leprous forehead of King Uzziah we may read the presumption of those who will so invade the sacred office. (2 Chron. xxvi. 19.) But it would be impossible to draw out more minutely in this place {24} the arguments either for or against the Erastian theory; and we are chiefly concerned to show that it is wholly inconsistent with Scriptural and Primitive doctrine, which taught, that men should “give unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s; but unto GOD alone the things which are GOD’S.” The argument which we would, again and again urge, is, Whether the notion of the State commissioning the religious instructor is in harmony with the language of the New Testament? Does not the Christian mind at once revolt from the thought, That a ruler of this world can commission any as embassadors of the world’s SAVIOUR? That the government of any country can by their state-licence empower a man to “bless in the name of the LORD?”—to be a “steward” of Holy mysteries?—to absolve penitents,—and “deliver to Satan” the ungodly? Such was the Minister of CHRIST according to Primitive belief and Scriptural statement; acting “in the person of CHRIST,” and marking with holy indignation any who refused to “follow” in his steps. He “fed the flock of GOD,” took “the oversight of them,” and “stirred up the gift that was within him” by the laying on of hands. These are the very words of Scripture, and they, surely, never would have been thought of, never could have been naturally used by the inspired writers, if they had entertained the thought, that the State could make a man a Christian Minister.