the advocates 
 of a compulsory support of Christianity, is to be attributed. 
 That their system usurps, in many instances, the legislative 
 authority of this kingdom, cannot be reasonably doubted by 
 any one who ever perused the acts of parliament in which 
 it lives, moves, and has its legal being, and which in their 
 church courts they quote as authorities much more fre- 
 quently than they do their Bible. Nor is the violation of 
 the executive authority of the kingdom of Christ, which 
 their system perpetrates, less obvious, or less to be depre- 
 cated. This authority, we maintain, is wholly spiritual, and 
 lodged only in the church. I, however, here frankly confess 
 that in proof of this I cannot produce an example from the 
 New Testament, of any tithe or annuity tax delinquent 
 being brought before the church of which he was a member, 
 and the law of discipline enforced for his correction or 
 expulsion, because, according to primitive arrangements 
 and practice, there could be no such delinquents in the first 
 churches, wliicli, in Judea, were in Christ Jesus. But, from 
 the general law — embracing all offences — laid down in the 
 18th of Matthew, and, as in its spirit, acted upon by the 
 A 2 
 
Corinthian church, when collected " together in one place," 
 according to the command of the apostle Paul; as also, 
 from the manner in which the question ahout circumcision 
 was treated and settled, of which we have an account in the 
 15th of the Acts, as well as from many other circumstances 
 touching the practice of the first churches, and recorded for 
 our learning — nothing can be clearer than that the adminis- 
 tration of the laws of the church lies with the church, and 
 not with any civil ruler. I here wish it to be distinctly 
 understood, that in saying this, I am only attempting to 
 establish a principle recognized, as far as I know, by all 
 Voluntaries, entirely irrespective of the manner in which 
 that principle is to be reduced to practice, about which some 
 Voluntaries are not agreed. But does not the statutes of 
 tlie Church of Scotland grossly violate both the legislative 
 and executive authority of the New Testament Church, by 
 conferring on the civil magistrate the power, and enjoining 
 it as his duty, " to take order that unity and peace be pre- 
 served in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure 
 and entire, that blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all 
 corruptions and abuses in worship prevented or reformed, 
 and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered 
 and observed; for the better effecting whereof" it is provided 
 " he hath power to call Synods, to be present at them, and 
 to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according 
 to the will of God." 
 
 I know that churchmen deny the common-sense import of 
 this passage of their Confession, and explain it to mean, " that 
 the civil magistrate has power to regulate things ahout the 
 church, but no power to regulate things m the church." 
 This, however, to the great run of common minds, must be 
 a distinction without a difference, unless, indeed, some 
 Voluntaries should be so fastidious as to think that " unity 
 and peace, the truth of God, his ordinances duly settled, 
 administered and observed," are things not " in the Church 
 of Scotland," but as churchmen no doubt most surely 
 believe them to be things in their church, and as they 
 cannot deny that the civil magistrate has the power, and 
 that it is his duty to "take order" respecting them, tlieir 
 mock distinction between things about the church and things 
 in the church must be regarded as a pitiful attempt to get 
 out of a difficulty of which, from their increasing informa- 
 tion, they are in reality now ashamed. 
 
But, more particularly here, is not the law of maintenance 
 a law affecting " things in the church," and of such vast 
 consequence to her very existence, that were the needful not 
 collected by pains of law, she must go down? at least so 
 say those who should know best; yea, so convinced are they 
 of this, that every picture of spiritual desolation and social 
 disorganization which the frightened imagination of the 
 poetic Chalmers could fancy has been put in requisition to 
 induce the people to submit peaceably to their present 
 burdens. Yet the execution of this law of maintenance, so 
 essential to the existence of the church, the establishment 
 principle devolves on the civil magistrate, to be enforced by 
 such carnal weapons as " letters of horning and processes of 
 augmentation," ending, if not complied with, " in bonds and 
 imprisonments" — a species of force, I need not say, utterly 
 at variance with the spirit of the gospel — " the sword of the 
 spirit" — the only weapon that the ''Captain of Salvation" has 
 provided and ordered to be wielded in his service. 
 
 Again, the law of Christ's house, which confers on and 
 secures to the members of his household the right of electing 
 their own pastors, than which it would be difficult to imagine 
 any thing more strictly " in the church," or more intimately 
 connected with its well-being, has, by the establishment 
 practice, been bloted out of the divine statute-book, and the 
 prerogative conferred on certain powers without the church, 
 not only to the violation of all Scripture authority, but to 
 the breaking down of every principle which distinguishes 
 between the free-man and the slave, and for the miserable 
 consideration of an endowment, submitted to, than which, 
 for meanness of spirit, as was observed by a previous Lec- 
 turer m this place, it would be difficult to find a parallel; 
 and will it be believed that the leaders of the men who not 
 only submit to this, but glory in the price of their degrada- 
 tion, are the men who speak of, and treat the Voluntaries of 
 the present day, as the Voluntaries of primitive times were 
 spoken of and treated as the " offscourings of all things." 
 
 Lastly I'.ere, and equally indicative of churchmen's ignor- 
 ance of the liberty wherewith Christ has made his people 
 free, and of the establishment principle as being destructive 
 of the power of the church to manage her own affairs — her 
 creed, if she must have one to explain in what sense she 
 understands the declarations of Scripture, ought surely, above 
 all thing?, eitlier '^ about the church" or " in the church," to 
 
8 
 
 be of her own compiling', and subject to such alterations 
 and amendments as she in her advance to perfection may 
 think necessary. But who will say that this is the case with 
 the creed of the Church of Scotland? Is it not notorious, 
 that in the matter of patronage, for example, the compilers 
 of the Westminster Confession were overmled by the 
 secular power? But, gi'anting the secular power to have 
 had nothing to do with that Confession, save only to sanction 
 it, what, under the establishment principle can be thought of 
 the claims of a creed which owes all its governing force to 
 an act of parliament? and what becomes of the power of the 
 church to alter and amend it, should she see cause? This 
 power is absolutely annihilated. To alter and amend her 
 creed in the slightest degree, and, however willing, the 
 Church of Scotland has no more power than the voluntaries 
 have to deprive her of the price of her submission. With- 
 out the consent of such noble, and of course well qualified 
 divines as the Duke of Wellington and Baron Seagrave, 
 once the well-known Captain Berkley, among the Lords, and 
 Sir Robert Peel, late Prime Minister, and Mr. Daniel 
 O'Connel, among the Commons, not one jot or tittle of her 
 Confession can be disturbed. To the civil power she is in 
 this respect in the most degrading bondage. Many of her 
 best sons feel the weight, and would fain ease themselves of 
 the disgrace of such secular servitude, in as far at least as 
 patronage is concerned, but the endowment here steps in, 
 and so confounds principle with their mistaken notions of 
 expediency that they submit to the yoke rather than abandon 
 the pension. 
 
 Such are some of the necessary fruits of the establishment 
 principle, showing, as I thirds, most distinctly that it is 
 utterly subversive of the provisions of self-government w^hich 
 run through the whole of the institutions of the New Testament 
 Kingdom ; separating it from the kingdoms of this w^orld, and 
 thereby rendering its existence in the world perfectly compa- 
 tible with any form of polity which men may choose to adopt 
 it being always provided that that polity does not go out of its 
 legitimate course to meddle with things too high for it — 
 such as the best mode of supporting the gospel. Self-go- 
 vernment is one of the distinguishing and unalienable cha- 
 racteristics of the kingdom of Christ. It is designed to fill the 
 whole earth, and hence this power, that, unfettered and 
 uncontaminated by any legislative connection wdth the king- 
 
9 
 
 (loms of this world, it might remain, under all forms of civil 
 government, " a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a 
 holy nation, a peculiar people," to show forth the praises of 
 Him whose prerogative it is to call men out of darkness into 
 his marvellous light, and when, having so called them, to 
 impose on them such obligations, and to place them under 
 such laws as he may think most conducive to their well- 
 being. In this, as in all other departments of his universal 
 dominion, he is as wise in counsel as he is mighty in work- 
 ing, and being so, to his method of conducting the affairs of 
 his spiritual kingdom all who are under law to him must 
 submit with the willing obedience of sons, " for who hath 
 directed the spirit of the Lord, or, being his counsellor, hath 
 taught him? with whom took he counsel, and who instructed 
 him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught 
 him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understand- 
 ing?" None, and therefore he will not give his glory unto 
 another, nor his praise unto any arrogant mishapeu image 
 of his authority, and if so, no magisterial interference in the 
 management of his kingdom, either as to the making or 
 execution of its laws, can take place without an impious 
 usurpation of his authority. All this being true, which I 
 think cannot be denied, what can Dr. Smyth possibly mean 
 by saying, in his Lecture, " You thus perceive, my friends, 
 that the connection which subsists between the church and 
 the state, in this country, is one which does not involve the 
 surrender of even one hair-breadth of her spiritual indepen- 
 ence," and yet, as we have seen, in the instances pointed 
 out, she cannot move one step without the permission of the 
 state. 
 
 But,' while we earnestly contend that no man, whether he 
 be a king or a priest, has any right either to add to, or take 
 away from the laws of the Kingdom of Christ, as promul- 
 gated in the Scriptures; and, further, that the whole of the 
 executive power is lodged in its own members, and must 
 be exclusively exercised by them in that character; do we, as 
 has been alleged by Churchmen, deprive the civil magistrate 
 of the power, or relieve him from the necessity of regulating 
 his official conduct according to the revealed will of God? 
 To show that the Voluntary principle has no such tendency 
 you will recollect, is the second branch of our subject. 
 
 This alleged ruinous effect of the Voluntary principle, 
 were that principle generally acted upon, has been often 
 
10 
 
 urged against our cause, and the idea, that the judge, when 
 he ascends the bench, and the legislator when he enters the 
 senate-house, must leave their religion behind them as Dr. 
 Smyth, in his recent Lecture, in the Tron Church, expressed 
 it, has been rejected with such pious horror, by our church 
 friends, charity compels us almost to admit, that their zeal 
 for endowments has actually wrought them into the belief 
 that what they say of the Voluntary principle, as leading to 
 such awful consequences, is true. What Voluntary advo- 
 cate, either in speech or in writing, ever said that in the 
 case contemplated it would not be the duty of all men, 
 whether kings or magistrates, or legislators, to regulate their 
 conduct, both private and official, according to the revealed 
 will of God, I know not, nor do I believe any of them ever 
 did. At any rate I am sure that the Voluntary principle 
 cannot be justly charged with it. In that principle there can 
 be nothing hostile to acts of justice and mercy being per- 
 formed by legislators and judges under a deep sense of their 
 responsibility to God for all that they do in their public as 
 well as private capacity. It is, in fact, nonsense to talk of a 
 religious man leaving his religion behind him. The thing is 
 impossible. His religion is part of himself, and in propor- 
 tion as it has taken hold of his mind, it will injfluence his 
 conduct in the senate, and on the bench, as well as in the 
 walks of private life. To put this matter beyond all cavil, 
 permit me to refer you to the authority of the great apostle 
 of Voluntaryism, who not only taught it by precept, but 
 enforced it by his own example, for an " ensample " to all that 
 should come after him. From the conduct of this apostle, 
 on a certain occasion, toward Ananias, nothing can be plainer 
 than that judges and magistrates, and governors of all grades, 
 although they may not have established Christianity, are 
 nevertheless held responsible for their official acts. Acts 
 23d chapter and 1st verse: — " And Paul earnestly beholding 
 the counsel, said, men and brethren I have lived in all good 
 conscience before God until this day. And Ananias com- 
 manded them, that stood by him, to smite him on the mouth. 
 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee thou whitedwall, 
 for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest 
 thou me to be smitten contrary to the law." Here we see a 
 judge, who, not only had not established the true religion, 
 but who violently opposed it, and persecuted its professors, 
 as the order to which he belonged had persecuted its great 
 
11 
 
 founder even to the death, held responsible for his official 
 conduct, without any inconsistency on the part of this 
 apostle, who, in declaring the mind and will of his master to 
 kings and governors, never so much as once hinted to them 
 that it was their duty to establish the true religion, by com- 
 pelling their subjects to contribute of their substance for the 
 support of the clergy. 
 
 But, my friends, in saying that this fact would place the 
 innocence of the Voluntary principle in this matter beyond 
 all cavil, I have perhaps reckoned without my host, for per- 
 adventure it may be said that this judge, although not 
 having established the true religion, yet not being a Volun- 
 tary, his case is not in point. To this it is only necessary to 
 answer, that unless Churchmen contend — which I fear some 
 of them do — that it is better for the people to be com- 
 pelled to support an establishment of false religion, than to 
 be allowed to support any religion they please, or that 
 governors by establishing a false religion become more 
 responsible for their official conduct than by establishing no 
 religion at all; the case of Ananias in being warned by 
 Paul of the displeasure of the Almighty for his brutality as 
 a judge, clearly indicates that rulers, although they may not 
 have established the true religion, are nevertheless, by the 
 Voluntary principle, as acted upon by this apostle, held 
 responsible for the upright discharge of their official duties. 
 
 Perhaps I should here offer some apology for having 
 noticed this groundless objection to our cause, but supposing, 
 from the frequency and the urgency with which it is pressed, 
 that our church friends regard it as an insurmountable 
 obstacle in the way of carrying out the Voluntary principle 
 to its legitin^ate results, I have thought it might not be 
 altogether useless to attempt to show that none of those 
 results can be the necessitating of legislators and judges to 
 throw aside their religion when acting in their official ca- 
 pacity. 
 
 This brings us to the third thing proposed, namely, to 
 endeavour to show that " the powers that be" may be 
 " ministers of God for good" to the people, in the Scripture 
 sense of the terms, without setting up a national establish- 
 ment of Christianity. 
 
 You are all aware that the Voluntary principle has been 
 strongly objected to, by our church friends, as being, in 
 their opinion, inconsistent with the character which the 
 
12 
 
 Scriptures gave of the civil power as " the minister of God 
 for good" to the people., and that they have laboured fer- 
 vently, in their vocation, to show that being " the minister 
 of God for good," it is the duty of the government to 
 provide religious instruction for the people at the national 
 expense. This is one of their strongholds. Let us try 
 whether one " small smooth stone," projected against it, from 
 the foundation on which it is said to be reared, shall not 
 demolish it, leaving no wreck behind, save only its defend- 
 ers, as resolute in its defence as ever. " Though vanquished, 
 they can argue still." 
 
 Had this character of the civil power, as drawn by the 
 apostle Paul in the 13th of the Romans, had for its original 
 a government so anxious for the success of pure and unde- 
 filed religion among the people, that it laid the whole of 
 them under contribution as inexorably as our church 
 establishment law lately did the widow of Rathcormack, for 
 the pious purpose of raising wherewithall to enable the state 
 priests to appear in and support the elevated station in 
 society to which their learning and labours and virtues are 
 said to entitle them, and especially that the bishops might 
 rear their mitred heads in courts and parliaments, as so 
 many inducements to the people, the more readily to listen 
 to and imbibe their lessons of humility and self-denial — had, 
 I say, the apostle Paul had such a Christian government in 
 his eye, when he described the power under which the 
 Romans were about the year 62, as being the minister of 
 God for good to the people, we could not have avoided the 
 conclusion that it was in being thus solicitous about the 
 interests of Christianity, that it merited the character he 
 bestowed on it, and coming to this conclusion, the next 
 step would have been unavoidable, viz. that no government 
 which did not "take order" to compel the people to support 
 the state clergy as a means of providing themselves with 
 religious instruction, could, in Paul's sense of the terms, be 
 the minister of God for their good. 
 
 But how stands the fact? Is it not notorious that the 
 power in question was at that time held, not by Christian men, 
 but by idolators, not by the professed friends of Christianity, 
 but by its avowed and implacable enemies, and who conse- 
 quently, instead of establishing it by positive institution, per- 
 secuted those who had embraced it, and by every means 
 within their reach endeavoured to banish its very name from 
 
13 
 
 the earth. This being- undeniably the case, is it not passing 
 strange, even in cliurchmen, credulous in many things on 
 the church question as they are, that they should for one 
 little moment believe that, in the character which Paul gives 
 of the Roman power, there is any intimation whatever that 
 it is the duty of the supreme power under which we live to 
 set up an establishment of Christianity ? The premises can 
 by no means warrant the conclusion. The Roman power 
 had not established the true religion, yet Paul affirms that 
 that power was " the minister of God for good to the 
 people;"' and why, I should like to be informed, may not 
 the supreme power in Britain be the " minister of God for 
 good" to us, without setting up an established church? If 
 the Roman power, administered by idolaters — enemies of 
 Christianity — were the minister for good to the people, what 
 can possibly hinder the British power, administered by pro- 
 fessing Christians, from being a minister of a like character 
 to us? On any principle, not scandalously libellous; of our 
 rulers, the supposition is as baseless, though of course not 
 quite so calumnious, as is the assertion of Mr. Fleming of 
 Neilston, where, in his Critique on Dr.Wardlaw's Sermon, he 
 says, "If any thing be certain, this is certain, that Christ 
 laid down no rules for the government of his church, or if 
 he did, they are not recorded in the New Testament." 
 
 The fact is, from the circumstances of the case before us, 
 it must be admitted that the power spoken of by Paul was 
 the civil power when acting purely about civil matters, dis- 
 pensing justice between man and man, protecting property, 
 and in this way being a terror unto evil-doers and a praise 
 unto them that did well. To suppose otherwise, to suppose 
 that the religious — the idolatrous acts of the Roman power, 
 in any respect whatever, entered into the character which 
 Paul gave it, as the minister of God for good, would be to 
 suppose him an abettor of the most degrading superstition 
 and most flagitious tyranny and oppression that ever dis- 
 graced our lapsed world. For the honour of Christianity, 
 such an idea must be strongly repudiated which leaves us no 
 alternative but to resolve the apostle's meaning into the 
 supreme power acting in civil matters for the welfare of the 
 people; and, if so, no inference in favour of it being the 
 duty of magistrates in our day to compel, by force of human 
 law, the pecuniary contributions of the people in support of 
 
14 
 
 an established church, can be drawn from its character as 
 the " minister of God for good to the people." 
 
 We now come to our fourth proposition, namely, that 
 there is nothing in the provisions of the social compact 
 which authorizes the supreme power to establish any religion 
 by means of a forced assessment. 
 
 On this subject churchmen, I confess, have some plausible 
 things to advance. They reason after this manner: — " It 
 being on all hands admitted, that true religion enters deeply 
 into the best interests of civil society, that it is a matter in 
 which all are personally concerned, and that, consequently, 
 by promoting its knowledge, and its power, all would be 
 benefitted, is it not rational to infer that there must be some 
 understood provision in the terms of the social compact, 
 authorizing the conservators of the national well-being to 
 provide^ at the national expense, the means of instructing the 
 people in the principles of true religion?" 
 
 Whether there be or not, on the principles of what is 
 called natural religion, on which some say the social compact 
 is founded, I shall not at present say, but from the history 
 of all governments in all ages, we know that such an opinion 
 has always been entertained and acted upon in reference to 
 what, for tlie place, and the time being, was thought to be 
 the true religion. The United States of North America are 
 an exception to this rule; there the people are left to pro- 
 vide religious instruction for themselves, and for being so 
 left, their government is called, by many on this side of the 
 water, an Atheistical Government. We, however, willingly 
 concede the universality of the opinion, that it is the duty of 
 " the Powers that be" to interfere in matters of religion, from 
 which it is supposed by churchmen to be founded in na- 
 ture, and this, with them, is proof positive of its fitness and 
 propriety. Dr. Smith says, " We find that Numa, Lycurgus, 
 Solon, and others, all recognized the principle of a 
 national faith, in order to the external welfare of society, 
 ' These having not the Law, were a law unto themselves.'" 
 And what did they with it? Paul tells us, they " changed the 
 glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to 
 corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and 
 creeping things;" and yet such men are held up for our imi- 
 tation, because " they recognized the principle of a national 
 faith, in order to the external welfare of society." Such ethics 
 are too ethnic for the voluntaries ; for with our views of the 
 
15 
 
 meaning of a higher authority — the Scriptures of truth, in 
 whidi we find many things propounded contrary to the 
 wisdom of this world, and especially in what relates to the 
 best mode of propagating the true religion, we more than 
 doubt, the propriety of following out the suggestions of what 
 these Scriptures call" vain philosophy," and more particularly 
 in such cases as where the wisdom of man is counted foolish- 
 ness with God. The subject now under discussion is one 
 of these, as you may all see by consulting the first chapter 
 of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. A previous lecturer 
 having given us a clear and eloquent exposition of the prin- 
 ciples to which I here refer, it is at present only necessary 
 for me to remind you, that God, in determining the means 
 by which the gospel could be most successfully promulgated, 
 in place of selecting the first preachers of Christianity from 
 among the great and the learned of that day, who might 
 have been reasonably expected to have had great influence 
 with the people in recommending the new order of things. 
 He chose them from among the poor and the illiterate, a 
 class of persons possessing no personal influence whatever, 
 verse 26 of that chapter. — and this verse I quote from Mr. 
 Knight's translation, as being generally understood to be more 
 consonant to the original text, than our common translation, 
 and, as every one must see, more agreeable to the scope of 
 the apostle's reasoning. " Ye see the calling of you, breth- 
 ren, that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, 
 not many noble call you," or are engaged in preaching the 
 gospel by which you were called, " but God hath chosen the 
 foolish things of the world to confound the wise," and so on 
 in the same strains of derision, in reference to the schemes 
 of the wise disputers of this world, which ought to teach us, 
 that in serving God we must not adopt what we may think 
 expedient, but in all tl.lngs to keep strictly by the " law and 
 the testimony," even although the admirers of such great 
 men as Numa, Lycurgus, and Solon, should be opposed 
 to us. Were we left to ourselves in this matter, our 
 own views of expediency might be allowed to influence our 
 conduct, or perhaps, like churchmen, for want of a better rule, 
 we might draw largely on natural religion, which is said to 
 be highly favourable to endowments; but seeing we have 
 positive institutions to guide us, it were dishonouring to him 
 whom Christians call their King, to renounce his authority, 
 by resorting to the pauper elements of a wordly policy, for 
 the purpose of supporting and extending his kingdom. The 
 
16 
 
 primitive principle was the voluntary principle, " Freely ye 
 have received, freely give:" in accordance with which we 
 find the first preachers of Christianity went forth on their 
 mission, taking nothing of the Gentiles. But the wise men 
 of this world — the Solons — prefering their own device, of 
 reaping before sowing, and, in as far as dissenters are con- 
 cerned, reaping without sowing at all, this order of things, 
 and though sanctioned by the authority of him, on whom 
 hangs all the glory of his own house, has been departed from. 
 This rnay be very convenient for those, who, under the wing 
 of a secular patron, get themselves put into the priest's 
 office for a piece of bread ; but who will say there is any 
 Christianity in it, or that it has been conducive to the reno- 
 vation of mankind ? Let the state of religion under a state- 
 paid priesthood, bear witness, and if it have not been bene- 
 ficial, but if, on the contrary it have been the means of in- 
 gendering and perpetuating abuses, most prejudicial to the 
 interests of society, we may safely infer, that in the social 
 compact, which is intended to promote the improvement 
 and happiness of the people, there is no provision which 
 authorises the supreme power to establish, by means of a 
 forced assessment, any sect professing the Christian religion. 
 What then was state, or popular Christianity from the 
 days, or a little after the days of Constantine the Great, — 
 that is the great founder of national establishments of Chris- 
 tianity, down to the Protestant Reformation? Was it not 
 among the mass of the people a system of the grossest super- 
 stition, and on the part of the clergy, the most revolting 
 tyranny — a tyranny which not only exercised itself in de- 
 priving the people of the sacred light of the Sun of Righteous- 
 ness, that they might be the more successfully held in bond- 
 age, but which, in many instances, usurped the functions of 
 the civil magistrate, and thereby laid prostrate the power 
 which all Christians are commanded to honour. Was it not 
 to the machinations of these religious " conservatives," as they 
 would no doubt call themselves, that most of the desolating 
 wars, which during that long dark period afflicted Christen- 
 dom, must be atributed. In short, search the records of the 
 crimes of cabinets, and you will find from the fourth 
 century downwards, priestcraft more or less instigating and 
 carrying forward schemes of intolerance and spoliation, which, 
 but for the intrinsic power of the truth, as manifested in the 
 doctrines and practice of the voluntaries of those times — 
 who, about the beginning of the eleventh century, began to 
 
17 
 
 be known by the names of the Waldenses and Albigenses, 
 Christianity would have been altogether exterminated. These 
 witnesses for the truth being the objects of perpetual and 
 cruel persecution, their passive courage was often put to the 
 severest trials, during which hundreds of thousands of them 
 were immolated on the altar of the established church; many 
 thousands more were forced " to wander in deserts, and in 
 mountains, and in dens, and in caves of the earth, not ac- 
 cepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resur- 
 rection;" and all this, at the instance, and to gratify the worst 
 passions of an established priesthood, first raised into politi- 
 cal consequence by the "kings of the earth, givihg their power 
 to the beast," or in other words, by violating the great prin- 
 ciple for which we contend — the voluntary support of the 
 gospel. 
 
 Nor has matters, in as far as state endowed Christianity 
 is concerned, been much mended since the Reformation. It 
 is true, the light which had previously dawned in spite of 
 " the church," and which, in its increasing strength, pro- 
 duced the change in some countries that we call the Re- 
 formation, has continued to advance, by which civil and 
 religious liberty is now much better understood, and their 
 claims more generally acknowledged, than when all the kings 
 of the earth paid their addresses to one and the same mis- 
 tress : but for this result, we cannot say we have been much 
 indebted to the principles and practice of Protestant estab- 
 lishments. 
 
 Protestant state churches all more or less inherit the tem- 
 per and dispositions of their mother. Intolerance and ra- 
 pacity have always characterised them, and powerfully frus- 
 trated the good which they might otherwise have done. This 
 has been signally the case with our Irish establishment. For 
 three hundred long years, that unhappy country has been 
 under the spiritual superintendance, as it is called, of the 
 clergy of the most richly endowed church in the world; and 
 what are the achievements they have won ? Has the moral 
 wilderness under their cultivation become a fruitful field, 
 bearing aH the marks of one which the Lord hath blessed? or 
 have their ministrations to any extent circumscribed the 
 dark dominion of popery? Let Sir Robert Peel, her most 
 eloquent and powerful advocate, answer. By the London 
 newspapers, he is reported to have said, in his speech in 
 opposition to Lord John Russell's late motion, respecting the 
 
 b2 
 
18 
 
 surplus revenue of the Irish church. " You say, and you 
 say with truth, that the Irish church has not succeeded as an 
 establishment, that it has failed in accomplishing the object 
 for which it was established, that there are no more than 
 1,000,000 Episcopalians in Ireland at the present moment, 
 and that there is no proof of their rapid increase, and you 
 then say, that having thus failed to accomplish the object for 
 which it was established, you ought to take from it its pro- 
 perty. Now, he, (Sir Robert,) would assert that there were 
 causes in operation, which prevented the success of the Pro- 
 testant establishment in Ireland, and that these causes are no 
 longer in operation, and consequently the arguments which 
 supported the Noble Lord's amendment no longer applied, 
 now that the Catholics are on an equal footing with the 
 Protestants" — that is, in being eligible to sit in parliament. 
 Here we have a distinct admission, that the Irish establish- 
 ment has done nothing for Ireland ; but had Sir Robert been 
 a voluntary, he would have had a much better understanding 
 of the cause of that failure than he appears to have. He 
 says, " that cause is not now in opperation," because Catho- 
 lics may now sit in parliament. Their former exclusion 
 was no doubt a degradation, which many of them felt keenly, 
 and resented violently, and being thought necessary to the 
 existence of the established church, would very naturally 
 prejudice them against her doctrines; but there is another 
 cause, to be soon corrected I hope, still in operation, much 
 more powerful than the one specified by Sir Robert, and of 
 which he, statesman as he is, seems to be innocently ignor- 
 ant. The tithes, the tithes, the tithes, constitute the master 
 grievance of Ireland ; and their operation, I have no doubt, 
 has contributed more to steel the minds of the people against 
 the Protestant religion, than all other causes put together. 
 It has been truly said, it is " vain to think that conversions 
 can be effected by addresses delivered in the garb of oppres- 
 sion," but from this having been so long persisted in in Ireland, 
 injustice and Protestantism have, in the estimation of the 
 people, become convertible terms; and as he that would suc- 
 cessfully preach against theft, must himself be honest, it 
 is no marvel that tithe -supported episcopacy in Ireland 
 should have so signally failed in accomplishing the ostensible 
 end for which it was set up. 
 
 Had, my friends, the sunshine of court favour, glaring 
 through the crimson medium of military-tithe-collected 
 munificence, been able to command success, or in any degree 
 
19 
 
 to influence it, Ireland should long ere this time have been 
 the best instructed and the most virtuous province of the 
 world called Christian. There the incense of holiness in 
 heart and life, rising to heaven in a continuous pillar of cloud, 
 from the perpetual ott'erings of the new obedience of the 
 gospel, should have shed its grateful fragrance throughout 
 the length and breadth of the land, realizing the joyous anti- 
 cipations of the Hebrew prophet, vphen he sung, " the wilder- 
 ness and the solitary place shall be glad for them, and the 
 desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose." But, alas ! to 
 the influence of a state-paid priesthood. Popery with all its 
 concomitant evils, has demonstrated itself to be invul- 
 nerable, it being at this moment, from the causes just 
 specified, in as far as human causes in such a case can oper- 
 ate, as rank, and even more widely extended over that de- 
 voted land, than when, by the confused noise of the warrior, 
 and garments rolled in blood, Episcopacy was first established 
 on the spoils, though certainly not on the ruins, of one of the 
 forms of a kindred antichrist. 
 
 Did your time permit, it might be here noticed, that 
 mere inefficiency is not the only charge which might be 
 successfully brought against the establishment of episcopacy 
 in Ireland, for though it has been powerless for good, it has 
 been potent for evil. Civil discord and strife often leading 
 to incendiarism, murder, and rebellion, and these furnishing 
 employment to the " finisher of the law," in innumerable 
 instances are traceable to the practice of levying tithes for 
 the support of an alien creed. 
 
 But let us hasten across the channel, and for a moment 
 glance at the working of the English hierarchy, to see 
 whether, in all its " might and mastery," it has done much 
 in advancing either the religious or political improvement of 
 the people. 
 
 There, no one has presumed to say the church is estab- 
 lished on the rock of poverty, nor until lately was she 
 regarded by our " northern lights " to be highly, because 
 chastely, adorned with the virtues of purity. In the days- of 
 Claverhouse and Bishop Sharp, the one the military, and 
 the other the spiritual champion of " black prelacy," as 
 Episcopacy was then called in Scotland, it would have been 
 an easy task to have convinced a Scottish audience that the 
 Chiu'ch of England was as little consonant to the provisions 
 of the social compact, as it was to the provisions of the New 
 Testament. In our day, however, the common danger to 
 
20 
 
 all national ecclesiastical establishments, arising from the 
 wide spread and still spreading pestilence of Voluntaryism, 
 has opened the eyes of the members of the Church of 
 Scotland to the apostolic virtues of the Church of England. 
 That establishment is now, it seems, " our sister establish- 
 ment of the South," and, like the church establishment of 
 Scotland, only requires to be freed from the abuses which 
 time has silently engendered, and especially to be extended, 
 to be " clear as the sun, fair as the moon, and terrible as an 
 army with banners." With us Voluntaries, however, her 
 greatest abuses — such as her compulsory endowment, and 
 the gradation of her clergy, rising by I know not how many 
 steps, from the labouring curate of 20, 30, 40, or 50 pounds 
 a-year, to the archbishop of ten or twenty thousand for — 
 doing nothing — being her principles, no reform, as we were 
 well told last Tuesday evening, which leaves uncorrected 
 these anti-christian evils to mark her parentage, can place 
 her beyond the reach of the condemnation awarded to all 
 such by the principles which we advocate. 
 
 But with all her means, what is the tendency, and what 
 are the effects of the establishment principle, when allowed 
 freely to develope themselves, as exemplified in her con- 
 duct? Let Milner, who was no Voluntary, tell. In his 
 Church History, he says: — 
 
 " That a great decline in the life of true Christianity 
 towards the end of this century, (the seventeenth,) was 
 observable, is generally allowed. It had made rapid progress 
 in the reign of Charles the Second, at whose accession the 
 profligate manners of the court encouraged every abomina- 
 tion. The rigid maxims of the puritans, with their starched 
 persons, were held in aversion, and turned into ridicule,; 
 men easily and rapidly passed to the extremes of vice to 
 avoid the suspicion of the semblances of piety, and as a life 
 of dissipation was in fashion, religion began to be a con- 
 temptible thing. Hence^ since peculiar seriousness branded 
 a man as puritanical, and effectually prevented all church 
 advancement; the clergy took peculiar care to escape as 
 far as possible from what must destroy their hopes of pre- 
 ferment, and not to be religious overmuch, or sharp re- 
 bukers of courtly immoralities" 
 
 This is sufliciently condemnatory of the pernicious in- 
 fluence of a state alliance. Nor was any thing else to be 
 expected, for where the clergy have to look to the court for 
 preferment, it is not possible, human nature, even in priests, 
 
21 
 
 being what it is, that they can be " sharp rebukers of courtly 
 immoralities." But this is not all. The same author goes 
 on to say: — 
 
 " But a far more pregnant cause of declension than any 
 other arose from the new method of preaching adopted by 
 the latitudinarian divines, who, being chiefly Armenians in 
 opinion, wished to avoid the peculiar and characteristic 
 doctrines of Christianity, which had been so much dwelt 
 upon formerly, and to con6ne their instructions to the 
 beauty of virtue and the force of moral obligation. Thus, 
 without the great main-spring of Christianity, they laboured 
 in most admired compositions to teach men to be virtuous, 
 till all power of godliness was lost, and an awful demonstra- 
 tion given, that when the love of God which is in Christ 
 Jesus our Lord is not taught and felt, all other endeavours 
 to correct the morals of mankind will be impotent and 
 vain." 
 
 Such are the high-toned principles^ and such the practical 
 virtues of political Christianity, and yet we are told, and 
 branded as every thing that is vile, if we will not believe 
 that " national establishments of Christianity are necessary 
 to prevent immorality, error, and unbelief." 
 
 As to the political improvement of the people under the 
 auspices of this church, is it not as notorious as the 
 political servility of the clergy — up to 1831, that what has 
 been gained was gained in spite of the church. All her 
 energies, all her influence, all her skill in the arts of the 
 " deeeivableness of unrighteousness," were constantly em- 
 ployed, and too successfully employed, in defending her 
 favourite position, " No bishop, no king." Every suggested 
 amendment was met, and very often silenced, by her fright- 
 ful cry " The church is in danger." Even the late war, 
 under the effects of which, in the shape of an enormous 
 national debt, we are at this moment labouring under, we 
 were often told by the church was '-just and necessary to the 
 preservation of our holy religion." The struggles of the 
 people for parliamentary reform were also branded as the 
 revolutionary atrocities of atheists and infidels. The people, 
 however, at last succeeded, and as they did so, under the 
 auspices of a government favourable to their righteous 
 claims, the church, in opposing them, gained this proud 
 distinction, that when the rights of man were to be recog- 
 nized and secured, and after ages of time-serving to ingrati- 
 ate herself with the powers hostile to those rights, she 
 
22 
 
 immediately asserted her independence, and braved the 
 venerable Premier of the. united kingdoms of Great Britain 
 and Ireland to his face. All this, and a thousand times 
 more than all this, of the same kind, (for which, as recent 
 authorities, let me refer you to " Beverley's Letters" and 
 " Howitt's Priestcraft in all ages,") being true of this church, 
 who can say, with truth, that to her the people of this 
 country are under mighty obligations, either for the Chris- 
 tianity of their creed, the virtues of their lives, or the 
 possession of their liberties ; or that, it being the duty of the 
 conservators of the national welfare to do all in their power 
 to promote the happiness of the community, they ought, at 
 a vast expense, or at any expense at all, to maintain such an 
 establishment. 
 
 But, my friends, it is now time that we briefly pay our 
 respects to our own Scottish establishment, and while I 
 readily confess " there is no place like home," yet I must 
 be allowed to say, that no "charm from the skies" has 
 thrown such a halo of primitive glory around the Church of 
 Scotland as to " dazzle" our eyes, so as to hide from them 
 the fact, that in common with all other ecclesiastical estab- 
 lishments she is supported, not by the free-will offerings of 
 her adherents, but by contributions levied upon all and 
 sundry by legal enactment. But passing this, what good 
 has she done in the cause of truth that could not, as as- 
 serted in the statement of our fundamental principles, have 
 been done " to an indefinitely greater extent, and with 
 much less alloy than has accompanied her efforts?" 
 
 This church was once a Voluntary church. In that 
 character, and through the instrumentality of the " still 
 small voice" of divine truth, accompanied with " power 
 from dn high," she successfully combated established Popery, 
 and eventually overcame it. In the same character, though 
 not simply by the same means, which I regret, she resisted 
 prelacy, (now as we have noticed " our sister establishment of 
 the South,") and finally established herself. And what was 
 the consequence of that establishment? Her highest living 
 authority being the judge, we are warranted in saying that 
 no sooner had she oljtained a legal settlement, and especially 
 on her final settlement in 1688, than the pernicious influ- 
 ence of her state alliance began to operate in paralyzing her 
 energies, until, becoming settled on her lees, she sunk into 
 such error and apathy as to occasion the dissent of Ebenezer 
 Erskine and his friends, whose "righteous spirits" were so 
 
23 
 
 gi'ieved at the abominations that were done in the midst of 
 her, that they sacrificed their livings within her pale, esteeming 
 reproach by a conupt church greater riches than all the 
 treasures she had to bestow. 
 
 These men, be it observed, dissented, not because she 
 was a state church, but because she was a corrupt church ; 
 and, considering their opinions of the lawfulness of state 
 support, their sacrifice is full of instruction to us, as to their 
 conviction of the extent and inveteracy of the spiritual mala- 
 dies with which she was afflicted. It is in fact allowed, on all 
 hands, that from 1688 to far on in the last century, she was 
 in a deplorable condition both with regard to doctrine and 
 discipline. Since then, however, and I have no wish to 
 deny it, she has considerably improved in both respects. In 
 most large towns her clergy are now understood to be 
 evangelical in their doctrine, although in country parishes 
 many of them are still of the moderate school, and at pre- 
 sent, as regards discipline, we have no right to ussume 
 that any delinquent, when convicted of indecency or pro- 
 fanity, which is sometimes a very difficult and tedious 
 matter, owing to their parliamentary sanctioned forms, 
 would be allowed to escape punishment, as they call it, with 
 the exception, perhaps, of such " noble offenders" as it 
 would be inconvenient to disturb. Well, seeing she has so 
 much improved, and being still a state church, and as 
 heretofore, her clergy secured of their wages " without 
 pandering," as they say, " to the prejudices of the people," 
 how is this, her improvement, to be accounted for? Dis- 
 sent, her highest living authority being again the judge — 
 dissent, waxing strong, has roused her from her lethargy? 
 and spurred her into activity. Emulation has been at work. 
 The " state ship," to use Dr. Chalmers' figure of speech, 
 has been taken in tow by the " dissenting galley," no doubt 
 to the advance of the one, although, in some respects, to the 
 great and mischievous retardation of the other. In this way, 
 and in our day, the corrupting influence of the state endow- 
 ment has been considerably counteracted; but, when we 
 consider the means by which this has been effected, we 
 must still conclude, that if the conservators of the national 
 well-being would forward the interests of pure and undefiled 
 religion, it must be by some other means than by clerical 
 endowments. 
 
 In further proof of this, allow me to direct your attention 
 to another principle — a principle which no just conventional 
 
24 
 
 form of society can infringe — I mean that of religious 
 liberty, or liberty of conscience. 
 
 The social compact necessarily involves the surrender of 
 some of our natural rights, such as, for example, when, 
 under certain circumstances, the light of doing with our 
 own what we please would be hurtful to our neighbours, or 
 prejudicial to the general interests of society. But liberty 
 of conscience is none of these, and because, for the use we 
 make of it, we are accountable to God only. And what is 
 liberty of conscience? What, but the natural right which 
 every man and woman that comes into the world has to 
 worship God according to the dictates of his and her own 
 conscience, which right belongs to them, not from any of 
 the conventional forms of society, but imprescriptably ante- 
 cedent to, and independent of all law, common or written, 
 and of the exercise of which they cannot of course be de- 
 prived without suffering grievous wrong. And who, it will 
 no doubt be asked by our church friends, is, in this free and 
 Christian country, deprived of the exercise of this right? 
 May not every one, from the king on the throne down to 
 the meanest of his subjects, worship God in any form, or not 
 worship at all, just as he pleases? This, in no sense, can 
 be said to be true of the king, for according to the provisions 
 of the British constitution, he must worship according to 
 the forms established by law. Were he, for example, to 
 become a member of the Society of Friends, which, for the 
 sake of the peace of the world, I wish all kings were, 
 he would be obliged to abdicate his throne in favour of his 
 next heir, who might be of the parliamentary faith. This is 
 too notorious to require proof. Nor is it true, in the proper 
 sense of the terms, of the people. They may indeed worship 
 as they please, but this is not understood by the advocates 
 of legal Christianity to be in virtue of their natural right to 
 do so, but in virtue of what they are pleased to call tolera- 
 tion, which, according to Dr. Johnson, means " sufferance 
 or permission." For this boon our civil rulers, and especi- 
 ally our state clergy, take unto themselves immense credit, 
 and treat us Voluntaries as the most unreasonable of men, 
 because we do not, in the most submissive and devout man- 
 ner, grant them the homage of our most profound gratitude, 
 for allowing us, in the exercise of their great goodness, to 
 retain — what? what they have no more right to deprive us 
 of, than they have to deprive us of the use of our own eyes, 
 or of our own existence, or, as has been benevolently sug- 
 
geoted, for the restoration of our health, to restrain us, after 
 a particular fashion recently " brought out," as applicable to 
 our case, under the auspices of " The Glasgow Society for 
 promoting the interests of the Church of Scotland." To- 
 leration, indeed ! we repudiate their toleration, and claim 
 the liberty of exercising the right in question, not from their 
 sufferance, but on the authority of Him who made us, and 
 sent us into the world to use for his glory and our own 
 good. 
 
 But their toleration, insulting as it is, would be somewhat 
 more tolerable if they would be so obliging as to carry it a 
 little further. We are, it is true, tolerated in going to, or 
 staying away from the parish church, and every other 
 church, just as we please; that is to say, we may perish for 
 lack of knowledge if we be so minded : here there is un- 
 bounded freedom, but the law ordains we shall nevertheless 
 pay the priest. Yes. Not liking the dilapidated state of 
 the fences of the parliamentary fold, which allows persons 
 of a certain description of character to get in as shepherds 
 " some other way than by the door," or, preferring a fold 
 altogether of their own choosing, one whose " walls are 
 salvation," and whose " gates are praise," they may desert 
 the one provided for them, and endeavour to cater for 
 themselves, but at shearing time and milking time, the 
 claims of the law shepherd must be as scrupulously re- 
 spected as if they had availed themselves of his guidance 
 and protection, and this is what churchmen call religious 
 liberty; but who so blind as not to see, or so heartless as 
 not to feel, that in the important religious duty of supporting 
 only that church which they think, in doctrine and dis- 
 cipline, most agreeable to the Word of God, we are not in 
 possession of even toleration. 
 
 And why are we not tolerated in the one case as well as 
 in the other? Is the duty of hearing not of as much im- 
 portance to the souls of men as the duty of paying? " Cer- 
 tainly," says the churchman; " but do you not perceive that 
 the system can go on without your hearing, while it could not 
 go on without your paying?" And there lies all the difference, 
 says the voluntary. Well, my friends, we have no great 
 liking to toleration, it being always supposed that those who 
 have the prerogative of granting it, have also the prerogative 
 of withholding it, but if by any means, lawful means of 
 course, it could be extended to us as liberally in the matter 
 of paying as it is in the matter of not hearing, we might be 
 
 c 
 
86 
 
 disposed to put up with it, until kings and priests snail 
 have learned what that Scripture meaneth which saith, 
 " What have I to do to judge them also that are without; 
 do not ye judge them that are within, but them that are 
 without God judgeth." And again, " Who art thou that 
 judgest another man's servant ? to his own master he 
 standeth or falleth." 
 
 We now come to the fifth and last thing proposed, namely, 
 in a few words, and a very few will suffice, to point out the 
 only principle by which Christian magistrates ought, or can 
 promote the interests of true religion ; and here all that I have 
 to say is, that if they are themselves Christian men, they 
 will find out a thousand ways in which they will be able to 
 make the whole influence of their official station to bear on 
 the furtherance of the interests of truth and righteousness. 
 Let justice, mercy, and impartiality, characterize their offi- 
 cial acts; this will prove them to be men fearing God and 
 hating covetousness, and get for them a name among the 
 people which will render their example highly influential to 
 the attainment of the wished-for object. Let them be first 
 in every good work, countenancing by their personal exer- 
 tions and pecuniary contributions whatever to them appears 
 likely to enlighten the ignorant and reclaim the vicious, and 
 in all works of faith and labours of love, always willing to 
 spend and be spent. This is the way for rulers to act if 
 they would be nursing fathers to the church, and who can 
 deny that if all rulers and magistrates would conduct them- 
 selves in this way, they would do infinitely more good in 
 furthering the cause of righteousness, " peace on eartli and 
 good-will to man," than ever was done by all the massacres, 
 and wars, and bloodshed, and persecutions, and tithe-sales, 
 and roupings, and incarcerations, that have been perpetrated 
 by magistrates in the cause of religion, from the days of 
 Herod down to the last outrage of the Edinburgh-annuity- 
 tax oppression, under the auspices of a combination of men, 
 calling themselves — shall we say it — " Ambassadors for 
 Christ." 
 
 BEIJ- AND BAIN, PRINTERS. 
 
WORKS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 \roluntary Cliurcli Control ersy 
 
 TO BE HAD OF 
 
 JOHN REID Sc CO. 
 
 JOHN-STREET VOLUNTARY LECTURES. 
 
 Lecture First — " The Opening of the Case." By the 
 Rev. W. Anderson. Price 3d. 
 
 Lectures Second and Fourth — " The Scripture Argument." 
 By Dr. Wardlaw. Price 3d. 
 
 Lecture Third — " Establishments Unjust and Injurious." 
 By Dr. Heugh. Price 3d. 
 
 Lecture Fifth — " The Efficiency of the Voluntary Prin- 
 ciple." By Rev. D. King. Price 3d. 
 
 Lecture Sixth — " Church Reforms." By Rev. J. C. 
 Ewing. Price 3d. 
 
 Lecture Seventh — " The Powers that be." By James 
 Beith. Price 3d. 
 
 Lecture Eighth — " National Responsibility." By Rev. 
 A. Harvey. Price 3d. 
 
 In a Few Days, 
 
 May be had the whole Eight Lectures, neatly bound in 
 cloth. Price 2s. 6d. 
 
 Dissertation on Church Polity. By A. C. Dick, Esq., 
 Advocate, 12mo., 48. 6d. 
 
 Spence on the Voluntaiy and Compulsory Systems of sup- 
 porting Religion, Is. 6d. 
 
 Dr. Brown's reply to charges brought against him in the 
 Scottish Guardian of April 10th, 1835, 2d. 
 
 Testimony of the Dissenting Wesleyan Methodists, against 
 the Union of Church and State, 3d. 
 
Dialogue on Church Establishments, Is. per. doz. 
 Second Report of the Glasgow Voluntary Church Associa- 
 tion, containing Speeches by Rev. A. Marshall, Rev. 
 
 Dr. Brown, Rev. W. Anderson, and Mr. James Beith, 
 
 2d. 
 Short Catechism for the consideration of the Rev. James 
 
 Esdale, and others, 2d. 
 The Lame Restored ; being an Exposition of the Principles 
 
 of the Voluntary Church Association. By the Rev. W. 
 
 Anderson, 4d. 
 The Interference of the Civil Magistrate, with the Religious 
 
 Concerns of his Subjects Considered. By the Rev. D. 
 
 Crawford, Is. 
 Illustrations of Social Depravity, No. II. The Voluntary 
 
 Churchman, 6d. 
 National Churchea allied to Despotism, and incompatible 
 
 with the Rights of Man. By Andrew Nicol, 2s. 
 Wardlaw's Sermon on Establishments, 6d. 
 Speech on Separation of Church and State, 4d. 
 
 Heugh's Considerations on Civil Establishments of Christi- 
 anity, Is. 
 
 The Principles of a Church Constitution opposed to Estab- 
 lishments. By the Rev. R. Hogg, 8d. 
 
 Toryism in Church and State Considered, in connection with 
 past events. Is. 
 
 Political Christianity — ineffective as a means of propagating 
 divine truth — pernicious to the nation, and obstructive 
 to religion, illustrated in the Statistics of Ireland, 2s. 6d. 
 
 Beverley's Letter to the Duke of Gloucester on the present 
 corrupt state of the University of Cambridge, Is. 
 
 Beverley's Letter to Lord Henley on Church Reform, Is. 
 
 Beverley's Reply to Sedgwick's Defence of the University of 
 Cambridge, Is. 
 
 Beverley's 1st and 2d Letter to the Archbishop of York on 
 the corrupt state of the Church of England, Is. each. 
 
 Tracts of the Central Board. 
 No. 1, by Dr. Brown, 4s. Qi]. per 100, or 8(1. per Dozen. 
 No. 2, by Rev. A. Marshall, 2s. 3d. per 100, or 4d. per 
 Dozen. 
 
LECTURE EIGHTH: 
 
 UNDER THE PATRONAGE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE GLASGOW 
 VOLUiYTARY CHURCH SOCIETY, 
 
 ON THE VOLUNTARY PRINCIPLE IN RELATION 
 
 TO NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE 
 
 RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE POOR. 
 
 DELIVKRED ON THE EVENING OF APRIL 2lsT, IN THE RELIEF CHAPEL, 
 JOHN-STREET. 
 
 By the Rev. ALEXANDER HARVEY. 
 
 MDCCCXXXV. 
 
 GLASGOW:— JOHN REID & CO. 
 
 EDINBURGH:— JOHN WARDLAW. 
 
 DUBLIN:— JOHN ROBERTSON & CO. 
 
 L N D O N:— W HITTAKER & COMPANY. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 Perhaps there is no branch of the present controversy 
 which has been involved in so much obscurity, by vague 
 generalities or dogmatic assumptions on the part of church- 
 men, as that to which your attention is now solicited. The 
 doctrine of national responsibility has been pushed to an 
 extent utterly incompatible with the rights of man, the 
 liberty of conscience, and the Word of God. In reasoning 
 on this subject, the advocates of Establishments always take 
 it for granted that their system is Scriptural and essential to 
 the prosperity of religion and the well-being of the com- 
 munity, and then urge the deep responsibility of rulers to 
 promote, by their civil authority, their particular views. It 
 does not appear to occur to them that these are the very 
 topics which they are bound to prove. When they clearly 
 demonstrate that civil rulers, or any other class of unin- 
 spired men, have a right conferred on them by the God of 
 nations authoritatively to declare what is truth — that the 
 Great Head of the Church has devolved on secular govern- 
 ments the task of disseminating Christianity as a part of 
 their official duty — and that they are bound to tax their 
 subjects for its support and diffusion— when they have done 
 all this, then we shall feel the force of their appeal to civil 
 rulers to " take order" that all these matters be effectively 
 done. This is what they have never yet achieved, and never 
 will ; because it is alike at variance with reason and revela- 
 tion. Every man has his personal and relative duties, for 
 the proper discharge of which he is responsible. And in 
 determining the amount of the accountability which attaches 
 to each, it is necessary to ascertain the duties which belong 
 to the individual in all the different relations which he sus- 
 
tains. It is by neglecting this very simple and obvious rule 
 that so much confusion has been introduced into this sub- 
 ject. 
 
 I could have wished that this department of the present 
 Course of Lectures had fallen to be discussed by one more 
 conversant with the metaphysical subtleties of abstract phi- 
 losophy than I pretend to be, and who therefore could more 
 successfully have fought the sophist with his own weapons, 
 and disentangled the meshes of that web which has been so 
 artfully woven around this important subject. But con- 
 vinced', as I am, that no duty, essential to the welfare of the 
 church and the happiness of man, can be obscurely taught in 
 that Book whicli has been written under the unerring dicta- 
 tion of the Spirit of God, or involved in dark uncertainty, I 
 shall, taking the Bible as my guide, proceed to show that 
 our opinions, as Voluntaries, explicitly recognize the respon- 
 sibility of the social community to the Universal Ruler to 
 discharge all those duties which he has enjoined on nations 
 in their civil capacity. Without any further preface, I shall 
 proceed to contemplate — 
 
 I. The Voluntary principle in reference to national re- 
 sponsibility. And — 
 
 II. In relation to the religious instruction of the poor. 
 
 I. Let us inquire if our principles, as advocates for the 
 Voluntary support of the institutions of religion, are incom- 
 patible with the fullest recognition of our responsibility to 
 God in our national capacity. Could it be clearly proved 
 that our views in this respect set aside all acknowledgment 
 of God as the " king of nations," it would be fatal to our 
 system. I for one would then frankly confess that I had 
 rashly adopted them, and would at once abandon our cause. 
 So firmly convinced am I that God is to be acknowledged 
 in every relation of life, that I regard it as a self-evident 
 truth. For, as the universal parent is the author of all the 
 social relations, and has constituted them for his own glory 
 and the welfare of his rational offspring, so his authority is 
 to be regarded as supreme in regulating the performance of 
 all the duties which spring from these. The Word of God 
 is the only unerring ride of duty, and must be held as not 
 only consistent with itself but with all possible truth. We 
 must then try all our theories by this sacred standard: and 
 I not only admit, but strenuously contend, that the prin- 
 
ciples of Revelation should guide all our national deiibera- 
 tions and regulate every part of our social intercourse. But 
 we have surely a right to demand that these principles be 
 correctly applied and properly acted upon in our national 
 capacity as well as in private life. Before we can ascertain 
 the amount of our responsibility as a nation, we must first 
 determine what duties are incumbent on the legislative and 
 executive government. Every social community sustains an 
 important relation to the " God of order." A nation iji its 
 collective capacity has duties peculiar to itself, and which 
 can never be discharged by private individuals — such as 
 protecting property and life, and enforcing the claims of 
 justice. And it will be admitted, as an indisputable axiom, 
 that duty and responsibility are commensurate ; or, in other 
 words, that the one is the exact measure of the other. We 
 are responsible for nothing but duty, and for the proper 
 discharge of this we are every moment accountable. What, 
 then, are the duties incumbent on nations in tlieir civil 
 capacity? And what are the duties of magistrates in their 
 official stations? An answer to these questions will enable 
 us to determine the amount of their respective responsibility. 
 We have no intention of theorizing on the origin of civil 
 government. We assume the principle that a community of 
 men, situated within a specific geographical ten-itory, have a 
 right to choose their own form of government, and to frame 
 their laws according to their convictions of what is right and 
 proper. It is not contended, so far as I know, by church- 
 men, that the civil polity of the Jews is still binding on 
 Christians, and ought to be adopted as a model from which 
 it is sinful to depart. But by surrendering this part of the 
 Old Testament, which has never been expressly repealed, 
 they are bound, in consistency, to give up likewise the 
 authority of the magistrate in religious matters committed 
 to him by God under that dispensation. We have never 
 seen any good reason for abandoning the one and retaining 
 the other. It is indeed manifest, that if the magistrate has 
 any right to punish offences committed against God, it must 
 be in obedience to His command, and in the very manner in 
 which He has enjoined. The civil magistrate not being 
 infallible, has no right to put his own construction on the 
 divine law, and to force obedience to his own views by civil 
 penalties. He must take the divine statute as it is. He 
 must resign the prerogative of legislation which belonged 
 
to no Jewish monarch, and become the enforcer of the laws 
 of God. Neither the dignity of office, nor the combined 
 will of the community, can, without deep guilt, confer a 
 prerogative which the Almighty Ruler holds sacred as ex- 
 clusively his own. 
 
 We readily admit that a nation, in possession of the 
 Bible, is bound to avail itself of all the light which it sheds 
 on every subject connected with the social and eternal in- 
 terests of man. But then it is bound to bow submissively to 
 divine authority as to the adoption of those means by which 
 these ought to be promoted. For the protection of persons 
 and property, penal laws are necessary — and for executing 
 these the magistrate is invested with the sword. But, from 
 the very nature of religion — the authority on which it rests 
 — and the claims which it urges on the conscience — it is 
 placed beyond his jurisdiction. The Bible comes to man as 
 a subject of God's moral government — demands his obedi- 
 ence on His authority — enjoins him to examine it for him- 
 self — tells him he must exercise his own faculties in 
 ascertaining the meaning of its contents — must call no man 
 master on earth in this important matter — and assures him 
 that he must at last give an account of himself to God. The 
 right of private judgment in religion he cannot resign to 
 either civil or ecclesiastical ruler without incurring fearful 
 guilt, and no earthly power may deprive him of this liberty 
 without daring usurpation. The despotism which enslaves 
 the body is venial when compared with a lordly authority over 
 immortal souls. The community has no right to league 
 together to compel the humblest individual of its number to 
 violate the dictates of conscience or set aside an ordinance 
 of Christ. Religion is admitted by all to be a personal 
 concern, and its duties must either be performed voluntarily 
 or they are not discharged at all. Outward compliance, 
 when the heart is reluctant, is mere hypocrisy. The sword 
 of the magistrate may make hypocrites, but can never make 
 Christians. If this be admitted, and who denies it? then it 
 is clear that civil authority is quite inadmissible in religion. 
 
 The question, to what extent the magistrate ought to 
 interfere in punishing open profaneness, is one on which Vo- 
 luntaries and Churchmen are perhaps equally undecided, 
 and I shall not attempt to settle it. There is obviously a 
 very palpable distinction between punishing a glaring out- 
 rage against good morals and the decencies of religious 
 
society, and compelling tlie perfonnance of a religious duty. 
 This distinction is recognized and acted upon in America, and 
 1 should vvisli to see it adopted in our own country. We do 
 not differ much from Churchmen when they contend for 
 the right of the magistrate to restrain outrageous impiety. 
 This is ohviously an offence against society, hut we deny that 
 it comes within his prerogative to dictate what is a religious 
 duty or to compel his subjects to perform it under the 
 penalty of law. 
 
 If this be a correct view of the subject, then it is obvi- 
 ously the duty of a nation to have an express regard to the 
 precepts and morality of the Word of God in framing their 
 civil constitution, and in enacting all the laws on those 
 matters in which it is competent for the legislature to 
 interfere. Secular affairs belong to it, religion to God. 
 These laws ought to be just and impartial: and it is the duty 
 of the magistrate to adhere scrupulously to his compact with 
 the people — to exercise his prerogatives wisely for their 
 benefit — and faithfully, equitably, and impartially to execute 
 the laws. 
 
 And, while the lavf ought never to invade the unalienable 
 rights of the subject, the compact which is formed between 
 the nation and the sovereign should ever leave free and 
 unfettered his personal obligations to the " King of kings." 
 These are principles which to me appear indisputable. 
 Now, I ask have these simple rules been observed in our 
 national compact with our king ? They have not : and they 
 have been violated, upon tlie principles of Churchmen, in 
 direct opposition to ours. The king is not only bound to 
 act in a certain manner to his subjects, which is perfectly 
 right — but to adopt and maintain a certain set of religious 
 articles, in different parts of his dominions, which is egregi- 
 ously wrong. He is the only man, in all his dominions, who 
 is bound, by express stipulation, to profess and maintain a 
 particular creed for himself and a portion of his subjects, 
 which is declared to be Scriptural, and from which he cannot 
 depart without forfeiting his kingdom, but is sworn likewise 
 to support a form of ecclesiastical polity in another part of 
 his kingdom, which is also athrmed to be agreeable to the 
 Word of God. He is thus placed in a most inconsistent 
 and unhappy position. If he uses the privilege which belongs 
 unaiienably to every man, and which is guaranteed to the 
 humblest of his subjects, of thinking and acting for himself 
 
8 
 
 in the unspeakably important matters of religion, he violates 
 one of the articles of the compact by which he holds his 
 crown. He must heir his religion as he inherits his throne. 
 Were the chief magistrate elective, instead of hereditary, one 
 part of this arrangement would not be so impiously absurd: 
 but no apology can be urged for the other. Should the 
 sovereign at any time entertain scruples about the 
 thirty-nine articles of the English Church or any of the 
 numerous canons by which it is regulated, he must either 
 descend from the dignity of office and resign his honours into 
 the hands of one less conscientious or more submissive to 
 the authority of the church than himself, or obtain relief by 
 an Act of Parliament. Have the members of the Church of 
 Scotland no compunctions of conscience for this unjust and 
 unreasonable predicament in which the king is placed ? They 
 demand his approval and countenance to their system, though 
 he has declared it to be contrary to Scripture. The Epis- 
 copal Church may suppose that, by imposing this condition 
 on the sovereign, it is placed in an attitude of greater dignity, 
 and has obtained very strong security for its permanency: 
 but then, just in proportion as this circumstance contributes 
 to its welfare, must it tend to humiliate and to operate in- 
 juriously on the Scottish Church. Our Presbyterian Estab- 
 lishment cannot surely have so far degenerated as to smile 
 complacently on a system which their predecessors leagued 
 to extirpate, and which they are solemnly sworn to over- 
 throw. Are they conscientiously convinced that Episcopacy 
 is unscriptural ? Then how can they fraternize with it? 
 Or rest quietly under the guilt which must attach to us as a 
 nation in not combining our energies to emancipate a large 
 portion of the community from this yoke of bondage? Or 
 are we to believe that they now feel convinced that when 
 once a system has received the sanction of Parliament it 
 becomes true, and deserves our support, however opposite it 
 may be in itself to the Word of God, or our own professed 
 belief? It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the 
 strenuous efforts of our Scottish Churchmen to preserve 
 entire that bloated and persecuting Episcopacy which their 
 fathers hated, with their high-swelling eulogies of the heroic 
 achievements and high-toned principles of their ancestors in 
 resisting black prelacy to the very death. Their selfish fears 
 seem to lead them to make common cause with the hier- 
 archy, and their wish to prop up a declining cause and to 
 
9 
 
 rally around it all who are justly proud of the noble achieve- 
 ments of our Scottish martyrs, appears to dictate the other. 
 Their feverish anxiety to be regarded as the descendants of 
 the sons of the Covenant, and their adherence to Presbytery 
 as the only Scriptural form of church government, seem to 
 forbid us to entertain the thought that they regard Epis- 
 copacy as equally divine. But, then, why do they now laud 
 that very church which the Reformers laboured to destroy? 
 Why do they not contend that they, at least, shall have as 
 free access to their prince to teach him their Presbyterianism 
 as the proudest mitred dignitary in the land — and that he 
 shall have perfect liberty to avow his opinions should they 
 succeed in convincing him of its truth? And why should 
 this privilege be even confined to them? Why not confer 
 the same benefit on the Independent, the Baptist, the 
 Quaker, and every other individual? There is no reason 
 why it should not be so which can be alleged either from 
 Scripture or the light of nature; and both are -obviously 
 violated by the position in which the king is presently placed. 
 Here, then, is a national sin, over which we may call on our 
 Scottish Churchmen to weep with us, and to unite their 
 energies with ours to have it wiped away from our national 
 character. 
 
 When a nation has resolved on its form of govern- 
 ment, it is bound, when favoured with the W^ord of God, to 
 frame all its laws in accordance with his revealed will. The 
 dispute between Churchmen and Dissenters is not about the 
 propriety of recognizing God and submitting to be regulated 
 l)y his authority on all matters on which it is competent for 
 states to legislate. On this there is, so far as I know, the 
 most perfect agreement. We differ merely about the points 
 on which the state should legislate. We deny that any body 
 of uninspired men, be it civil or ecclesiastical, has a right to 
 frame one law to bind the conscience of a single individual 
 as to what he shall either believe or practise in relation to 
 the worship of God. The authority of the state is limited 
 to the conduct of men in their cival relations. In matters 
 relating to religion, all men are under law to their Creator, 
 and are equally responsible to God, and to Him alone. 
 When the state, then, adopts a certain creed, and declares it 
 to be agreeable to the mind of God, and either imposes it 
 on others under certain pains and penalties, or lays those 
 who reject it, at its dictation under civil disabilities, or applies 
 
10 
 
 the national treasure to propagate its own articles of faith, 
 it oversteps its just authority, and violates alike the precepts 
 and the precedents of Revelation. We are avrare that 
 Churchmen claim a right for the civil magistrate to establish 
 the true religion on the authority of the Old Testament. 
 Mr. Willis, in his late Lecture, says : — " We believe those 
 precepts and examples (relating to magistrates in the Old 
 Testament,) to be of a moral and permanent kind, as a rule 
 for nations generally: that though the ceremonial law was of 
 temporary and local obligation, the duty towards religion, 
 with which civil rulers was charged in those ancient times, 
 was founded on common principles involved in the law of 
 nature; and accordingly performed with divine approbation, 
 as the sacred records show, by Gentile as well as Jewish 
 princes; and clearly foretold as to be performed by kings 
 and other mlers in Christian times.'' Now, we request Mr. 
 Willis to direct us to these clear predictions that foretell that 
 kings should regulate the creed or tax their subjects for its 
 support. Where is it foretold that they should act with 
 authority in relation to religion at all? We affirm that 
 there is no such prediction in the Old Testament. There 
 are intimations of their submission to its claims, but none of 
 dictation. It is rather too much to expect that we shall 
 take his assertion as adequate proof. Besides, kings and 
 rulers are not in the same circumstances now as they were 
 under the Jewish Theocracy. Then their counsellors were 
 inspired prophets, and they were themselves the divinely 
 appointed vicegerents of Heaven, and acted expressly in 
 obedience to the commands of the Universal Sovereign. 
 Every offence committed by a Jew was treason against God, 
 and as such punished by his express appointment. All the 
 laws and their penalties were of divine appointment. There 
 was no civil legislature permitted to enact a single statute. 
 If, then, the example of Jewish magistrates be binding on us, 
 we must follow their example fully — burn the British Sta- 
 tute-book — substitute the Old Testament in its place — and 
 adhere to its laws to the very letter, except in so far as these 
 have been expressly modified or repealed by the New. Now, 
 we find no such express modification of them: and, as Mr. 
 Willis demands an explicit repeal of these or our adoption 
 of them, we have an unquestionable right to require him, on 
 the ground of consistency, to embrace them and enforce 
 them in all their extent. Is he prepared for this? No. He 
 
11 
 
 Will not allow the magistrate to compel any man to adhere 
 to a system which he cannot conscientiously embrace. But 
 it was one of the duties of the Jewish magistrate to enforce 
 entire religious uniformity on every dweller iu Judea. The 
 Jew who separated himself from the national worship was to 
 be " cut off from Israel." He contends that the magistrate 
 is bound, by the precepts of the Old Testament, to enforce 
 the religious observance of the Sabbath, but will he permit 
 him to inflict the full penalty connected with that precept? 
 Does he insist that the Sabbath-breaker shall be stoned to 
 death ? No. He is too merciful to push the law to this 
 extent. Does he rise up in holy jealousy for the honour of 
 God at the idolatrous systems that exist under the British 
 sway, and demand that the sword be instantly unsheathed 
 and never returned to its scabbard till every worshipper of 
 graven images be destroyed? His virtuous indignation does 
 not swell just so high. But this was the imperative duty of 
 the Jewish magistrate. He was bound to put every idolater 
 to death; and this was the light in which the early Reform- 
 ers viewed the subject. Tliey indeed hesitated to act on 
 their principles, but they stoutly asserted them. And this is the 
 only consistent view which can be taken of the matter. 
 Many of our modern Churchmen evidently long for the 
 period when they shall again be permitted to reign in undis- 
 turbed tranquillity, secured to them by a forced uniformity; 
 but the persecution and death which this would occasion is 
 never likely to disgrace afresh the annals of British history. 
 The bloody scenes produced by such arrogant despotism 
 shall never again, we trust, be enacted in our country. If, 
 then, the precepts and examples of the Old Testament are 
 binding, let them be enforced, but if they ai'e to be modified 
 to meet the shifting views and necessities of Churchmen, 
 they are virtually repealed, and repealed too under the 
 admission that they are still obligatory. We could not wish 
 to see our opponents tossed on the horns of a more painful 
 dilemma. It has been well said, " The law establishes a 
 religion, and yet tolerates disobedience; and, while it toler- 
 ates, taxes toleration. An established religion is a misnomer, 
 wherever men are allowed the right of private judgment. 
 It is not an established religion we have, but established 
 tithes and established endowments."* And for this state of 
 
 * Sir Arthur Brooke Faulkner, page 41. 
 
12 
 
 things Churchmen plead. And the endowment part of the 
 system is that which invests it with peculiar charms in their 
 estimation, and to which they most tenaciously cling, and 
 is that very part of it for which they have not one particle 
 of countenance in the Word of God. All the examples and 
 precepts, both of the Old and New Testaments, are against 
 them in reference to it. The tithes of the Jewish dispensa- 
 tion were appropriated to the Levites by God himself, and 
 the magistrate was neither commanded nor did he ever 
 interfere with their payment. There are Scriptural examples 
 of private donations freely given both by Jewish and heathen 
 princes for the worship of God out of their own " proper 
 good," and there are predictions that these shall be repeated 
 under the gospel dispensation, but of taxes there is not a 
 single instance. On this fact, then, we take our stand, 
 and require all Churchmen, as they venerate the authority 
 of Scripture, and desire to see their system modelled in 
 accordance with its whole tenor, to unite with us in striving 
 to expunge all those enactments on this point, which are so 
 foul a blot on the British Statute-book, and so dishonouring 
 to the author of Revelation. 
 
 But, in addition to this, we affirm that the civil 
 power has practically proved itself wholly unfit to super- 
 intend the religious interests of the community. It has 
 uniformly injured religion wherever it has intermeddled 
 with it. Witness the lamentable experiments it has made 
 in Britain on this all-important matter. In the wanton- 
 ness of the most freakish caprice, it has made and unmade 
 churches as it has cabinets. Henry Eighth revolted from the 
 Pope, and wheeled round his clergy, at the word of com- 
 mandj to do homage to himself as the head of the church. 
 Edward, his successor, carried the Reformation a little 
 farther than his imperious father, while Mary again restored 
 the allegiance of the clergy to the Romish See. Elizabeth, 
 on her accession to the Crown, once more metamorphosed 
 the English Church, and converted it, by an act of her 
 council, to Protestantism. Cromwell collated to endowments 
 Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Independents, just as 
 it accorded with his humour. Charles the Second restored 
 the hierarchy to its original Episcopalian purity, and not- 
 withstanding his double subscription of the Solemn League 
 and Covenant, sent his armies to this country to suppress 
 that very Presbyterianism he was sworn to defend. At the 
 Revolution, Presbytery was once more legalized in Scotland. 
 
At last, wearied out with unsuccessful experiments over the 
 consciences of men, the state makes a compromise of its 
 prerogative, and allows every man to choose his own religion, 
 but still compels him to pay for the support of its own 
 nurslings. Even this modified state of things can now scarcely 
 be endured, and another change is obviously at hand. Let 
 any man of common sense, or of religious principle, look at 
 these facts and then say if the civil magistrate of the most 
 enlightened community in the world has ever given the 
 slightest evidence of liis competency to superintend the 
 spiritual interests of his subjects. Dr. Chalmers has lately 
 discovered that while the people ask from him the bread of 
 life, he gives them a stone. Let them learn, then, to look 
 for this essential requisite to their eternal welfare to another 
 quarter. Let them cease from man, whose breath is in his 
 nostrils, and put their trust in the promises of Christ, and 
 use the simple means for its promotion which he has pro- 
 mised to bless. 
 
 So far, then, from our system destroying national re- 
 sponsibility, it sternly demands that every department 
 of our national affairs be regulated by a strict regard to 
 the revealed will of God. And we have ever declared it to 
 be one of the most powerful motives by which we are im- 
 pelled to persevere in our present efforts against all civil 
 establishments of religion, because we firmly believe that 
 their existence adds to our national guilt. This, in our 
 estimation, is one of our foulest social crimes. It is not my 
 duty to prove the utter contrariety of all such institutions to 
 the Scriptures of truth. This has been admirably and irre- 
 futably demonstrated by a preceding Lecturer. And if no 
 man, whatever be the office which he holds, has a right to 
 dictate authoritatively to the conscience of his fellow-man 
 what he shall believe in reference to his eternal interests, 
 neither can he have any right to force him to contribute to 
 maintain doctrines in which he does not believe; and Chris- 
 tianity expressly forbids the use of carnal weapons in its 
 defence. If there be one truth more plainly taught in Scrip- 
 ture than another, it is the responsibility of every individual 
 to God for the reception which he gives to his message. 
 What, then, must be the arrogancy of the claim and the 
 guilt involved in it which invests a set of articles drawn up 
 by fallible men with all the authority of divine truth, and 
 demands that the treasure of the nation be lavished in pro- 
 
14 
 
 pagating them because they have received the sanction of 
 the state. For, remember, it is not the Bible that is estab- 
 lished, but human commentaries on it. It is not Christianity 
 that is declared to be true, but the opinions of certain sects 
 in reference to it. It is the thirty-nine articles of the Epis- 
 copacy in England, and the Westminster Confession of Faith 
 of Presbyterians in Scotland, not to mention the Popery of 
 Lower Canada, that are established. Now, I ask, can this 
 be for the glory of God or the interests of the universal 
 church? Can such proceedings tend to confirm men in 
 their attachment to the religion of Jesus, or unite them in 
 harmonious combination for the diifusion of the truth? The 
 very reverse has always been the result. It has armed the 
 infidel with the most powerful weapons, which he has not 
 failed to wield with terrible effect against the citadel of our 
 faith, and furnished him with arguments against its hea- 
 venly origin which never could have existed but for the 
 interference of the secular power with the spiritual and 
 independent kingdom of Jesus Christ. 
 
 So long as the state laboured to enforce uniformity of 
 religious opinion, it either reduced religion to a cold un- 
 meaning round of lifeless forms, and superinduced an utter 
 stagnancy of thought, and spread the gloomy desolation of 
 spiritual death through all its territories; or it had to arm 
 itself with all the horrors of the inquisition, the dungeon, the 
 rack, the scaflPold and the stake, to crush the rising inquiries 
 of enterprizing spirits. And, oh ! at what an expense of blood 
 and treasure was the deep degradation of the dark reign of 
 papal domination established over the nations of Europe, 
 and the efforts of the early Reformers suppressed in some of 
 the countries of Christendom. The same fearful experiment 
 was repeated in England and Scotland during the reign of 
 Charles the Second, and with the same disastrous conse- 
 quences. Since the Revolution, religious liberty hps been 
 advancing with gigantic strides, and in its march it has been 
 demolishing one frowning bulwark of religious despotism 
 after another, till the whole fortress is now tottering on its 
 basis. The cry of distress is now raised in earnest by its 
 occupants. It is loud and piercing. But we must not spare 
 for their crying. To their piteous wailings we can only 
 return the friendly invitation to join our standard, for on- 
 ward we must march. If they comply, we shall hail them 
 as an auxiliary band of Christian warriors, resolved by the 
 weapons of truth and argument to fight their way till we haA^e 
 
15 
 
 completely destroyed every citadel of anti-clirist, and left 
 him not an outpost from which he shall again annoy the 
 simple-hearted followers of the Lamh. 
 
 We are fully convinced that next to the innate depravity 
 of man the greatest obstacle to the universal diffusion of 
 pure Christianity is its civil establishment in Europe. And 
 were these anti-scriptural systems once out of the way, not 
 only would we be delivered from a grievous national sin, 
 but behold llie friends of Jesus exerting all their energies in 
 holy rivalry to diffuse " the savour of the Redeemer's name 
 in every place." 
 
 But we are told that a state is "a moral person, who 
 possesses an understanding and will peculiar to herself, and 
 is susceptible of obligations and rights." This " moral per- 
 son," we are told, " resides in those who are invested with 
 the public authority, and represent the entire nation." These 
 are the words of the celebrated Vattel, quoted with approba- 
 tion by Mr. Brown. But if he understands their meaning, 
 I do not. To me they appear utter nonsense. To talk of a 
 moral person residing in other moral persons, and to make 
 this person feminine, as if this nation were governed by 
 women, equals in intelligibility any dogma in the transcen- 
 dental philosophy. I can conceive of no responsibility apart 
 from a moral agent; but can the state, with any propriety of 
 speech, be characterized as a " moral person," or as having 
 any agency at all apart from the individuals who compose it? 
 Certainly not. Shall this moral person, which figures so 
 prominently in Mr. Brown's pamphlet, preserve her identity 
 in another world, and take her station before the judgment- 
 seat of Christ? This will not be affirmed. Nations exist 
 only in this world. Where, then, is her personality now? 
 It must be the mere phantom of the imagination, or at best 
 but a figure of speech to designate the united wills and 
 schemes of the men who compose the state. But the respon- 
 sibility connected with these schemes must rest with those 
 who plan, execute, and approve of them, and not on some 
 indefinable something to which their deliberations impart a 
 separate being. And it is right that it should rest on indi- 
 viduals, and be pressed on their consciences. For it has been 
 well observed, " Individuals do wrong; but bodies do mighty 
 wrong; and do it without remorse: men singly have con- 
 sciences ; but a corporation has no conscience." It is, then, 
 upon a sound principle, and a correct view of human nature, 
 
16 
 
 that Voluntaries maintain that every individual is responsible 
 to God for all his actions in every relation in life. The 
 king must give an account of himself to the Universal Judge 
 for all his official acts, as well as for his private doings; and 
 this holds true in relation to every inferior magistrate. And, 
 so far from wishing to see our monarch banish religion from 
 his throne, and his cabinet, and his parliament, we desire to 
 behold its ascendancy in all his official acts, and in all his 
 private intercourse. We wish to see religion influencing 
 and regulating his edicts, but we deprecate the guilt involved 
 in his attempting authoritatively to legislate for Christianity. 
 We would delight to witness all the dignitaries in the land 
 doing every thing for the support and diffusion of the 
 gospel, in every relation they sustain, by all the means which 
 the Word of God warrants, and the Great Head of the 
 Church has enjoined. But, then, the question again recurs, 
 What are these means? Is their device left to the wisdom 
 and ingenuity of erring men, or are they developed in the 
 Scriptures of truth? We believe and assert that the means 
 of supporting and diffusing the religion of Jesus Christ are 
 contained in the Bible, and not in Acts of Parliament. And, 
 if we must be branded, on this account, as holding principles 
 of an atheistical tendency, we can pity the ignorance or the 
 malignity which deals in such slanders. We maintain that 
 there is not a single precept or example in the Bible for 
 extorting money for the support of religion, and not an 
 instance of a magistrate appropriating for this purpose a 
 single fraction of any funds but those which belonged per- 
 sonally to himself. All was voluntary, and for this we 
 earnestly contend. Let our rulers give as munificently as 
 they please of their own proper good. It is their duty. 
 They are bound, in this way, to stimulate the liberality of 
 their subjects for the support of the gospel and the diffusion 
 of its blessings over the world. And we should rejoice to 
 see our monarch imitating the pious king of Israel, and from 
 the loftiest battlement of his palace, exclaiming, " And who 
 is willing this day to consecrate his services unto the Lord?" 
 But we object to his tithe-proctors, and his captions and 
 hornings, and all the other pains of civil law, as totally in- 
 admissible in this sacred cause. Mr. Willis, indeed, affirms 
 that Voluntaries " deny the duty of a legislature, as such, to 
 appeal even to the voluntary liberality of the community, 
 in favour of a true religion more than a false." Where he 
 
17 
 
 found this denial I know not, but certain I am I never met 
 with it but in his pages. The legislature is not in the habit 
 of making voluntary appeals on any subject. But, if it should 
 condescend so far as to stimulate by arguments and Scrip- 
 tural motives the liberality of the community in favour of 
 Christianity, . no Voluntary would object; nay, we would 
 bail it as a signal proof of the triumph of our principles. 
 
 Besides, if the state be bound to punish one sin as committed 
 against God, then is it equally bound to punish every sin 
 which it can possibly detect. All sin is otfensive to God. 
 injurious to the best interests of man, and if not repented of, 
 exposes to the highest sanctions of his law. Unbelief is a 
 sin of the greatest magnitude, and denounced with peculiar 
 severity by the Almighty. Why, then, is this not included 
 among the number of offences punishable by the state? It 
 may be said the condition of the heart does not lie open to 
 the inspection of man. True, but a public profession of a 
 right state of heart towards God might be demanded, and if 
 not complied with, punished. But this would be persecu- 
 tion. Yes, but so is every interference of the state in religi- 
 ous matters. It is surely not more unjust, and certainly 
 indicates more concern for their spiritual interests to require 
 men to think right on religion than to compel them to sup- 
 port a system of which they do not approve, or to sup- 
 port even the truth itself in a manner which they believe to 
 be injurious to its interests, and contrary to the will of their 
 Saviour. But no advocate of magisterial interference in 
 religion contends, so far as I know, that every sin against 
 God ought to be punished by the secular power. He arbi- 
 trarily selects a few glaring offences, and insists that the 
 state take cognizance of these. This is manifestly absurd. 
 Were these offences singled out as committed against the 
 state, we might quarrel with the selection, but not with the 
 principle. But this would be to abandon the doctrine for 
 which Churchmen contend. The state is invested with 
 power by God himself to deal with its subjects in their civil 
 relations, but not officially to interfere with their religion. 
 This it cannot do without daringly usurping his sacred pre- 
 rogative — violating the rights of conscience and inflicting 
 gross injustice. The duty of the magistrate to religion is 
 obviously to recognize its truths himself — submit to be 
 regulated by them in all his official and social relations — to 
 encourage his subjects, by his strict regard to all its require- 
 B 2 
 
18 
 
 ments, to profess and support it for themselves — set them 
 an example in every good work — afford them the fullest 
 protection while acting on their conscientious religious con- 
 victions, so long as these do not interfere with the peace of 
 society — and to countenance those who, by their holy and 
 blameless lives, adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour, not 
 by pensions and civil immunities, but by elevating them to 
 those offices which they are best qualified to fill. This 
 would do more, in a short time, to promote the cause of 
 godliness, and advance the interests of Christianity, than all 
 that civil establishments of religion are ever likely to effect, 
 though all their present cumberous machinery were to be 
 kept in perpetual motion, or their clerical advocates loaded 
 with additional millions of the national wealth. 
 
 It is perfectly obvious, too, that if it be the duty of a 
 state to establish religion in its own dominions, it can only, 
 with consistency, establish one form of it. It has been well 
 remarked, that " The state, acknowledging but one true 
 religion, can consistently set up but one creed. It sets up 
 three — one in each of its dominions. Having set up three, 
 it annuls its right of setting up but one, and confirms its 
 right of setting up as many as there are opinions among its 
 subjects." From this conclusion it is impossible to escape. 
 Besides, if it be incumbent on the state to provide, by force, 
 for the support of the true religion in its own dominions, it 
 must be equally its duty to propagate it throughout the 
 world by the same means. Christianity is not designed, 
 like Judaism, for one little territory, but for the whole earth. 
 And the duties we owe to its great Author are not fully 
 discharged till we have sent it to every spot on our globe 
 where there is an immortal being to be saved by it. Why, 
 then, do our Churchmen, formerly so zealous in preaching 
 up a crusade against the liberties of Europe, which cost this 
 nation hundreds of millions, not summon tlie armies of the 
 state into the field, and send them forth with their muskets 
 in their hands, and their Bibles in their knapsacks, to pro- 
 pagate and establish the blessed religion of the " Prince of 
 Peace" over all the earth? Are they silent on this subject, 
 because the presence of the soldiery at home is so neces- 
 sary for the collection of their tithes? Mahomet's practice 
 was more consistent with his creed than theirs. He saw 
 that if he had a right to set up his own dogmas by force, 
 and to maintain them by the sword, he had an equal right to 
 extend them to the ends of the earth. It seems to be very 
 
19 
 
 obvious that the method of supporting the gospel in our 
 own country must be improper and unscriptural, which can- 
 not be applied to diffuse it throughout the world.- And if it 
 be lawful to imprison and kill in its defence at home — why 
 not in its dissemination throughout the globe? 
 
 It is still, however, urged, that the duty of maintaining 
 the ordinances of Christianity must be incumbent on the 
 state, because it is said in Scripture, " The nation and 
 kingdom that will not serve thee, shall perish: yea those 
 nations shall be utterly wasted." — Isaiah Ix. 12. These 
 words plainly intimate, from the connection in which they 
 stand, that national service is to be rendered to the church ; 
 but then the question occurs. Is it by the nation through its 
 rulers, or by the individuals who compose it? We have no 
 hesitation in affirming that it is by the latter. The Saviour 
 commanded his disciples to teach all nations, and it will be 
 admitted that they both understood and obeyed his com- 
 mand. And we know that their instructions were chiefly 
 imparted to the people. Besides, were we to argue from a 
 general term, we could prove that all nations sliall be 
 sisted as such at the judgment-seat of Christ. For it is 
 said, " Before Him shall be gathered all nations." It is 
 admitted that this term denotes the individuals of which 
 communities are made up in these instances. And why not 
 in the present? Religious duty is just as personal as the 
 account we must render. And as the mode in which this 
 service is to be performed is not specified, it must be in 
 harmony with the nature of religion and the precepts of the 
 New Testament. It is too much for Churchmen to quote 
 these words to prove that it is by rulers taxing their subjects 
 for its support, when no such right is conferred in the Bible. 
 For this the verse gives no authority, and the whole chapter 
 from which it is taken describes the church as shining in the 
 glory of Jehovah, and attracting by its splendour the willing 
 tribute of all grades of society. Instead of being brought 
 into this prosperous state by the patronage of the state, she 
 is exhibited as having attained it by the favour of her divine 
 Head. Instead of exulting in the protection and pay of 
 princes, she is described as walking in the light of the Lord, 
 and relying with implicit confidence on His faithfulness. 
 And one of the promises which ensures her defence is quite 
 incompatible with the theory of Churchmen, " I will also 
 make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness. 
 
20 
 
 Violence shall no more be heard iu thy land, wasting nor 
 destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls 
 salvation, and thy gates praise." 1 know not a more dan- 
 gerous method of interpreting Scripture than by picking out 
 an isolated text and constructing an argument on the mere 
 sound of the words rather than on the scope of the passage 
 of which it forms a part. And yet it is only by having 
 recourse to this rash and improper plan of exposition that 
 any thing like a shadow of Scriptural evidence has ever been 
 adduced in favour of magisterial interference with the reli- 
 gion of others. 
 
 We affirm, then, that it is not the duty of the state to tax 
 its subjects in support of Christianity, or to establish their 
 creed, and consequently fearful guilt is incurred when these 
 things are done. And, if there be one national act which 
 has been followed more than another with the signal dis- 
 pleasure of the Almighty, it has been the interference of the 
 secular power with the church of Christ. Heathen super- 
 stition coalesced with the civil power, and seemed to 
 strengthen the government that presided over it. But, from 
 the days of Constantine to the present time, the alliance of 
 the church with the state has been a very Pandora's box, 
 out of which the most dreadful mischiefs have sprung, and 
 deluged the nations with blood, and brought foul calumny 
 on the peaceful religion of Jesus. The dreadful consequences 
 which have resulted from the interference of the secular 
 power with the church are so broadly stamped on the page 
 of history, and have been so visibly followed by the judg- 
 ments of Heaven, that we must be entirely blind not to 
 mark the connection. Your time will not admit of a par- 
 ticular illustration of this important point. We can only 
 call upon you to consult the testimony of impartial histori- 
 ans on the subject, and they will tell you what have been 
 the consequences to the state itself. There you will read 
 of the anarchy it has occasioned — the thrones it has tumbled 
 — the dynasties it has overthrown — the civil wars it has 
 kindled — the gibbets it has erected — the fires of martyrdom 
 it has lighted up — the oceans of human blood it has shed — 
 the cabinets it has shivered — and the commotion it is now 
 exciting through every grade of British society. Behold it 
 in France, at the period of the Revolution, when the people, 
 crushed to the very dust by a tyrannical government, swayed 
 by a political church, rose, in the wildness of despair, and 
 
21 
 
 retaliated so terribly on their cruel oppressors. Then the 
 demon of discord broke loose, snapped every sacred and 
 civil tie, smashed into shivers the social edifice, and, riding on 
 the whirlwind of revolutionary phrenzy, spread desolation 
 and cai-nage throughout the land. Nor was it satiated 
 till millions were sacrificed to glut its fury, and the fiendish 
 spirit which it generated sought to stifle its compunctions 
 by writing on every churchyards-Death an eternal sleep, and 
 proclaiming — There is no God. These were not the doings 
 of Voluntaries, but of a church and state alliance. 
 
 The effects of this connection have been equally disastrous 
 to the church. Before the Reformation, these were con- 
 spicuous in an ignorant, tyrannical, ambitious, and time- 
 serving priesthood — in a prostrate and degraded people — in 
 the triumph of superstition — the death of vital godliness — 
 the substitution in its place of splendid rites and unmeaning 
 mummeries, and the universal prevalence of every species 
 of immorality and crime. Witness the results of this alliance 
 still where it exists in all its entireness, and produces its 
 genuine fruits. These are ignorance, bigotry, superstition, 
 tyranny, and crime. Behold it in Ireland, in the arrogancy 
 of its bishops— the political ravings and non-residence of the 
 clergy — in Tory parsons — empty churches — starving flocks 
 — and tithe massacres. Contemplate it in our beloved Scot- 
 land, in the imposition of patronage — a law-bound church — 
 a moderate clergy — a furious partizanship in the supreme 
 ecclesiastical court — in roupings and imprisonments for minis- 
 ters' stipends — a disgraceful distrust of the energies of the 
 gospel — a craving appetite for domination in the state-de- 
 pendant clergy — and a strong desire to rob the public for their 
 own emolument and aggrandizement. " By their fruits ye 
 shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs 
 of thistles?" The system has not only been ill wrought but 
 it works z7/. * And we never can hope to be rescued from 
 its evils till we are delivered from the system itself. Under 
 this honest conviction, we call on all who deprecate the 
 wrath of God— their share in the national guilt which the 
 system entails, and the bitter consequences which spring 
 from it, to assail it with the " sword of the Spirit," and to 
 seek its utter and permanent extinction. 
 
 Having thus shown that the civil community is not re- 
 sponsible for the support and diffusion of Christianity, it 
 may not be improper to show, in a few sentences, where this 
 
22 
 
 accountability lies. The religion of Jesus is designed to he 
 universally disseminated. It is suited to every clime and 
 designed to irradiate all nations. It is equally clear that it 
 is to be propagated by human instrumentality. By whom, 
 then, is this to be eiFected? We answer, by those who 
 have cordially embraced it: or, in other words, by the 
 churches. This appears to us so reasonable and obvious, 
 that we cannot but wonder that it has ever been questioned^ 
 Who so likely to feel their responsibility to extend the reli- 
 gion of the Saviour as those w^ho have themselves felt the 
 joys of his salvation. There is no security that the state 
 shall, at any one time, be composed of men of this descrip- 
 tion ; but that cannot be a Christian church which is com- 
 posed of any other. There may be pious men in connection 
 with the state, and we should rejoice to see them all pos- 
 sessed of this character — and there may be hypocrites in the 
 church, and we wish there were fewer of them, but the 
 distinctive feature of the members of Christ is that they are 
 saints, and there is provision made by Him that they be so; 
 but there is no security whatever that our civil rulers 
 shall possess this character. Hence, we find it is on the 
 church that Christ has imposed the duty of supporting his 
 ordinances and propagating his gospel. That the light of 
 divine truth should be diffused by the instrumentality of the 
 church, is frequently intimated in ancient prophecy. One 
 instance may be selected. " And it shall come to pass in 
 the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be 
 established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted 
 above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And 
 many people shall go and say. Come ye, and let us go up 
 to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of 
 Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in 
 his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the 
 word of the Lord from Jerusalem." This prediction has an 
 undoubted reference to the " beginning of the gospel," which 
 is often designated in the Old Testament the " last days," 
 and beautifully accords with the commission which Christ 
 gave to his apostles, and the manner in which they acted 
 on it. " Go ye and teach all nations — go ye unto all the 
 world and preach the gospel to every creature." All his 
 commands to propagate his religion were addressed to his 
 followers as members of his church. And it has been well 
 remarked, that " men who respect themselves, and who have 
 
23 
 
 learned to exercise a vigorous common sense, in common 
 affairs, will hold it certain, in all cases, that those who are 
 instructed how to perform particular duties, are actually the 
 parties looked to for the discharge of such duties. Exhortations 
 and commands are not cross-directed by plain and upright 
 men."* And, if this hold true in the intercourse of ordi- 
 nary life, how much more so in the case of the Saviour 
 issuing his commands for the diffusioA of his religion? And 
 in this light did the apostles and churches understand them. 
 They did not sit down in solemn deliberation, mourning over 
 the fearful condition of a godless world, to devise how they 
 might most successfully obtain endowments from the state 
 before they commenced their all-important mission — they 
 did not set about manufacturing petitions to the government 
 praying for money to defray the expenses of their laborious 
 and toilsome journeys. There is not one appeal to the civil 
 rulers on this point, nor one intimation that this was any 
 part of their duty at all. The apostles understood the 
 charge as given to them. And they instantly acted upon it. 
 And their preaching soon raised up a host of men who were 
 not only willing to contribute of their substance for the cause 
 of Jesus, but even to lay down their lives for its defence. 
 And this duty still rests on us as Christians, and not as 
 members of civil society. And if we would imitate their 
 example, similar results will still follow. The church is the 
 candlestick which is to hold up the lamp of divine truth by 
 which this dark earth is to be illumined. Christians are the light 
 of the world. The church, in primitive times, guarded, 
 enriched, and upheld by her divine Founder, and fed with 
 the free-will offerings of her members, caused the word of 
 the Lord to sound abroad in all the regions round about, 
 and she ought to do so still. The promise is as full now as 
 it was then. Her Lord is with her still. Her resources are 
 more abundant. Her facilities for accomplishing the work 
 are increased by the invention of printing, the freer inter- 
 course of all nations, the multiplication of churches, and 
 the spirit of inquiry that is now abroad. Why, then, does 
 she not feel her duty, and vigorously respond to the call? 
 Alas! a large portion of the church has thrown off the duty 
 from herself and devolved it on the state, and the other part 
 of it is compelled to struggle against an anti- Christian 
 
 * Spiritual Despotism, page IGl. 
 
24 
 
 influence, which operates most fatally in retarding the pro- 
 gress of truth, and by which its energies have been crushed 
 and its standard of duty lowered. To both we would say, 
 in the spirit-stirring language of the holy seer, " Awake, 
 awake, put on thy strength, O Zion, put on thy beautiful 
 garnaents, O Jerusalem the holy city: for henceforth there 
 shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised, and the 
 unclean; shake thyself from the dust: arise, and sit down, O 
 Jerusalem : loose thself from the bands of thy neck, O cap- 
 tive daughter of Zion. How beautiful upon the mountains 
 are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publish- 
 eth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth 
 salvation, that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth. Thy 
 watchmen shall lift up the voice, with the voice together 
 shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord 
 shall bring again Zion. Break forth into joy, sing together 
 ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the Lord hath comforted 
 his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord hath 
 made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all nations, and all 
 the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God." — 
 Isaiah lii. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10. O when will this glorious pre- 
 diction have its full accomplishment! When will the 
 churches unite in a holy confederacy on the footing of the 
 primitive Christians, and go forth to evangelize the world? 
 When will Christians learn that One is their Master, even 
 Christ, and that they are all Brethren? When will they 
 condescend to meet on equal terms, and contend in the 
 spirit of love for the faith once delivered to the saints, and 
 exert all their energies, after the example of the churches 
 in Judea that were in Christ, to send the gospel into every 
 dark corner in the land, and to diffuse its saving light 
 throughout the world? 
 
 We can scarcely have patience with those who affirm that 
 the church is inadequate to such a mighty achievement. In 
 the strength, and by the grace of the Saviour, she is per- 
 fectly competent for greater things than these. Were there 
 another planet accessible to her visits, inhabited by sinners, 
 were it the will of her Master, she might Christianize it too. 
 And we never hope to see the world converted to the Re- 
 deemer till she take the work exclusively into her own hands. 
 To this she is called. Let her recognize her duty, and 
 feel her responsibility to Christ and to perishing millions. 
 O how deep must be her guilt in declining the honour her 
 
25 
 
 Lord has prepared for her in being a fellow- worker with him, 
 and how awful her infatuation to attempt to throw the re- 
 sponsibility from herself and to roll it on the secular power. 
 But on the church it must rest. Here the Saviour has 
 placed it, and nothing but a voice from Heaven can ever 
 release her from this accountability. It rests on every 
 individual member of this sacred community. Let us weigh 
 this matter well, and contemplate it iri the light of Scripture 
 now: for we shall yet have to feel it in the presence of our 
 judge, amid the thunderings of the day of doom and the 
 tremendous illumination of a blazing and dissolving uni- 
 verse. 
 
 We shall now very briefly — 
 
 n. Consider the Voluntary principle in relation to the 
 religious instruction of the poor. Could it be satisfactorily 
 shown that this principle is either inadequate to furnish those 
 who, through poverty, are unable to provide the means of 
 salvation for themselves, or entirely overlooks their spiritual 
 necessities, it must be abandoned. For to the poor the 
 gospel must be preached. We frankly admit that those 
 who have in our country acted on the Voluntary principle, 
 have not hitherto done all that they might or ought to have 
 accomplished for the eternal welfare of the ignorant and the 
 destitute. But let not our opponents seize on this conces- 
 sion. It can avail them nothing for the defence of their 
 cause. For there cannot be an impartial observer in the 
 country but must have perceived that almost the only re- 
 ligious instruction which the poorer classes in the com- 
 munity receive is through the operation of the Voluntary 
 principle. The parish churches are pre-eminently the meet- 
 ing-houses of the opulent, and a pauper bench or two is 
 generally all that is provided for the poor. The Dissenters, 
 on the contrary, seldom, and ought never, to make this 
 odious distinction. They either give them free sittings, in 
 an unoccupied part of the church, of their own choice, or 
 aid them with money to take seats for themselves. But it 
 may be said that this arrangement respects only the pious 
 poor who have a taste for the gospel, and therefore solicit 
 admission into our fellowship. This, we confess, has, till 
 very lately, been too much the case. And various causes 
 have contributed to this. And one, which we once pow^er- 
 fully felt, and which is yet in extensive operation, has been 
 created by that very establishment whose adherents now 
 
 c 
 
26 
 
 so very modestly fling this objection against our system. 
 The legal incumbent claims the whole parish as his own, and 
 professes to exercise a pastoral superintendance over it all. 
 The Dissenting minister is often enough reminded that he is 
 merely tolerated. In these circumstances, it is not wonderful 
 that he should have limited his attentions to those who 
 place themselves under his care, or request his services and 
 visits. He feels the delicacy of his position, and wishes not 
 to obtrude himself where he may not be welcome. This, we 
 allow, was valuing his Master's commission too little, and 
 the commission of the government too much. But still this 
 feeling will operate on the firmest minds, unless correct- 
 ed by steady principle and a deep conviction of re- 
 sponsibility to his Master and the souls of perishing men, 
 or be counteracted by public opinion. This duty has 
 hitherto been too much forgotten and neglected for the sake 
 of good neighbourhood with the parish official. But were 
 the Voluntary principle allowed free scope, and all odious 
 distinctions swept away, it is perfectly adequate to pervade 
 every city, and town, and hamlet in the land, in all their 
 gradations of rank with the blessings of the gospel, and to 
 bring them under its influence, so far as this can be accom- 
 plished by mere instrumentality. Before the expensive and 
 cumberous apparatus of an Establishment had been set up — 
 to the poor the gospel was preached. And under which 
 principle was it that the poor and profligate in England and 
 Wales were visited with the glad tidings of salvation, and 
 tens of thousands of them rescued from the gulph of perdi- 
 tion, and led to spend holy and useful lives? The Estab- 
 lished Church was slumbering in profound apathy, perfectly 
 unmoved by the perishing millions by which she was sur- 
 rounded, and when she did arouse from her slumbers, it was 
 to cast out of her pale the apostolic Whitefield and the 
 devoted Wesley, as deluded fanatics, because they loved 
 the souls of men more than the canons of the Episcopacy. 
 And on which principle is it that the poor moral outcasts of 
 our own city are visited and have the gospel preached to 
 them ? It is upon the Voluntary. The City Mission and 
 the Christian Instruction Societies are plying their assiduous 
 and unobtrusive labours among the families of the poor, and 
 at less than one-tenth of the expense at which one of our 
 city ministers is supported, each missionary doing as much 
 good in this important sphere of Christian philanthropy as 
 
27 
 
 the best beneficed clergyman in the land could accomplish in 
 the same situation. And had the churches commenced this 
 work of evangelization before ignorance and immorality had 
 been permitted to reach their present alarming height, the 
 field would have been much more easily brought under 
 religious cultivation. As it is, we do not despair. Christi- 
 ans are but beginning to ascertain the extent of their own 
 resources and the amount of their capabilities. They are 
 perfectly adequate, in their Master's strength, to the per- 
 formance of all the work to which He has called them. Let 
 them put forth their energies in combination with their 
 prayers, and the " wilderness shall soon be glad for them, 
 and the desert rejoice and blossom as the rose." 
 
 Every Christian church can command a vast amount of 
 effective talent and piety, which may be employed with the 
 greatest advantage ifor the religious interests of the poor, 
 and at very little expense. And the services which pious 
 individuals can render are the best adapted to the necessi- 
 ties of the ignorant and careless. The frequent and affec- 
 tionate visits of a pious neighbour are more likely to win 
 their hearts and impress their consciences than the occa- 
 sional and more formal attentions of a stated official. All 
 this, and much more, is within the reach of the Voluntary 
 principle. The building of churches, and the endowment 
 of ministers, will do but little for the poor. The well paid 
 stipendiary will be found much more frequently in the com- 
 fortable mansions of the rich than by the fire-sides and 
 death-beds of the indigent. It looks exceedingly well on 
 paper, and seems to be instinct with the purest philanthropy, 
 to talk in swelling sentences of the good effected by the 
 kindly intercourse of the well paid parish minister with the 
 poorest of his flock; but how often is this actually realized 
 in real life, or is it likely to be ever more generally wit- 
 nessed under the operation of the compulsory system. A 
 splendid exception may occasionally occur, like a bright 
 meteor in a murky sky, but this serves only as a temporary 
 flash to show the deepness of the surrounding gloom. If 
 you wish to find men who will labour faithfully in their 
 Master's work, they must be attracted to it from the love 
 they feel to it, and be content to live of the fruits of the 
 gospel. But the religious interests of the poor ought not to 
 be confided to any one individual, but to be the care of the 
 whole church. Every individual member of it should regard 
 
28 
 
 himself as responsible for all the good he can do, and es- 
 pecially for reclaiming the wandering and the profligate to 
 the fold of Christ. Till some method, similar to this, be 
 adopted, we shall still have to mourn over the " waste 
 places " of our land. There is not only an elasticity in the 
 Voluntary principle, which may be readily applied to every 
 emergency of moral necessity, but likewise a fertility of 
 resource which can scarcely ever be exhausted. The more 
 efficiently you work this principle of Christian benevolence, 
 the more abundant will be the supplies you will obtain for 
 doing good, and every new convert which you make imder 
 its operation will be an accession to your strength, from the 
 widow with her "two mites" cast into the Lord's treasury, 
 under his benignant smile, to the rich men who cast in 
 much. 
 
 It is curious to witness the confidence which some Church- 
 men repose in voluntary contribution for the supply of the 
 temporal wants of the poor, and to contrast it with their 
 want of faith in its efficiency for their eternal interests. 
 They can deplore the evils of a " compulsory pauperism," 
 while they are perfectly fascinated with the spectacle of a 
 compulsory Christianity. The former is an evil of so en- 
 ormous a magnitude, that we may regard ourselves as cheaply 
 delivered from it by an equal amount of clerical endow- 
 ments. To show you that there is no exaggeration in this 
 statement, let the Circular of the Assembly's Committee 
 speak: — "And certain it is, that the evils of a compulsory 
 pauperism is far more conquerable in small than in large 
 parishes." This is not so certain as its authors think. 
 This most depends on the character of the population of 
 the parish. They go on to say — " By every new erec- 
 tion, the means will be more within our reach for narrow- 
 ing the field of superintendance, and adding not only 
 to the amount of our Voluntary collections, but what is 
 of still more salutary consequence, to a more thorough 
 and effectual management of the parochial charity of 
 Scotland. In as far as a compulsory provision for the poor 
 should thereby become unnecessary, or, at all events be much 
 alleviated in our towns and populous parishes, the endow- 
 ment applied for, instead of a simple gratuity, might be 
 regarded as the purchase by Government, at a small expense, 
 of a great public and patriotic interest." Now it appears from 
 this representation, that the Assembly's Committee believe 
 
29 
 
 that the A^oluntary principle would work well for the supply of 
 the temporal wants of the poor, though it is rather a precarious 
 and undignified source of supply for clergymen. And farther, 
 that it is very patriotic to relieve our wealthy proprietors 
 and householders of a compulsory tax, hy the half- pence of 
 the poor, and to endow ministers out of the national Ex- 
 chequer, to which every pauper in the laud contributes his 
 share. Truly some men have a strange idea of patriotism. 
 But what I wish to press on your attention is, that if the 
 Assembly's Committee can rely on the strength of Christian 
 principle, and the power of general benevolence, provided 
 they are well paid for exciting these, to furnish enough to 
 supply all the temporal necessities of the poor, why can they 
 not also rely on the same means for their religious instruc- 
 tion ? The sum which is requisite to furnish them with the 
 necessities of the body for a week, would provide most effi- 
 ciently for their religious instruction for a year. And if they 
 can cast the poor on the Christian sympathies of their breth- 
 ren, why cannot they trust themselves to the Christian prin- 
 ciples of their hearers ? Or if the free-will offerings of the 
 community are esteemed inadequate to meet the demands 
 that would be made upon them, for both the temporal, and 
 spiritual interests of the poor, why not allow the law to stand 
 as it is, in relation to the former, and bring Christian bene- 
 volence to bear on the latter? Is the Churchman's estimate 
 of Christian principle so high, that he believes it will feed, 
 and clothe, and shelter the poor, but allow them to perish 
 for lack of knowledge ? This, of all possible assumptions, 
 is the most absurd. 
 
 The melancholy confessions of impotency on the part of 
 the endowed church, to meet the spiritual wants of the popu- 
 lation, furnish most satisfactory proofs of her unscriptural 
 character. After existing for so many years in every part of 
 our country, and numbering the nobles, and titled of the 
 land among her eldership, she has, according to her own 
 admission, made so little impression on the minds of her 
 people, that they would allow their own pastors to starve, 
 were the government to withdraw its support, and permit the 
 country, in so far as she is concerned, to return to a state 
 of heathenism. If this be true, which we do not believe, 
 then it is clear that the Christianity which the Established 
 Church teaches, diflPers essentially from the Christianity of 
 the New Testament. The gospel of the grace of God, when 
 
30 
 
 it is believed in sincerity, leads men to give not only of their 
 substance, but also themselves to the Lord. A Christian 
 church which boasts of its numbers, and its wealth, and yet 
 declares that it cannot support itself, and propagate the gos- 
 pel by voluntary offerings, publishes its own disgrace, and 
 proves, though it may have a name to live, that it is in reality 
 dead. 
 
 Let the churches be filled with efficient and faithful minis- 
 ters, who shall teach the doctrines of the gospel, and urge on 
 Christians their duty to support their own institutions, and 
 to attend to the spiritual wants of the poor, and there will be 
 no complaints of inability. The churches will prosper, and 
 the poor will be cared for in a way most agreeable to them- 
 selves, and most honourable to the religion of Jesus Christ. 
 That religion which breathes the love of Heaven on earth — 
 displays the Saviour as an incarnation of love — and is de- 
 signed to bind the scattered families of men by a bond of 
 love, in one happy brotherhood, must be, if properly taught 
 and exemplified, perfectly sufficient to gather to itself all 
 the outcasts, and to nourish, and build up those who through 
 grace believe in their " most holy faith." 
 
 Christians, next to your own salvation, set your hearts on 
 the advancement of the Saviour's cause, and the spiritual 
 welfare of your fellow men. Is there any sacrifice too great 
 for that man or woman to make, who " knows the grace of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, who, though he was rich, yet for our 
 sakes became poor, that we through his poverty might be 
 made rich." It is this sense of obligation to Christ, which 
 will rouse you to the greatest efforts in his service — kindle 
 the holiest love in your hearts — excite the purest zeal in his 
 cause — prompt you to contend for the honour of his religion 
 — and lead you to count not your lives dear to yourselves, 
 that you may finish your course with joy. 
 
 The present controversy, though productive of some evils, 
 has also effected much good, and is designed, we trust, to 
 lead to more. It has roused many from their apathy, and 
 called them, not only to the arena of polemics, but to the 
 field of Christian exertion. More has been done these two 
 years past by the endowed church for extending Christianity 
 on the principles of Voluntary liberality, than for the last 
 century. In this we rejoice. Ours is a contest for truth, 
 and we hail its approaching triumph. We pant for the con- 
 version of our opponents to our views, and delight to witness 
 
31 
 
 their practical adoption, not for our own sakes merely, but 
 likewise for theirs, and the honour of our holy religion. We 
 long to meet them on the ground of our common faith, and 
 to clasp them to our hearts as brethren, that we may rally 
 with them around the standard of the cross, and march on- 
 wards in united array to demolish every stronghold of Satan, 
 " by the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." 
 
 EELL AND BAIN, PRINTERS.