be taken as a most valuable testimony to the universal and unrestricted applicability of the great principle of church-and-state. But as if the examples of the patriarchal times were not sufficiently conclusive, there is presented to us in the history of the Jewish nation-the history of a boldlydefined state church :—a state-church too which owed its origin, not to monarchical piety, nor to the towering ambition of priests; but solely and entirely to the express decree of the omniscient and infallible JEHOVAH. Immediately prior to the publication of the law from Mount Sinai, the general terms of the Judaic constitution had been defined to the great law-giver:-"Say unto the house of Jacob, and tell to the children of Israel,......ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation."* Now, what was to be understood by such declarative? The question is of the more importance as from similar expressions in the writings of the Apostles, Dr. Angus, with other nonconformists, has argued to the startling conclusion that, under the Christian dispensation—" there was to be no priest, no people; no clergy, no laity; no rabbi or father, no scholar or son." It is further declared,— that "the term 'clergy,' which in ecclesiastical phraseology is applied to the ministerial order in distinction from the laity, is applied by the Apostle Peter to the Christian * Exodus xix. 6. Christian Churches (Prize Essay) p. 8. community at large (I. Peter v. 3), who are, therefore, God's heritage (as the word 'clergy' means); and Paul calls upon his readers, by virtue of their priestly character, to make intercession for himself and for all men.' "* Now, if from phraseology, such as that already cited, the inference is legitimate, that, in the New Testament church, there existed no clerical elass-no separate ministry; then certainly the validity of a like conclusion respecting the Judaic state-church cannot be denied from a similar class of passages occurring in the Old Testament Scriptures.† But here, however, the absurdity of the inference becomes conspicuous: for, in no ecclesiastical polity, was the distinction between priesthood and people,-cleric and laic, more decisively made, or more jealously maintained. If therefore, the inference is invalid in respect of the Judaic church-system; then assuredly it must be held, in like manner, to be invalid in respect of the Christian church-system. The declarative, therefore, must rather be regarded as a general enunciation of the archetypal Christian concept of the compatibility of political with religious relations. Its fundamental idea is that, which underlies every statechurch structure, of the reconciliation of spiritual and temporal, the unification, in brief, of duties, whatever the province to which they may happen to pertain. Now * Christian Churches, by J. Angus, D.D., M.R. A. S., p. 9. Compare Exodus xix. 6; Deut. xxxii. 9; Isaiah liii. 12; Zech. ii. 12. this idea is variously and elaborately inwrought into the ethics of the Bible. It is the same idea which forbids monasticism, or the loss of the man in the worshipper on the one hand; and upon the other forbids worldliness, or the separation of the civil from that which is sacred. The priesthood must be made "royal," lest it should subside into asceticism; the nation, "holy" lest it should subside into an irreligious and dronish secularism, The two elements must be blended. The church must not be severed from all relations with the world. The church needs the world, and the world needs the church. The outline, however, having been thus suggestively sketched, the details were forthwith filled in, in a manner, the most admirable; and with a prevision, the most exact. And thus arose that splendid ecclesiastical structure-the state-church of ancient Jewry, which involved in its organization nearly every principle which can make a state-church obnoxious to those who oppugn its constructive principle. In the first instance the republican notion of equality was studiously excluded. Its priesthood was hierarchical. Here was inequality. There were the high-priest, chief-priest, arch-priest or pontiff ;* the "sons of Aaron," or "the priests;"+ and thirdly and lastly, the Levites. And what was still more remarkable, was, that these sacred offices were made strictly hereditary. * Hakkohn haggddhol or ἀρχιερεὺς. + B'nê ăhărôn hăkkohănim-Num. iii. 3. II. Chron. xxxi. 19. + Hall'viyyim-Numbers iii. 9. Even the Pontificate afforded no exception. Eleazer succeeded Aaron his father, and Eli in like manner succeeded Eleazer. Here there was, as is evident, nothing like popular suffrage. The people had no voice in the selection of their spiritual guides. It was evidently not deemed by the Almighty to be an injustice, that, even in a matter of so much importance, the people should be left destitute of voice and vote. Here, at least, the plebis suffragium had no existence. Nor is it less significant, as a fact, that the maintenance of the priesthood was not abandoned to the voluntary principle. Upon the other hand, the hierarchy was maintained by legal exactions in dignity, and even splendour. Their influence was applied, and their canon-law enforced, at all the more important social foci. There existed no fewer than forty-eight Levitical, or diocesan cities," with their suburbs.* These were so many ecclesiastical centres. Each possessed a resident priesthood, having territorial jurisdiction; and in each of these ecclesiastical districts, or sees, these clergy realised an ample revenue in "tithes and offerings." A tenth of the wealth of the Jewish nation was theirs by constitutional and inalienable right.t * Numbers xxxv. 1-8. "And all the tithes of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's; it is holy unto the Lord.". "And concerning the tithe of the herd or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord.......These are the commandments which the Lord Then further it was the duty of the civil magistrate to put the ecclesiastical laws into execution. The royal proclamations of Hezekiah are familiar to all.* It will be remembered how this pious monarch "commanded the people.........to give the portion of the priests and the Levites that they might be encouraged in the law of the Lord." Indeed the maintenance of the national church was secured both in fact and in theory not otherwise than by legal exaction. It is frequently urged, however, that civil rulers, as if by some official calamity, are wholly incompetent to the work of religious legislation. Now, our reply to this objection is, that from first to last, in the history of the Mosaic state-policy, the civil governors were deemed competent by an authority which cannot err. They systematically interposed their authority in matters of religion. Dr. Wardlaw has asserted that, "the province of the ruler in matters of religion is, to have no province at all." But, certainly this was not the opinion of the venerable founder of the Hebrew polity;-nay more, it was not the view taken on the subject by the infallible judgment of the Supreme. God thought otherwise. In the first instance, Moses, a civil ruler, was commissioned by the Almighty commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai."Leviticus xxvii. 30, 32, 34. "And behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service, which they serve.' ...It shall be a statute for ever.”— Numbers xviii. 21, 24, 26. Compare Proverbs íii. 9; II. Chron. xxxi. 5, 6, 12; Malachi iii. 8-10; Nehemiah xiii. 12. " * II. Chron. xxxi. |