pendence, unshackled by human formularies, in order to clear their doctrines' from the rust and the rubbish which the igno'rance of former ages has heaped upon them,' and thus to get 'to 'see them in all the brightness and beauty of their original.'

Dr. Halley improves upon this; and, in a very felicitous and forcible passage, asserts that independent churches, as such, possess the power of fully exercising what Mr. Morison claims as their right. Mr. Morison, indeed, involves their possession of this power, and their exercise of it too, when he describes the Essex Congregational Union as an institution, all of whose 'preachers say, and say without inconsistency and without reserve -the Bible, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants;'-addresses his brethren as the representatives' of men who maintained and acted on this principle in former days of degradation and darkness;-and describes the 'great Master' as looking to them, as such, with peculiar interest, for peculiar displays of consistency and zeal. We return, however, to Dr. Halley.

After stating, in his introductory remarks, the necessity under which Independents act in dissenting from the Church, the Doctor refers to certain modern 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, recognizes 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 whatWe are bound by no obligation to the errors of our fathers or Let any practice among us, however general, or howeyer

soever.

our own.

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 authorize-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 Scrip'ture-by its decision we will abide.' In contrast with this enviable condition-this attitude and language of free men,-we will now give Dr. Wardlaw's description of the degradation and vassalage of a Parliamentary church. In the last chapter of the Dr.'s late admirable volume, in showing the evils of establishments, he largely insists on their destruction of the Church's in'dependence—as to creed-nomination of ministers,' &c. A

few sentences from his animadversions on the first of these, will singularly illustrate the positions of Dr. Halley, while they again will equally illustrate them.

-, when, according to the authority with which all advocates of establishments consider the civil rulers as invested, the creed has been fixed, the church that accepts the endowments becomes bound, by every principle of integrity, to maintain it, in all its articles, inviolate. The moment the judicatories of that church presume to introduce an alteration on their own authority, without seeking and obtaining the concurrent sanction of the civil power, they have violated their part of the formal or implied bargain, and have forfeited, by such infraction, all their right to the emoluments. The distinction between the Church as a church, and the Church as an established church, is so manifest, that it is surprising it should not by every mind of common sense be instantly perceived, and by every mind of common candour be instantly admitted. Dr. Chalmers may boast, on behalf of his own Church, an 'unfettered theology;' but in no endowed church can there, by possibility, be any such thing. The endowment fetters it. That chain of golden links passes round every article of it, and fastens the whole down. As a church, the Scottish church, or the English, may alter its creed,―may cancel it entirely, and adopt a new one. THIS IS THE UNDOUBTED PREROGATIVE OF EITHER, considered simply as a church. But this is precisely what each has relinquished in accepting a stateendowment. As churches established by law, they must have their articles, and their confessions, their liturgies, and their books of discipline, and their directories for the worship of God, prescribed to them by royal or by parliamentary authority: and a change, unsanctioned by that authority, must involve a forfeiture of the endowment. The fact is, that the articles of the Church of England, originally settled and published by legal authority, require the same authority, the authority of her supreme earthly head, to legalize any alteration; and that the same is the case with all her forms of worship:-that the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland, along with its other authorized standards, is binding on that Church, as an established church, NOT by the authority of God, but solely by sundry acts of Parhament; and that by act of Parliament alone can any change be introduced. IS THIS UNFETTERED THEOLOGY? Is this the exclusive deference to Christ's authority which He, as the Church's ONLY HEAD, demands, and is so supremely entitled to? AWAY WITH THE UNWORTHY COMPROMISE OF THE CHURCH'S DIGNITY, AND THE HONOR OF THE CHURCH'S LORD!'-Wardlaw's Lectures, pp. 348-350.

*

* *

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

6

'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 un'scriptural, 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. 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 libertyfreely 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.

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 all the property of which they are possessed? Suppose a sect to have 5000 places of worship, which are worth on an average £1000 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 true-would 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 main

'taining them an hour longer than our convictions might authorize.'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 prac'tice, however ancient, or popular, or prevalent.' 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 erro'neous.' Could all this be said in the circumstances supposed? Would it be true, that a body had no interest' in an error, when by bolding it they retained property to the value of five millions? Would it be true, that they could carry out a 'reforming princi'ple,' '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 'con'fined 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, bound them to the maintenance of a certain creed, and a certain discipline, at the peril of their parting with five millions?

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 annual income. A congregation possessing a freehold edifice worth £5000, is endowed to the amount of rent which such a building would bring, since they would have to pay that for the accommodation which they now enjoy for nothing. If, however, they only hired or rented a place, they could change their creed or their customs-alter their views upon any point-follow the Scripture wherever it led-consulting nothing, and caring for nothing but their own personal, conscientious convictions; but, as endowed, or entrusted with property, the uses of which are distinctly specified in a legal instrument,' they must consult that, if they wish to retain possession. In this latter case, they may boast, if they like, of their unfettered theo'logy,'-their spiritual independence their liberty to 'alter their 'creed' according to their conscience their right to appeal to 'the Bible, and the Bible only '-their freedom, as a church, from all secular, and legal, and parliamentary interference, and their consequent power to yield exclusive deference to Christ's authority, their only Head.' To all this, however, we submit, that Dr. Wardlaw's words, in the previous extract, may be fairly adapted by way of reply: When the creed has been fixed, [by 'a trust-deed,] the church that accepts the endowments [the

6