aid of the law for your power and emolument, so now it is most just that you should submit to the law, though its demands may clash with your wishes."

And really all the outcry of the Church of Scotland on the present occasion is pitiably ridiculous; for if the General Assembly were sincere in its declarations relating to the clear distinction between spiritual and civil authority, how easy it would be for them to act on the principle by separating from the State in toto! Let the General Assembly confess before the world their false position; let them withdraw all their ministers from the parish locations, as stipendaries of the parish; let them announce to all Scotland, that henceforward they will not be supported by the power of man, but trust to the power of God, and leave all the church property to the Crown and the patrons to deal with it as the state may think fit; and then we shall be able to understand those professions which now, in our eyes, are little better than hypocrisy. But it is obvious that the Assembly desires the large support of the State, and is utterly unprepared to renounce it; and that the whole question is this, whether the Presbyterian government shall pass laws to supersede the laws of the realm-whether the judges of the queen shall obey the General Assembly, or the General Assembly submit to the majesty of the law.

What may be the conclusion of this strange commotion we cannot say. The Church party, with characteristic feeling, calls on the Government to pass an Act of Parliament in their favour-for these partizans of" spiritual" integrity can hit on no better solution of their difficulties, than to invoke the force of the law. But to such

an expedient the Government can scarcely accede, for it would invalidate the tenure of all property, if Acts of Parliament might be introduced to supersede the decisions of the law courts in cases of this description, and "the patrons" have too many friends in the House of Lords to allow such an Act to pass.

The Church of Scotland must, therefore, prepare itself for much contention and trouble; but to us it seems not improbable, that after many splendid professions of their valor in "doctrine," the General Assembly will at last succumb. and bow the neck to the patrons, rather than admit the only remaining alternative of their own imprisonment, sine die, a civil war, and a separation of the Church from the State.

That our readers may more fully understand this question, we subjoin the Act of Veto passed by the General Assembly in 1834.

"That it is a fundamental law of this Church, that no pastor shall be intruded on any congregation contrary to the will of the people; and in order to carry this principle into full effect, the Presbyteries of the Church shall be instructed, that if, at the moderating in a call to a vacant pastoral charge, the major part of the male heads of families, members of the vacant congregation, and in full communion with the Church, shall disapprove of the person in whose favour the call is proposed to be moderated in, such disapproval shall be deemed sufficient ground for the Presbytery rejecting such person, and he shall be rejected accordingly."

We cannot allow this document to pass, without noticing the strange expression, "a vacant congregation," as if the General Assembly supposed, that by the death of the parish priest the congregation was vacant! What! Is not the Lord, the Head of the Church, always in the midst of his churches; and have not believers received of his fulness, and " grace for grace ?" Does he not dwell in them, and walk in them; and hath he not given gifts unto men, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; and have not believers "gifts differing according to the grace given to them?" And as 66 every man hath received his gift," are they not enjoined "to minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." How, then, could a congregation of the Holy Brethren be vacant when one of their members had died? Have all the gifts of the Holy Ghost perished when one Brother is in his grave? "Yes," reply the Papist, the Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, the Congregationalist, "when the minister is removed the congregation is vacant :" in other words, the priest, the mouth-piece of the silent congregation, is gone; and therefore all the congregation is silent too; and that vacancy cannot be supplied till another mortal priest is ordained by men to supply the vacancy of mortality.

ENDOWED PROTESTANTISM.

66 THE ECLECTIC REVIEW.-ART.

ARE WE PROTESTANTS ?"

OUR attention has been expressly called to an article in the Eclectic Review, headed "Are We Protestants?" which contains matter of a most interesting kind. Thankful indeed are we to see that some of our brethren in the Lord are really disposed to inquire into the scriptural ground of those views and practices in which they have been involved by a system of dissent; and we are glad to see that many of those important truths to which the Inquirer has been bearing its humble testimony, are more or less responded to by the Questioner in the Eclectic. We pray that all who profess to love the truth may be led, not only to question concerning the propriety of the children of God being joined in unscriptural union, but to see clearly the responsibility which rests upon all who have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus, to act in all things upon the warrant of the word of God, and on that only.

The article to which we have thus referred, appears in the form of a review of Two Sermons, the one by Dr. Halley, in defence of the system of Congregationalism, against those who have seceded therefrom; the other by Mr. Morison, in defence of "the sufficiency of the Scriptures," and "the right of private* judgment;" and under this form, various doubts and questionings are thrown out. The article commences thus :

-

"We place these two pieces at the head of this article, not because we intend to write about them, but because they both glance at a subject on which we wish not only to offer a few thoughts of our own, but to elicit, if possible, the thoughts of others."

We are quite willing that our thoughts should be thus elicited; and therefore we shall give several copious extracts from the article, together with our own remarks upon them.

"The subject we intend to notice is one of great importance; it has many difficulties in speculation; and, practically, whatever view be taken of it, seems to involve something like danger. It is intimately connected with some of the prominent controversies of the day; and, we frankly confess, rather perplexes us, when we want to harmonise the sentiments and the conduct, the professions and the practice, of some of the combatants. As we thus acknowledge that we do not see our own way very clearly, it would ill become us to pretend to discuss the subject, and it would be monstrous to indulge in assertion or dogmatism. We propose, therefore, to put our own broken and confused thoughts into the form of doubts, or questions, or in any other way that may seem best to consist with a state of mind groping after light, and with the purpose of eliciting light from others."

We must say, that it is to us not a little remarkable to find such admissions in the Eclectic; but rare as the occurrence may be, and thankful as we are to find all dogmatism laid aside, we do not wonder that a mind warped from the simplicity of truth by a cunningly devised system, should be able only to put together" broken and confused thoughts," when a few rays of Scripture truth have begun to dispel the traditional mists with which it has been long bedimmed. We do not wonder at such an individual having his thoughts much "confused," and we are glad when he acts with so much straight-forward honesty as to express those doubts in a way which exhibits the contrast in which the Congregational traditions stand with regard to the Word of God.

A few extracts from Mr. Morison's sermon are given in the introductory part of the article, in which Congregationalism is set forth as being the ne plus ultra of Scriptural excellence, which it is often asserted to be in sermons and speeches. Dr. Halley's sermon is then adverted to thus

"After stating, in his introductory remarks, the necessity under which Independents act in dissenting from the church, the Doctor refers to certain modern

* We heartily wish that this phrase were never used. If it mean any thing more than our responsibility to hear and to obey when God speaks, it expresses that which is false; but if it only means this, it would be far better to use some other term.

reformers, who say that they act from necessity in dissenting from them. An attack,' he remarks, 'has recently been made upon [us], and sustained in a series of small publications, which are industriously circulated by persons who contend for principles utterly subversive of our discipline and order. They profess to maintain more simple modes of church government.' It would thus seem, that, by this new sect, the Independent Dissenters are placed in the position in which they have been obliged, by their conscientious views of the demands of Scripture, to place the adherents and advocates of Episcopacy. Unlike, however, the Episcopal community, which, in its spiritual character, recognises other kinds of authority' besides the Scriptures, and in its political, is bound and fettered by acts of Parliament, so that it neither would if it could, nor could if it would, obey the Bible, and the Bible only:'unlike this, the Independent churches, according to Dr. Halley, have nothing to hinder them from adopting all that their new opponents urge from Scripture, if they saw that Scripture required it. This glorious liberty,' a liberty at once eminently Protestant, and worthy the boast, the devotedness, and the guardianship of the ' representatives' of Puritan and Nonconformist confessors, is both eloquently described, and boldly claimed for his brethren and himself, by Dr. Halley, in the following passage:- Congregational churches can have no interest in any abuse whatsoever. We are bound by no obligation to the errors of our fathers, or our own. Let any practice among us, however general, or however ancient, be proved unscriptural, and what should prevent any of our churches from immediately renouncing it? Our institutions are not, like Persian laws, immutable. The power of every church to regulate its own discipline, offices, and worship, is a reforming principle diffused through the whole denomination, which, confined by no restrictions, need wait for no enactments, but independent of all considerations, except truth, by its own energy, it may readily correct whatever is proved to be unchristian, a principle at once so firm as to resist unrighteous authority, and yet so compliant and elastic, as to yield easily to reason, and accommodate itself to truth. With us, every church, inasmuch as it acknowledges no controlling power of Pope or Parliament, convocation or conference, priest or presbyter, can act upon the convictions of its members; and that church would be unworthy the name of Congregational, which, through fear of singularity or innovation, or through any other motive whatsoever, would refuse to supply its deficiencies, to correct its errors, or to renounce any unscriptural practice, however ancient, or popular, or prevalent. The forms of all our churches may be changed, and yet their principles may remain unimpaired. I do not admit that our practices are unscriptural, but I do say, that, if they were, we could have no interest in maintaining them an hour longer than our convictions might authorise, only let us not be condemned, because we do not hastily admit the crude fancies of every ardent innovator. Let us be sure we have detected the wrong, and learned the right, and then the substitute can be easily effected. There may be too obstinate an adherence to ancient custom; and there may be too keen a love of novelty; but neither antiquity nor novelty, in itself, is any evidence of truth. Carry the appeal to Scripture, and whether the matter in dispute be of long or of late introduction, by its decision WE WILL ABIDE.'

"This passage, it must be acknowledged, is both bold and beautiful. It is impossible not to admire the picture which it presents of the unshackled freedom enjoyed and maintained by the churches it describes. They have liberty to follow the Lord's will, whatever it may appear to them to be. Nothing can interfere with their inquiries. Nothing can impede their pursuit of truth; nothing need deter them from announcing their convictions. Each society, acknowledging no controlling power in Pope or Parliament,' has nothing to do but to say with respect to every thing belonging to religion-every thing connected with faith and practice, creed and ceremony-carry the appeal to Scripture-by its decision we will abide.' In contrast with this enviable condition-this attitude and language of free menwe will now give Dr. Wardlaw's description of the degradation and vassalage of a Parliamentary church."

The extract from Dr. Wardlaw, to which reference is thus made, it is not needful for us to give, especially as we shall find shortly the same passage given again, only with a few words changed, so as to make the charge applicable as bearing upon bodies constituted as the Congregational churches are, "Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur." We would only request our Christian readers (to none others could we make any such appeal) to compare the bold statements of Dr. Halley

VOL. IT

F

66 a

with the word of God, and with facts. He may speak strongly of "the power of every church to regulate its own discipline, offices, and worship," as being reforming principle;" he may look upon this as giving a peculiar facility to Independent churches to act according to the Word of God; but we, on the contrary, cannot help looking at such a supposed right, to be an assertion of self-will in itself wholly unwarranted by the Word of God. Are the discipline, offices, and worship of Christians left for their judgments to decide as to what they may think to be the best, or are they distinctly defined by the Word of God? We unhesitatingly believe the latter; and that no man, or body of men, can of authority any more set up a single regulation on such subjects, than they can add a fresh condition to the terms of our salvation. We notice this, because it is a point which has been overlooked by the writer in the Eclectic; although we believe that this error leads to many of those practical points on which he raises "doubts and questions."

66

After giving Dr. Wardlaw's description of a Church, established and endowed by the state, and of the vassalage to which it is thereby reduced, the writer continues :-— Having now both pictures before us-both what is claimed and what is repudiated-we shall proceed to give expression to what we have already denominated our own broken and confused thoughts.' We have promised to do so, not by any attempt at very regular or elaborate discussion, but by doubts or questions, or in any other way that may seem best to consist with a state of mind groping after light, and with the purpose of eliciting light from others.' In consistency with this, we shall throw out, just as they occur to us, unmindful of order or connexion, answers to some of the queries in the above extracts, inquiries and appeals as to some of their positions-doubts as to the propriety and consistency, in some respects, both of the boasting and the censure in which the writers indulge.

"Dr. Halley says, Let any practice among us, however general, or however ancient, [infant baptism, for instance, on the one hand, and party, immersionist communion on the other], be proved unscriptural, and WHAT SHOULD PREVENT ANY OF OUR CHURCHES FROM IMMEDIATELY RENOUNCING IT?' To this question we reply instantly, and without hesitation The State would prevent you—the state with which you have put yourselves into voluntary union; the law; the Lord Chancellor; in other words, the legal document, called a trust-deed, which has ‘FIXED YOUR CREED,' defined your practices, and determined and regulated what you are to believe and to be, for all time."

It is remarkable that we should so soon find the principle which keeps together so many "Churches" thus developed; and we pause before continuing our extracts, judging that it is well to suggest, that it is, and ought to be, to all Christians, an humbling thought, that pecuniary interests should be found holding such uppermost rank in the thoughts of the bodies called Churches. We are not blaming the writer in the Eclectic, for having thus, at once, adverted to this subject, for he had simply to do with facts as he found them, in bringing together his " doubts and questions" on Church constitution and practice.

The article continues the argument bearing on trust-deeds, by which congregational bodies are fettered ::

"To this reply, however, it would probably be objected, that it is unfair; inasmuch as whatever a trust-deed may connect with a certain building, the church assembling in it does so only in the exercise of its own liberty-freely and voluntarily holding the views required by the deed for legal occupancy; and that it is perfectly competent for it, in the language of Dr. Wardlaw, to alter its creed,' cancel it entirely, and adopt a new one;'-that it has, and can exercise, as he further expresses it, this undoubted prerogative' of a church;-for nothing can compel it to remain in the building: it can depart when it pleases, and erecting another, or meeting for worship in an upper room,' can carry out, in its faith and practices, its own convictions of the Master's will.

6

"All this is undoubtedly true; but is this, we ask, all that is meant by Dr. H.'s eloquent sentences? Does he merely mean to say, that all the Dissenting churches in the land, have perfect liberty to make any changes they please in their doctrine and discipline, according as Scripture may seem to require. them, at the expense of ull the property of which they are possessed? Suppose à sect to have 5,000 places of worship, which are worth on an average £1,000 each; this would give property to the amount of five millions; suppose this property to be attached, by law, to certain definite opinions and practices, some of which, for the sake of argument, we will

suppose to be unscriptural and wrong; would it be quite fair—would it be truewould the known principles of human nature permit the churches of this body to say, 'We can have no interest in any abuse whatsoever! We are bound by no obligation to the errors of our fathers, or to our own!' 'We do not admit our practices to be unscriptural, but we do say, that if they were, we could have no interest in maintaining them an hour longer than our convictions might authorise.' With us, every church can act upon the convictions of its members; and that church would be unworthy, which, through fear of singularity, or innovation, or any other motive whatsoever, would refuse-to renounce any unscriptural practice, however ancient, or popular, or prevalent." 'The power of every church to regulate its own discipline, offices, &c., is a reforming principle, diffused through the whole denomination, which, confined by no restriction, need wait for no enactments, but, independent of all considerations except truth, by its own energy, it may readily correct whatever is proved to be erroneous.' Could all this be said in the circumstances supposed? Would it be true, that a body had no interest' in an error, when, by holding it they retained property to the value of five millions? Would it be true, that they could carry out a 'reforming principle,' 'independently of all considerations except truth,' when they would have to consider,' that if they advanced to a certain point, they must give up five millions? Would it be true, that they were bound by no obligation' to any thing,—were 'confined by no restrictions'—'need wait for no enactments'—had nothing to do with 'parliaments,'-when legal instruments, which nothing but the power of parliament could dispense with, ound them to the maintenance of a certain creed, and a certain discipline, at the peril of their parting with five millions ?"

We do not question at all, that the pecuniary motives which are thus spoken of in the preceding extract, would exercise a secret influence in so swaying (perhaps unconsciously) the minds of those connected with such a system, as to make them strong in preconceived objections to any thing (whether true or false, it would not matter) which could, by any possibility, separate them from the endowment, by causing them to leave the system. "The love of money is the root of all evil;" and this infallible declaration is proved true, as we all must know, by the practical conduct of Christians. It was the love of money that brought evil into the church, in the case of Ananias and Sapphira; and the same principle continues its evil influence now. How dreadful is it for Christians to seek by endowments, to lay snares in the consciences of others;-to give them a pecuniary inducement to wrest their consciences, and to compromise the truth of God! Endowments have always the effect of inducing men to go through the prescribed routine, (whatever it be), so as to get possession of the emoluments; and, if men cannot do this honestly, those who have no principle, and who have a seared conscience, will reap the profits which may have been intended for widely different purposes. The New Testament, which gives us so much instruction as to the use of money in the service of our Lord, neither by precept nor implication, gives any countenance whatever to the idea of an endowment.

A church was of old the aggregate of the saints of God in the place, who met together "shewing the Lord's death till He come," in the breaking of bread; and amongst whom the Holy Ghost was allowed to glorify Jesus by the gifts which He gave having freedom of exercise. It was not an endowment which held them together, but the living energy of the Spirit; and the very idea of an endowment would, we doubt not, have seemed to such a church as an attempt of carnal wisdom to perpetuate by worldly means the existence of a gathered body in the place; to such the proposition would have savoured strongly of supposing that "the gift of God could be purchased for money," and would have called forth such a rebuke as that which Simon Magus received from the Apostle Peter.

If it be the will of God that there should continue to be a gathering of His children in any place, He will bring it about by the power of His Spirit. If such be not His will, an endowment would perpetuate an external form, from which all life had departed; it would keep together a body of men making a false profession, who if it were not for the ill-judged endowment, would never in this manner have taken up the name of Christ, without knowing what it is to be washed in His blood. Property, in the form of substantial and valuable buildings-in chapels, schools, vestries, &c., constitutes an endowment, as really as land, or money yielding an