ficient in themselves for upholding the visible church upon earth, and for extending its benefits equally to all those to whom the Great Head of the Church required that his Gospel should be preached; it has been accounted necessary that the church should enjoy the protection and aid of the state for the accomplishment of its objects, and that, with this view, its ministers should be maintained at the public expense, instead of being left dependent on the particular congregations among whom they should exercise their functions.

What has been thus premised may perhaps be accepted as an outline of all that is essential to an ecclesiastical establishment. Various modifications of the system have been adopted for the purpose of accommodating it to the peculiar circumstances of different ages and nations. The peculiarities of these may be either right or wrong; I am not to be understood as either approving or condemning them. In this publication I have no view to defend what is peculiar, even in that established church to which I have the honour to belong. It is only to the general principles of an ecclesiastical establishment that I solicit attention; and, even in reference to these, I am willing to believe that the discussion admits of being so modified as to be materially abridged.

Though the right of laymen, both to preach the Gospel and to administer its ordinances, is far from being renounced by some, they who maintain it, in

the present times, have the merit of serving God in their own way, without disturbing others by any remonstrance against an opposite practice. In these circumstances, it would certainly be painful to enter, without necessity, into a discussion of what relates to them; and it is hoped that the necessity of doing so may be superseded, in a way which will equally supersede discussion relative either to creeds and confessions, or to the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts. For if it shall be shewn to be essential to the cause of religion that such a connection be maintained between church and state as may ensure to the church both the protection and the aid of the civil government, the basis of independency will be at once subverted, and the distinguishing tenets of independents, in reference to the particular points in question, will be found obviously inadmissible. In order to the civil government extending its protection and aid to the church, there must be mutual confidence between church and state. But how shall the civil government put confidence in the church, if it know not the men who have the charge of her concerns—if there be no professional badge or characteristic by which they are to be distinguished from the great mass of society? Or how shall the civil government have confidence in the ministers of the church, if they shall not, by a declared adherence to some particular creed or confession, give the requisite pledge against their preaching and inculcating what might be subversive of the peace and good order of civil society? How shall the civil go

vernment confide in the church even for such an administration of her own concerns as may be conducive to the public weal, if she wilfully deny to herself the advantage of such an efficient jurisdiction as must be obeyed by all who belong to her communion?

Upon these grounds, it is conceived that the whole defence of an ecclesiastical establishment may be safely limited to a defence of the requisite connection between church and state, except in so far as a defence of its other constituent parts shall be unavoidably included in a defence of that connection.-It is against this connection, almost exclusively, that the adversaries of ecclesiastical establishments have directed their attack; in this respect, the field of controversy is of their own choosing; and, upon it, there is no disposition in others to decline such a contest as may be essential to self-defence.-But, in order to a more effectual developement of the grounds and principles on which the determination of the case must depend, it will be useful to attend, in the outset, to the most material circumstances connected with the origin and progress of the controversy.

The objection to ecclesiastical establishments as connected with the state, is not of very distant or early origin. We can look back on the circumstances of the Christian world, and the opinions or sentiments of men respecting such establishments, before any opposition to them was contemplated. We can also look back-with assurance of not being deceived-on

all the circumstances connected with the origin of that opposition, ascertain the credit due to its authors, and form an estimate of the events by which it was influenced, and to which it still bears a close and faithful resemblance.

It is well known that no objection was made to an establishment of the Church of Christ in connection with the state, at the time when such an establishment was first devised and carried into effect by Constantine the Roman Emperor. It was, on the contrary, hailed by the Christian world, as a blessed and glorious event.-Were the Christians, then, of that day altogether unqualified to detect, under the semblance of a blessing, what were truly the elements of a curse? Whatever might be the imperfection of their discernment, it would be rather presumptuous to suppose that they deliberately approved of what was manifestly unjust and iniquitous;—a character which is now, without scruple, assigned to the leading principles of a church establishment.

During what are called the middle ages, the acquiescence of the Christian world in establishments may, no doubt, be ascribed to profound ignorance.

what account will be given of the undeniable fact— that, at the glorious era of the Reformation, not a whisper was heard against the leading principles of an ecclesiastical establishment? It must not be ascribed to inadvertence; for the subject appears to have commanded attention. Respecting some points connected with it, the early Reformers differed in opinion.

But even Calvin, while he insisted on restricting the power of the civil magistrate in what concerned the church, unequivocally left to him all that has now been laid down as essential to an efficient and salutary connection between church and state.

Shall it, then, be supposed that the great men, to whose learning and discernment-to whose judgment and energy-to whose independent and undaunted minds, animated by zeal for the glory of God-we are at this hour indebted for all the blessings which we enjoy in the communion of a Protestant and Evangelical Church-Shall it, indeed, be supposed that they either failed to detect, or had not the courage to redress, such a grievance as that which is now said to result from a church establishment in connection with the state? By their exertions and influence, the whole fabric of the Roman Catholic hierarchy had been shaken to its foundation. So far as concerned those communities of the Christian world, with which they were immediately connected, their influence was almost unbounded; at the least, there cannot be a doubt that it was sufficient for the subversion of any institution which they could have proved to be either antiscriptural, or degrading to the Redeemer's kingdom on earth. The previous support and maintenance of such an institution, by a tyrannical priesthood, who were deservedly become an object of abhorrence, would only have facilitated its overthrow. The history of the Christian church, from which the reformers had derived their knowledge of all its corruptions in doc