be raised against

Nor can any objection the one, which is not equally valid against the other for which, however, we have full Scriptural warrant, both in the Old Testament and the New. (See Gen. xviii. 17-19; Ex. xii. 24-27; xiii. 14-16. Deut. vii. 4-9; xi. 18-21. Prov. xxii. 6. Eph. vi. 4.) And on this point it should be remembered, that the propriety of arguing from the duty of a parent to that of a King or Government, is manifest from this circumstance,— that the duties of obedience and honour to a King or Government, must either be deduced from the fifth Commandment, "Honour thy father and thy Mother," or they are not contained in the Decalogue at all. Is it right and Scriptural to deduce the duties of subjects from those of children; and yet not right and Scriptural to deduce the duties of Kings and Governors from those of parents?

The danger of setting aside the arguments drawn from the Old Testament, I have already endeavoured to point out: but as it is very common to object to some of the arguments thence derived in favour of Establishments,

because the Jewish Polity was a Theocracy, to which we have nothing corresponding under the Christian Dispensation; I would here take occasion to observe that this objection is by no means so well founded as those who bring it are apt to suppose. The Nation of Israel, when it was first established in Canaan, and during the time of the Judges, was indeed a Theocracy, properly so called—and, as such, remarkably distinguished from every form of Government which has elsewhere existed in the world. But under the Government of the Kings, it was no longer a Theocracy, but a Monarchy;—in its general political principles, very closely resembling the other Monarchies of the world. For this the People desired; "Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations:" whereupon the Lord said,

66

They have rejected ME, that I should not reign over them :" (1 Sam. viii. 4-9) So that here was an end of the Theocracy ;-brought about indeed by the sinful impatience of the People, but yet in fulfilment of the purposes of God, who had even made provision in the Law of Moses, for a period in which a King

should be set over His people. (Deut. xvii. 14-20.) And God was graciously pleased to bless this form of Government, even when He had severely rebuked the people for desiring it (1 Sam. xii.); so that the nation of Israel thenceforward became a Monarchy, professing the true Religion, and under the peculiar protection of God. This is what we desire to have under the Gospel dispensation. We are not warranted to set up a Theocracy ;—for this pertains to God alone; and we expect that in the fulness of time He will set up a Theocracy, (if I should not rather say a Christocracy,) when the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, (Rev. xi. 15.) But in the mean time, that in the state of Israel which is imitable, we may imitate: or, in other words, we may have Kingdoms and Governments, professing the true religion, and under the peculiar protection of God. And that which was sinful and blameable in them, (because it was a forsaking of God, and a removing of themselves further from Him) cannot be so considered in us-for it is a drawing near to Him ;- as near indeed as we can.

N

It might indeed be easily and clearly proved, were this the time or place to discuss the subject at large, that the principle of rejecting either Creeds or Confessions, or Establishments, has its root in a specious form of Infidelity: though I shall readily allow that many who adopt the principle, are not by any means aware of its real origin. It is however worthy of note, that the Dissenters have given us but too much reason to believe, that they are not sincere and upright in their opposition to Establishments: for when they have had the opportunity of setting up an Establishment after their own fancies, they have very gladly and readily availed themselves of it. This is manifest from the conduct of the Missionaries and Committee of the London Missionary Society in the Islands of the South Sea; in which they themselves have not scrupled to form that alliance between Church and State, which here they denounce as unhallowed!1

1 See Dr. Dealtry's Sermon, preached before the Prayer Book and Homily Society last year, and the notes appended to it; in which this fact is abundantly proved by copious extracts from the Reports of the London Missionary Society.

But further: the Reformed Churches generally were not upon principle opposed to the use of a Liturgy. The generation of the Reformers had passed away, and a new generation had grown up, amidst the bitterness of those disputes about non-essentials, which so greatly impeded the progress of the Reformation, before this principle of absolute opposition to all Liturgical forms had come to its height. When our own Liturgy was drawn up, in the reign of Edward VIth, it was transmitted to all the Reformed Churches for their examination; and it was published with their general concurrence and approval: those things being altered in the second edition, which seemed questionable in the first. Nor was this all:The Lutheran Churches have a Liturgy which closely resembles our own, and which seems to have been commonly used, 1 till the fearful inroads of Neology led men to pour contempt upon every thing which served to perpetuate the knowledge of the real doctrines of the

1 See a pamphlet entitled "The Lutheran Liturgy proved to agree with the book of Common Prayer of the Church of England." 8vo. London, 1715.