we meet with no directions in Scripture, nor any precedents, applicable to the present state of mankind. For, when God constitutes a Church, such Church is not a society of persons united together, and meeting for what they deem the most acceptable manner of worshipping God; but a number of persons meeting together to worship according to His immediate command, sensibly, that is, miraculously signified to them. I say sensibly, or miraculously signified to them; because, unless these persons are inspired themselves, or receive their information immediately from such as are, they cannot ascertain the certainty of the knowledge conveyed to them. For an immediate communication of knowledge from God is the only mode of received information, which admits no room for uncertainty, i.e. for difference of opinion. Nor can human learning be of any use in the business of understanding such knowledge, as is received by immediate revelation. But, when this knowledge is transmitted through the medium of human language, unless the precise meaning of every doubtful expression can be ascertained from the information of those, to whom it was originally imparted, and by whom it was first transmitted, the natural uncertainty in the signification of words must of course give rise to different interpretations, that is, different modes of understanding such expressions, and make all the assistance of human learning not only highly valuable, but indeed extremely necessary.

But Churches thus constituted by God himself, neither have, nor can have, any need of a toleration; because the expediency and the rectitude of a toleration stand upon the utter impossibility, that ALL men should agree in the meaning of words, that is, in the signification of the expressions used in a transmitted revelation, where infallible interpretation is not to be obtained; and in the same impossibility, that they should agree in the expediency of particular forms and ceremonies, where these are not of divine appointment. For, in general, both can be determined only by human judgment (see Locke's Essay upon, the Human Understanding, B. iv. Ch. xiv. Sec. 3.4.) and therefore can receive only probable, not certain decision, like necessary truths.

The same certainty, which, in the case of divine appointment, sets aside all occasion for toleration, equally sets aside all occasion for a CIVIL establishment of religion. For, where there can be no conscientious differences of

opinion

opinion, there can be no temptation to promote more than one mode of religion; since it is this temptation, which the conscientious maintainers of different opinions have to promote their own, that makes it advisable for the magistrate to establish the most numerous Church, in order to prevent all improper methods of promoting, what each party esteems the truth, from being practised.

Had men attended to the nature and design of God's various dispensations recorded in the Bible, they could never have appealed to them, or made so injudicious an application of them, as one sect of Christians have continually done for more than two centuries last past. They might have seen, that the design of them all was not to establish a permanent and universal mode of religion, or uniformity of worship, among ALL mankind; but to lead to the institution and introduction of a religion better suited to that alteration in our natural constitution, which took place in consequence of the disobedience of Adam; and to that great end of the Gospel economy, the restoration of fallen man, not only to the same, but to much greater benefits than our first parent enjoyed, John x. 10. These leading institutions of God's general design (Ephes. iii. 11.) had regard principally to those circumstances, which were necessary to secure its reception in the world, and not to its perfect and final accomplishment hereafter. Hence, then, the peculiarities of the Abrahamic covenant, and Mosaic dispensation, with which Christians have now no more to do, as matters of imitation, than they have with the Jewish ritual; although both have been continually insisted on, by such as have a zeal but not according to knowledge, as matters designed to be followed at present, and intended to direct the proceedings of Christians in these days: and hence it has happened, that men have so much mistaken, and so much disputed, the nature and propriety of ecclesiastical establishments, and religious toleration.

For these early dispensations, being not only expressly appointed, but immediately conducted, by God himself, He thought proper, for the accomplishment of that great purpose, which he had purposed in Himself from all cternity, to invest His civil magistrate with a religious character also, peculiarly and expressly appointed: and He vouchsafed to him miraculous powers for the proper discharge of his office. This magistrate received from God, not only general, but, when difficulties occurred, special information,

information. The Jewish governors were not only di rected to seek, they had also assurances of finding the Lord, whenever the exigencies of their situation made it necessary, and were always furnished with sensible proof of the reality of the divine interposition, when desired and vouchsafed; a species of proof utterly wanting to ALL, who, in modern times, have thought themselves authorized to expect, and have in consequence fancied that they have received, miraculous assistance.

More excusable, perhaps, but no less mistaken are those persons, who suppose that the first preachers of Christianity left express directions for the precise form of Church-government; or that such institutions, as these first preachers might make, were to be exact models, not to be departed from by their successors. They indeed appointed ministers and offices of religion, suited to the circumstances of the Church at that time; because it is impossible that any public religion can subsist without them. They established a form of Church-government; because a Church, consisting of a society of persons, united and meeting together for certain determinate purposes, must be conducted in some form, or these purposes could not be obtained. Just so the apostles themselves concluded, that, what was but an arbitrary appointment, was intended to have the nature and to carry the force of an absolute injunction; and therefore they filled up the breach in their number, from the death of Judas, by the solemn appointment of a successor: whereas our Lord plainly shewed, that He had no such intention (notwithstanding this appointment was apparently countenanced by a positive declaration, Matt. xix. 28. Luke xxii. 30.) since He Himself added a thirteenth apostle in the person of St. Paul*. The same want of attention to the nature of civil government occasioned many pious persons to suppose themselves authorized to determine the particular form of it, the extent of the power belonging to it, and

་

*Whether it be right to represent this proceeding of the apostles as founded in error, will probably be doubted. It may indeed be said, that the proceeding referred to, took place previously to the gift of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, when the apostles were more fully instructed in the urature of their religion; and it may be added, that the apostles were not, at any time, exempt from all error. See Gal. ii. 11. It is clear, however, that the number of the apostles' being twelve, was in reference to the number of the tribes of Israel; and we seem not to know enough of the ground of that reference, to justify us in saying, that the apostles were under no obligation to attend to it. As to St. Paul, he was more peculiarly the apostle of the Gentiles. See Rom. xi, 13. Gal. ii. 7. E. P.

the

the degree of subjection due to it, not from the reasons of things, the laws of our common nature, the practice of nations, the tempers, character, dispositions, and situation of mankind in different countries, but from precepts or precedents contained in Scripture. What could follow from so injudicious an appeal to it, and application of it, but what did follow, viz. confusion and strife, and every evil work? For the different parties were but the more inflamed against each other, and made more obstinate, by the support, which each party conceived their own opinion to receive from the word of God. Instead of fairly examining the general meaning of Scripture, and the purposes of revelation, without any attachment to preconceived notions, each party brought with them their own prejudices, and quoted Scripture in support of them. With equally confused notions, the author of the Confessional hints, (Advert. p. xii.) that reasons and considerations may be drawn out of the Christian Scriptures against subscriptions. It would have been kind, if he had specified what these reasons and considerations were, and where to be found in the New Testament. With a like precision in his ideas, this author says (Advert. p. xviii.) "Christian establishments appeal to the original record." Every Christian Church, as a religious society, must appeal for the truth of the doctrines they hold in such Church, and for the rites they observe, to the New Testament. But a civil establishment of religion and a Christian Church have no more connection with, or relation to each other, than Christianity has with the different forms of civil government. With Mr. Blackburne, an establishment and Christianity are convertible terms; and he represents the national Church of England as affirming, (Advert. p. viii. and xvii.) that Christianity cannot be supported, without it is established by the magistrate, But, what are we to understand by Christianity being supported? Does he mean, that the truth of Christianity cannot be proved, and its precepts practised, unless it is made the religion of the State? In the same manner, he confounds (ib. p. ix.) national establishments with Churchauthority. Church-authority has not the least concern with the civil establishment of religion. There must be Church-authority in every Church, whether established, or tolerated; because every Church on earth is, and must * See Logical Tracts, by T. Ludlam, pref. p. 23.

Vol, VI. Churchm. Mag. May, 1904.

be,

⚫ be, governed in some matters. No society whatever can subsist, nor can the ends of any society be obtained, without specific conduct in the members of it: but the appointment of such conduct is the peculiar province of laws, or rules, or directions, call them what you will, to which all the members must conform; i.e. by which they must be governed.

Mr. B. continually objects to the alliance of any Church with the State; as if the doctrines, rites, or ceremonies of such Church could be altered by the magistrate in con sequence of such alliance. With most other writers on the same side of the question, he continually speaks, as if the Christian religion was corrupted in consequence of those emoluments, which the magistrate may think proper to bestow upon such, as he authorizes to teach, and thinks proper to pay for so doing. But an establishment neither alters the matters to be taught, nor restrains the professors of tolerated religions from teaching what they choose, unless their doctrines are injurious to the civil government. To be sure, such emoluments will become motives to interested men, whose godliness is gain; but so will any emoluments, by whomsoever bestowed. The generality of mankind must be employed in some labour to acquire a subsistence. Such necessary employment must occupy their time, and engage their attention; and therefore they can have little leisure to study religion, and still less to teach it to others. Religion must of course become a profession, or no man will have opportunity to learn it, or to teach it. Not only in religion, but in many important subjects, which are highly necessary for his well-being in this world, every man must be indebted to, and rely upon, the knowledge of other men: and, why should he not do the same in religion, as far as is consistent with duty? Will the mistakes, that spring from his own ignorance, or his own prejudices, be less hurtful to him, or less likely to mislead him, than the prejudices, or the ignorance of others? When, then, Mr. Newton represents the Church as the creature of the State, he gives an unfair representation of the case*. The Church of England is no more the creature of the State, than every separate congregation is the creature of those, who compose such congregation. Not one of these would pay a teacher for preaching such doctrines as they