SERMON. JOHN Xviii. 36.—" My kingdom is not of this world.” I HAVE selected this text, at the triteness of which, on the subject of this evening's discussion, some may have been disposed to smile, as a sententious expression of comprehensive principles. The words came from the lips of the divine Author of Christianity, in circumstances the most affecting and solemn, after he had entered on the awful scenes of that "hour," which he himself had designated "the power of darkness ;" and they may be regarded as the dying testimony of the King of Zion to the peculiar nature of his own reign. The spirit of the text pervades the whole of the New Testament scriptures; and, but for the sake of distinctness and condensation, we might have taken the whole as the basis of our discourse. To establish the correctness of this position, may be considered as our main design. In the writings of the Old Testament prophets, the new dispensation anticipated by them as, at the fulness of the time, to succeed the Jewish, was repeatedly foretold under the designation of a kingdom; and the promised Messiah under the corresponding designation of a King or Prince. In conformity with this inspired phraseology of the prophets, which was familiar to the minds of the Jewish people, Jesus himself, like his forerunner the Baptist, announced, in his personal ministry, and by that of his apostles during his lifetime, the approaching establishment of his kingdom :-" Repent," said they, "for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." But, of the reign of their Messiah, the Jews had formed conceptions as wide as possible of the truth. Their notions of it were entirely secular; and, their worldly spirits being disappointed and exasperated by the appearance, character, and pretensions of Jesus of Nazareth, they malignantly availed themselves of the prophetic representations, to found upon the claims which he advanced a charge of sedition * Mat. iv. 17. & x. 7. A 66 against the Roman government :— "Whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Cæsar." Nothing could be more false, nothing more artfully malicious. They converted into matter of slanderous accusation the very thing which, in reality, they were chagrined and incensed at his not having done. Had he but acted the part of which they accused him, making himself a king" in any sense that was hazardous to Cæsar, they would have espoused and supported his cause, rallied round his standard of rebellion, and followed him, in all the ardour of earthly ambition, to conquest or to death. But he was a king. He was "the king of the Jews." He had been their divine Head under the peculiar government by which that people were of old distinguished; and he was the Anointed, whom, after he had finished his previous humiliation, Jehovah was about to "set on his holy hill of Zion,”—as Head over all things to his church,”—“ King of kings, and Lord of lords." His kingdom, however, was not one of whose interference with their political institutions and rights the governments of this world had any reason to be jealous: unless, indeed, in so far as "the truth," to which he tells Pilate he came "to bear testimony," was, in its great principles, favourable to the liberties, and to the illumination and happiness, of mankind. It was not, as the Jews more than insinuated, an earthly reign; but of a nature entirely distinct from any of the "kingdoms of men. The whole context shows this; and Pilate, it is evident, was in his own mind convinced, although he had not justice or magnanimity enough to act up to his conviction, that from such a king there was no danger to be apprehended to the imperial throne Verses 33-38. "Then Pilate entered into the judg"ment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou "the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests "have delivered thee unto me. What hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from "hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then ? “Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I "should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the "truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? 66 66 66 66 “And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, "and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.” His kingdom was thus of a spiritual and heavenly nature; in its principles, constitution, administration, and ends, totally dissimilar to all the forms of human rule; capable of existing under any earthly government, while it interfered in the concerns of none. It had been well if the same non-interference had been permanently maintained on the other side; if this kingdom had been left to itself to retain its spiritual separation, and, by its own spiritual means, to effect its own spiritual ends. But this wise policy has not been followed. Under various forms of its outward profession, the religion of Jesus has been taken into alliance with the civil polities of different states; and, under certain stipulated conditions to those who profess it according to the approved forms, has received from them what has usually been termed AN ESTABLISHMENT. In writing a treatise on such Establishments, it would reasonably be expected that I should detail their history, commencing with that by Constantine in the beginning of the fourth century, when Christianity, for the first time, became a state religion; and also, that I should enter somewhat carefully into the investigation of their precise nature, analysing their different forms, and separating from each the essential elements of all. The narrow limits of a discourse like this will not admit of my entering at large on either of these fields. A very few remarks on the latter only must suffice. The answers to the question, What is an Ecclesiastical Establishment? have been considerably diverse from each other; and the diversity has in part arisen from the progress of just sentiments respecting the rights of conscience and religious liberty. This progress has tended to modify not a little the conceptions entertained of what is really essential to such institutions; so that there is a very material descent between the high ground of the Warburtonian Alliance, and the comparatively low position taken up by Dr Paley. The idea of an alliance between Church and State for stipulated benefits to be mutually given and received, held and vindicated by Warburton with all his characteristic supercilious loftiness, is, by the latter eminent writer, entirely disclaimed:-"The authority of a “Church establishment," says he, "is founded on its utility; "and whenever, on this principle, we deliberate concerning the "form, propriety, or comparative excellency, of particular estab"lishments, the single view under which we ought to consider any of them is that of a scheme of instruction; the single "end which we ought to propose by them is the preservation and "communication of religious knowledge. Every other idea and "every other end that have been mixed up with this—as the 66 66 66 66 making of the Church an engine, or even an ally of the state, 'converting it into the means of strengthening and diffusing influence, or regarding it as a support of regal, in opposition to popular government, have served only to debase the institution, "and to introduce into it numerous corruptions and abuses.”* According to Dr Paley, the three essential elements of an Establishment are:—“ 1. A clergy, or an order of men secluded from "other professions, to attend upon the services of religion.— 2. A legal provision for the maintenance of the clergy ;—and, "3. The confining of that provision to the teachers of a parti"cular sect of Christianity."+ Now, we might certainly be justified in insisting that our ideas of an establishment should be formed from the examination of such as, in different times and countries, have actually existed; in which case, we should, perhaps, find a warrant in the average of facts, for taking Warburton as our standard more than Paley. But, although the modified view taken by the latter might, in some points, be found to differ not a little from what actually presents itself in the institutions, past and present, of different countries; yet, I am quite content to assume it as correct in my present argument. We do not feel it at all necessary to the validity of our reasonings, that we should take the highest and most obnoxious view of what constitutes an establishment, as if we harboured a secret suspicion that, under a more restricted form of the system, we could hardly stand our ground in opposing it. For, in truth, our argument is not with one establishment or with another, but with the general principle of them all. We readily grant, that the evils of them, inherit or concomitant, are far from being equally aggravated under every form in which they exist; and, were we called upon to specify the least objectionable, we should have little hesitation in assigning the decided preference to that of our own country; we mean, of course, not England, but Scotland. with such comparisons, we have at present no concern. sole object is to ascertain Bible principles, and to show that, with these principles all establishments, from their very nature, are at variance. But Our I Our object, I have said, is to ascertain Bible principles. am solicitous, before proceeding another step, to impress this upon your minds, It is not that we are unwilling to argue the points in controversy on the grounds of political justice and ex pediency, or afraid that on these grounds we might not be able to make good our positions; for we are thoroughly satisfied of * Mor. and Pol. Phil. Book vi. chap. x. f Ibid. the contrary:-neither is it merely because such reasonings are multiform, and have assumed so great a variety of shades and aspects, that, to take any thing like a satisfactory survey of them would far exceed the limits of a single discourse; for, though this is true, we might have got over the difficulty by giving a series of discourses instead of one :-nor is it only because such reasonings, having in them much of what is political, statistical, and secular, are less befitting the pulpit and the house of God; although this would certainly weigh not a little against their introduction here:—it is simply because we consider a direct and primary appeal to the sacred oracles as our only legitimate course. Were we desirous to ascertain the consistency of any measure proposed to us with our allegiance as British subjects,— how should we proceed? Should we set about balancing considerations of abstract expediency or practical tendency, and derive our warrant to adopt and prosecute it from the result to our own minds of such reflection? Should we not rather have immediate recourse to the constitution and laws of our country, to discover, by an examination of these, whether there was any thing, in their essential principles or their special enactments, with which the proposal was at variance; and, if we found there was, abstain from acting upon it? If this would be our manifest duty as subjects of an earthly government, is the duty less obvious or less imperative upon us, as subjects of the kingdom of Christ? If he has given us a statute-book, containing the constitution and laws of his kingdom, ought not that book to be our guide—our only guide-in every matter of which it treats? What else can we have to do, but to ascertain the principles and the directions which are there authoritatively laid down? There is one difference between the supposed analogous case, and the one to which we draw our inference; but it is one from which the inference derives only additional strength. In the analogous case, we should be at liberty to speculate on the propriety of the laws themselves; we might find fault; we might propose, and endeavour to procure, their amendment, or even their repeal. But in the latter case, where the constitution and laws are divine, such liberty is out of the question. Whatever this book dictates as truth, it is ours without gainsaying to believe; whatever it enjoins as duty, implicitly to obey. I have many times been astonished at the manner in which our present subject has been discussed. Persons who on other occasions have pleaded, and pleaded ably, for an appeal on all religious topics to the one standard of faith and conduct,—" to the law and to the testimony," have, on this, confined themselves to principles of expe |