passages, viz. Ezek. xviii; xx. 5-26; xxxiii. 1-20. And what do these say in your favour? Of v. 4, of the first we have," Behold, all souls are mine....the soul that sinneth, it shall die:" which you will not say, I presume, contains nothing more than a mere moral truth, unconnected with religious considerations. "But," it is added, "if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right," &c. which, of necessity, embraces the fear of God, faith in the promises, &c. just as much as the other observances there mentioned, "hath walked in my statutes," (all of them I should imagine)...." he shall surely live," &c. In ch. xx. 11, “I gave them my statutes....which if a man do, he shall even live in them :” v. 12, "Moreover also I gave them my SABBATHS,.... that they might know that I am the Lord THAT SANCTIFY THEM," &c. Comp. vv. 13, 16, 18, 24, which cannot possibly be confined to mere moral or political observances. In ch. xxxiii. we have, v. 7, "Thou shalt hear the word at my (i. e. God's) mouth, and warn them from me." 10, "If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how shall we then live?" Is it likely that this can mean nothing more than moral transgression against man? Again, v. 11, "Turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" Pray, are the evil ways, here mentioned, nothing more than moral offences against the state? I leave you to determine.

Now, as to your other assertions, viz. that "The people universally were a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, which one can, on solid biblical grounds, understand, not of moral sanctity, but only of an external setting apart to the service and public honour of God." If I am to understand this as affirming, that the Jewish nation were at any time considered as universally holy, and as sustaining the character of " a kingdom of priests,"

merely because they acknowledged an external setting apart to the public service of God, and independently of the consideration of moral sanctity, personal holiness,and that this can be maintained on solid biblical grounds, my reply is; Nothing, I think, can be more unsound than this assertion: and further, there is not a man upon earth who can maintain it, on any thing like solid biblical grounds.

The safest way, perhaps, to consider this question will be, to see what scripture itself says upon it. Now, the first place in which any thing like this occurs is Exod. xix. 5, and it is thus given, "Now therefore, if ye WILL OBEY my voice INDEED (YON VID), and keep my covenant, THEN YE SHALL BE a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: (6) and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." All that is said here therefore is, that IF the Jews will TRULY and CONSTANTLY keep God's covenant (ALL his covenant, I presume), then they shall be a peculiar people or treasure, a nation of priests religiously and truly; not merely as set apart by virtue of certain forms to be the ministers of his word. Let me now request you carefully to consider all the parallel passages in the Old Testament; and when you have done this, to tell me whether you can find so much as one, intimating even in the slightest degree possible, any thing like the position here laid down by you. I will affirm that nothing whatever is to be found which can be shewn, on solid biblical grounds, to make any such distinction as that which it is your object here to establish.

Turn now to the New Testament, 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9, and just observe how that apostle has applied this very passage of scripture; and perhaps one may hold, on solid

biblical grounds, that the sacred writers of the New Testament have not misapplied the doctrines revealed under the Old. Now St. Peter is evidently speaking of those "who desired the sincere milk of the word (v. 2): who were regenerate, and had tasted that the Lord is gracious (v. 3): who, as lively stones, were built up A SPIRITUAL HOUSE, AN HOLY PRIESTHOOD, to offer up spiritual sacrifices," &c. Compare also v. 9; Rev. i. 6; v. 10; xx. 6. In all these places, I think I may say that Christians-those who had really been converted, and had received the truth in the love of it; who had their part and lot in the first resurrection by baptism; and whose business and delight it was to shew forth the praises of him who had called them out of darkness into his marvellous light-were really meant: not those who had been merely set apart publicly and formally: no; nor yet those who made a public but hypocritical profession of religion, but only those who had heartily embraced the truth, and were walking in all the commandments of the Lord blameless. And, my conclusion on the whole of this is, that, as nothing like proof has been adduced by you in support of the positions above noticed, so nothing of that sort can, or will ever, be adduced on solid biblical grounds. If there could, then might you indeed tell me where the political duty of a Christian ruler ended, and his religious duties began; draw the line of demarcation demanded in my last; determine the political, as separated from the religious, trusts and duties of Christian governments; and consequently shew that in a Christian state, no religious establishment ought to exist.

I say this now, as I formerly did, because I find that under every form in which revealed religion has hitherto existed, it has claimed the whole united and undivided obedience of its followers; that it has claimed the sub

jugation and devotion of the whole heart; and consequently, that it has not, and could not, allow of the existence of any law of universal obligation independent of itself, of any holiness not resting on its entire observance, or any setting apart, peculiarity, priesthood, &c. not holding the head, and with it all the appurtenances, members, spirit, and the like, distinguishing it from the doctrines and commandments of men. No, my dear Sir, so long as our government remains Christian, can it free itself from the observance of that entire divine law on which Christianity rests; so long as our king is Christian, can he divest himself of those obligations of publicly upholding this divine law; of legislating upon it as the only ground on which right and wrong can be known or determined; and of providing for its dissemination both publicly and privately, first among his own, and then secondly among all mankind, to the very utmost of his ability.19 When kings reigned in Judea,

19 You present me, in pp. 34, &c. of your "Rejoinder," with something intended to meet such statements as this: something, which I must confess, struck me as most extraordinary and rare. It is to this effect: The missionaries of an Established, or State-Church as you prefer styling it, must in their efforts to disseminate Christianity in foreign countries, necessarily interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the political institutions of such country; and so eventually set up a most effectual bar to its reception. "The governments of those nations," you say (p. 35), “feel as sensitively as we can do, for the conservation of their ancestorial and political institutions; and can we deny their having a right so to feel?" You add, "To introduce Christianity among them in the form which is given to it by its incorporation with the political constitutions of a foreign, perhaps a rival government, would inevitably appear a revolutionary measure; and could not fail to excite the most serious alarm." We are then led to contemplate the failures of the Jesuits in Japan and China, as a confirmation of this anticipation." I feel perplexed, certainly, as to what part of this most curious piece of reasoning I ought to seize on first : for certainly I have never yet met with its equal. I must, it should seem, were I a missionary of the Established Church, respect ances

indeed, the limits to which they were confined were necessarily narrow. The middle wall of partition had not then been broken down. Religion could, therefore,

torial institutions, &c. I must not tell the king of any country, supposing him to be a Mohammedan, any thing that should tend to the subversion of the mosques ;—if a Hindoo, of the pagodas ;-if a Romanist, of the inquisition: because, forsooth, they all have a right to venerate these ;- -or else, because, as I happen to have come from a country having a rival government, suspicions may be entertained that I may possibly think and teach that, as with us, religion ought nationally to be embraced, to the utter subversion of the mosque, the pagoda, or the inquisition! and so I shall be virtually setting a bar to the dissemination of the gospel; and then, by necessary consequence, just as the Jesuits did in Japan and China, succeed only in getting myself expelled from the country! I may surely be excused from further noticing matter such as this, without intending any thing like disrepect to my truly worthy opponent. I may pass over his allusion to our episcopal establishment in India, which he says truly enough could not have been carried thither, had not conquest led the way; and may say, that if Providence has led this country-by counsels inscrutable to us to establish a political ascendency there; surely it is our next duty there to establish also the kingdom of Christ by every scriptural means in our power,—and episcopacy, as I have shewn, is one-not only for the guidance of our rulers and magistrates, and to ensure the enactment of good and wise laws, with the just administration of these; but also, by creating an union between the two nations, originating in nothing earthly,―certainly not in the doctrines of Dissent-and then, extending this to the utmost boundaries of the East, to enable every subject as a brother in Christ to give glory to God in the highest, and to promote peace on earth, and good will among men. When, I say, we shall have done this, -and this I trust is the main object of our episcopal establishment in India—then, I will also say, we need not trouble ourselves much about the ancestorial institutions of which you speak so feelingly: for, as these kingdoms become the kingdoms of the Lord Christ, so will these institutions, both publicly and privately, be necessarily converted into instruments for furthering the same glorious object. But, on my friend's hypothesis, these kingdoms must, as is the case with America, as kingdoms, reject the Saviour: these institutions, as is the case with the London University, publicly disregard his word, and proscribe its cultivation within their walls, in order that Dissent may have free course and be glorified,—for no other cause can be assigned !