affairs by every member of a church, every minister and officebearer in a church, every missionary or teacher supported by a church, every congregation, and every union of congregations.

"When a master and servant form an engagement, each proposes terms, and each judges of the terms offered by the other. If, after engaging, one party wish to depart from the original terms, he must give the other party notice. If no objection is made, the connexion may continue; if otherwise, it must cease. Is there any giving up of independence here?

"When a person enters a society, he consents to its regulations. Does he give up his independence when he enters, because, if he become seriously dissatisfied with the regulations, he must either obtain an alteration of them, or leave the society?

"Does a foreigner give up his independence, when he comes to live in Britain, because he comes under an understood engagement to obey our laws, though he is, at the same time, quite at liberty to depart when he cannot yield obedience?

"Should a society of agriculturists and a society of mathematicians agree to co-operate in parcelling out, and bringing under cultivation, a district in New South Wales-the proper department of each society being specified, and a mutual stipulation made that neither should interfere with the department of the other, upon the penalty of a disunion-could either of these societies be charged with a sacrifice of independence?

"Before two nations form an alliance, each considers and sits in judgment upon the terms of the other; and if, after forming it, one should wish to alter the terms, it must consult the other, or endanger a disunion.

"Do not cases of an ecclesiastical nature stand on precisely the same footing? When a man becomes a member of a church, he agrees to its leading doctrines and rules. If afterwards his opinions change so much that he cannot conscientiously remain a member, he can withdraw. Did he resign his independence when he became a member?

"You are minister of a respectable congregation, and you have entered into a contract with your people, which, according

to your own reasoning, must have annihilated your independence; because, first, you submitted your qualifications to their judgment before you were chosen in preference to others; and, second, you cannot change your views of christian doctrine, without either consulting your people and carrying them with you, or dissolving your connexion with them. Yet these are the precise terms, by submitting to which you declare that the church renounces her independence!

"If a congregation privately formed should desire connexion. with your Synod, it would require to submit to the first of the terms in question, before it could be received; and if it fell into doctrinal error, it would quickly be made to feel the force of the second. Does it then forfeit independence by forming such a connexion?

"Nor does it alter the case, whether the contracting parties are both ecclesiastical, or the one ecclesiastical and the other secular. Allow that your presbytery send six missionaries to Jamaica, stipulating that, while they teach certain doctrines and agree to certain other terms, they will be recognised by the presbytery; and allow that three planters agree upon the same terms to afford them support. In the one of these contracts both parties are ecclesiastical-in the other, one of them is secular. Well; if the missionaries depart from the specified terms, the presbytery may withdraw their countenance, and the planters their support. Therefore, according to your views, the missionaries would sacrifice their independence, if they formed such a contract either with the presbytery or with the planters!

"You spoke with much complacency of the independence possessed by voluntary churches; but I really cannot see how, on your principles, there can be a voluntary church in the kingdom independent. I hold that there is a contract between the state of every society, civil or religious, within its territories-a contract between the state and voluntary churches, in words to this effect- We may not enter upon the domain of Cæsar, and Cæsar may not interfere with the things of God.' This is a contract, tacit indeed, but as obvious as if sanctioned by a hundred acts of Synod and Parliament, and it is attended with both of the

L

conditions which you suppose to be subversive of independence. It is only on condition that they interfere not with the state, that the state interfere not with them; and when it finds them departing from these terms, it will place itself in a new position respecting them. It is clear, therefore, that no church, and no institution, civil, literary, scientific, or religious, is independent upon your principle.

"If there is no sacrifice of independence in the cases I have adduced, then it follows that a church contracting with a state for support in lieu of service-but neither assuming authority over the state in civil affairs, nor allowing the state to assume authority over her spiritual affairs-does not relinquish her independence. She lays her doctrine and government before the state for consideration, because it has a right to be satisfied as to her fitness for the end proposed; and if she find occasion to alter her terms, it remains with the state to decide whether it will agree to the alteration, or dissolve the compact. And what is here more than in all the cases I have specified?'

Upon the concluding sentence of this, I would observe, that as regards her doctrine, the christian church can never "find occasion to alter her terms;' though, by alterations in the statute book, she may be compelled to "dissolve her compact."

147

LECTURE IV.

CONNEXION WITH THE STATE

POLITICAL SOCIETY AN

ORDINANCE OF GOD; THE SOVEREIGN, A CREATURETHE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AN ORDINANCE OF GOD; THE BISHOP, A SUBJECT THE BIBLE, A COMMON STANDARD FOR BOTH INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF A DISREGARD OF THAT STANDARD BY EITHER-SCRIPTURAL DUTY OF THE CIVIL RULER-THE REITERATED ASSERTION OF

DISSENTERS, THAT THE SCRIPTURE NOWHERE COUNTENANCES COMPULSORY PAYMENTS FOR RELIGIOUS SERVICES, ANSWERED FROM SCRIPTURE-NO COERCION OF A DISSENTER'S CONSCIENCE INVOLVED-FURTHER EXCELLENCE OF OUR ECCLESIASTICAL INSTRUMENTALITY IN MATTERS WHERE SCRIPTURE DOES NOT PRESCRIBE-ARTICLE XXXIV. -TRADITION, IF NOT COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO, WILL EFFECTUALLY MAKE VOID, THE WORD of god.

WE were investigating the right connexion which should subsist between the scriptural exercise of ecclesiastical functions by the christian church, and the scriptural position of supreme authority, occupied, and always to be retained, by the civil power. Contemplating the members of the church, as also members of civil society; and considering the executive, or ministry of the church, in their inevit

able influence over men; I showed it to be indispensable for the safety of the civil ruler's independent and supreme authority; that he should institute and maintain a connexion between himself and the priesthood-a connexion at once cherishing and subordinating, endowing and restraining-a connexion which a christian priesthood should cordially desire both ways-as supplying increased facilities for their usefulness; and as a defence against their liability, covetously and ambitiously to abuse their inevitable influence: and therein as a valuable assistance to them, in doing what God has commanded them to do-make disciples of nations, and in remaining where God has commanded them to remain, subject to the civil power.

The strength of this argument is derived from the deep workings of the human heart; for the force of which our appeal is to every man's conscience in the sight of God. It would, however, be a gross and wilful misrepresentation to allege that our case rests wholly upon this argument, strong as it is. On the contrary, this argument is rather collateral, and, so far as I know, novel, in the controversy. But having thus appealed to the political safety of the civil ruler, we now advance more directly to appeal to his scriptural duty. And here, as elsewhere, we shall find cause to admire and adore the merciful combination of our heavenly Father; who has graciously identified the path of safety with the path of duty; so constituting it the only path of happiness. That connexion with the