SECTION II.

ON THE OBJECTION THAT CHRIST HIMSELF DECLARED THAT HIS KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD.

FROM the words of our Lord, to which the title of this section refers, it has been very confidently argued --not only that his kingdom is in itself spiritual-a proposition which will not be denied but that its spiritual nature is a reason against our promoting its interest by such wordly means as are employed under an ecclesiastical establishment;—and, with the same view, some reference has been made to these corresponding words of Paul-"The weapons of our war"fare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the "pulling down of strong-holds."*

The real import of the words of Christ will, in this case as in others, be best ascertained by a reference to the circumstances in which they were spoken. Much of his Divine instruction is historically communicated to us;—it is communicated in the course of the nar

* 2d Cor. chap. x. ver. 4.

rative which the Evangelists give of the events of his life, and the circumstances in which he was placed; and the language in which he was accustomed to express himself is so accommodated to these circumstances as to render a strict attention to them indispensable, in order to a just interpretation of his words.

In the court of Pilate the Roman governor of Judea, Jesus was accused of having forbidden his countrymen to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that he himself was Christ a king. Pilate, in consequence, asked him" Art thou the king of the Jews?" And Jesus answered in the affirmative, but added “ My Kingdom is not of this world." -Who does not per

66

ceive that the single object of this declaration was to disavow all pretension to such temporal authority as could absolve the Jews either from their obligation of paying tribute to Cæsar, or from their allegiance, in any respect, to him as their earthly sovereign? The religion of Christ, so far from absolving subjects from their allegiance to the potentates of this world, was to lay them under a new obligation to such allegiance, as they desired to maintain a good conscience towards Christ himself as a spiritual king. It was, therefore, impossible that the charge brought against him should not be repelled in the way which we have seen; nor can it be regarded as reasonable, in the circumstances of the case, to attach any other meaning to his words than what has been already stated as applicable to the charge in question.

* John, chap. xviii. ver. 36.

These observations have been thought necessary, because, from the frequency with which the words to which we have adverted are reiterated in our ears, there seems to be some mysterious importance attached to them. But, if nothing more be intended than a proof that the kingdom of Christ is altogether and exclusively spiritual, I both admit and maintain this position, as established not only by our Lord's declaration in the case to which we have referred, but by the whole tenor of the New Testament Scripture. Upon this ground, therefore, let us meet the objec

tion.

The kingdom of Christ is not only spiritual and Heavenly but also independent. No earthly government has a right to overrule or control it. But does it follow that its interests cannot be affected by things which are outward and worldly? Or that it may not derive advantage from the interposition of an earthly government in its behalf, for the regulation of such worldly things as may concern and affect it? As a kingdom altogether and exclusively spiritual, it does not of itself possess and exercise the powers which are requisite for this purpose; nor does it seem easy to find a reason against its accepting the aid which may, in this case, be derived from the constituted authorities of the state, as themselves ordained of God.

If any civil government, under pretence of providing for the welfare of Christ's spiritual kingdom, shall usurp its peculiar and appropriate jurisdiction,—if a civil government shall attempt to direct the appropriate con

cerns of the visible church of Christ, by either superseding or controlling its separate and independent power, for the regulation of its own spiritual and inherent interests, if a civil government shall pretend to regulate the administration of its ordinances, or to pronounce judgment on the qualifications of its ministers,-that government is so far an adversary of Christ and his cause in the world. But, if the civil government shall, on the contrary, abstain from intermeddling about such matters, and shall, notwithstanding, contribute its outward aid towards the maintenance of religious ordinances, in the way which the office-bearers of the church have themselves approved and appointed,—if it shall so provide for the temporal wants of the ministers of Christ as to enable them to devote their whole time and labour to the exercise of their spiritual functions, and shall, by the same means, extend the benefit of religious ordinances, more equally and effectually to all who are under its charge,-shall these things be regarded as subversive of the independence of Christ's spiritual kingdom?

If, in the exercise of its power, the civil government be influenced, more or less, by a consideration of the benefit which it may itself derive from the salutary influence of religion on the hearts and lives of its subjects, we, in this case, recognize a co-operation between church and state which has been sometimes denominated an alliance; and to such an alliance there are men who seem to have a decided objection. But why, or on what account, they object it is not so easy to perceive.

They cannot have any objection to what the term alliance, abstractedly taken, imports. If an alliance be formed and maintained-only for the mutual good of the parties allied, one would think that it must be regarded as praiseworthy; and, certainly there is nothing but mutual good, in what we have now referred to as the purposes and objects of that co-operation or virtual alliance which may be understood as subsisting between church and state. If it embraces any terms or conditions of an opposite character, I know them not. Perhaps it will only be pleaded that the connection in question is abused or perverted to bad purposes. But no man, it is hoped, will gravely contend that he has a right to reason, from an abuse, against the continued maintenance of what is both designed and calculated for good, and what only requires to be honestly and faithfully maintained, in order to its being productive of unmingled good.

I have seen only one argument in support of the objection now before us that I can regard as entitled to farther notice.—It has been argued that what the state undertakes to do for the church implies that compulsory means may be employed. Indeed, this is no more than what results from the nature of civil government in all cases; it is an earthly power, or a government of temporal and worldly authority; if its commands be not otherwise obeyed, they must be enforced by compulsory means. It is, therefore impossible to deny that so far as any thing is exacted from