question could not ask, as if it were unanswerable, in the words of Dr. Halley, 'Let any practice among us, however general, or however ancient, be proved unscriptural, and what should hin'der any of our churches from immediately renouncing it?'

Still, it will be inquired, is nothing to be done to secure the truth? Is a place to be built, and the people left to 'change their creed,' and alter their customs, and adopt, in fact, any thing they like? They may come to imbibe the worst errors ;they may turn, in a generation or two, hardened heretics; or they may fall into the vagaries of modern fanaticism; or they may go back to Canturbury or Rome: are we not to take measures for preserving and perpetuating God's own truth, by forbidding the future perversion of our property to what we condemn?

Is this the way, it might be asked in reply, which the nature of Christianity-the genius and spirit of the gospel, prescribes for its preservation? Is this the way in which Christ's promise is to take effect, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church?" Can Christ not take care of his own truth? Dare you not trust Him with it? Are his aids, and grace, and promises, to be withdrawn, after the present age? Is there to be no Spirit to guide your successors, that you must chalk out their way?-to enlighten and teach them, that you must put into their hands, ready made, the conclusions they must come to in all their inquiries? You expect your prescriptions and enforcements of truth either to have some effect or none: if none, and the truth is maintained for its own sake, what is their use? if some, and for their sake, therefore, the truth is maintained, what is the value of such maintenance?-the worth of a profession resting on the dictates of a trust-deed? Still it will be thought, that it is not right, or not safe, to leave a people at liberty to adopt error. But why? Are they to adopt it merely because they may? If they have not liberty to adopt error, can it be said that they have liberty to adopt truth? He who is free to do right, must be free to do wrong. Can God be glorified, the gospel obeyed, Christ honored, with an attempt on the part of one age, to induce the next, to maintain the truth on other grounds distinct from its own evidence and worth? But the property, it will be said, may come to be lost to the truth entirely. Well; and what then? You have to do, not with consequences, but with duty. The question is, does God require at your hands the preservation of his truth by the means you propose? Is it consistent with faith in Him; with the spirituality of the gospel,--its reasonable service, its appeal to the understanding of individual man ;—the constitution, duties, and, in the language of Dr. Wardlaw, the 'undoubted prerogative of a church,'-is it consistent with these things, and such as these, for you to seek to serve the cause of religion by calling to your aid, through a legal instrument, the

powers of the world-the sword of the magistrate-the terrors of the law, together with the exercise of dictation and authority, or of that which comes to something very like it-an appeal of the nature of a bribe or a threat-an appeal, from you, to the pecuniary interests, or the mental indolence, of other generations? Considering the nature and genius of the gospel, is it not likely that to think of preserving it by legal bonds, may, in God's sight, be actually worse than for a father to imagine, that to keep his children from erring and straying,' he must put them in prison, or that to keep them honest, he must cut off their hands?

Space, we find, would utterly fail us, if we attempted to propose all the questions, difficulties, and doubts, which recent meditation on the present subject, in connexion with the character and controversies of the times, has excited within us; nor will it be possible here, even to glance at many things which, more or less, bear upon and illustrate both its perplexity and importance. We much fear that the celebrated Protestant principle, so frequently put, and so frequently cheered, is not understood, or not held, or not acted on, or not trusted, by many Protestants. We much fear that some who profess to be Protestants, par excellence, and who taunt some sister church or sect with being but half reformed, or hardly that, will scarcely themselves pass unscathed under the fire of their own arguments. We much fear that though the professed principles and popular apologies' of some religionists are all on the side of religious liberty, their actual practice involves what countenances Popish assumption. We much fear that all the different Christian denominations are proceeding on a plan which must render the fulfilment of Christ's prayer impossible unless Cæsar will give permission! They are giving perpetuity to their differences and distinctions, and so completely putting them into the keeping of the law, and out of their own power of correction, that if, by a sudden donation of grace and light, they were all to be ready to come together on some comprehensive and catholic platform, abandoning every thing but the principles and rites of a common Christianity, they could not do it-or could not legally -till the powers of the world nodded assent. We much fear that either the Protestant principle or the Protestant practice must be given up-that both cannot be held by same parties. A church claiming the patrimony of a traditional interpretation of the Bible can consistently seek to perpetuate that by ecelesiastical creeds and legal securities, and to forbid its successors ever to depart from it; but a church appealing to the Bible, and the 'Bible only,' and actually claiming as its undoubted prerogative,' the privilege of changing its creed,' can only state, at any given time, its own present belief, without professing to be bound by that of its predecessors, or attempting to bind its successors to its A church may change its creed, but the church cannot.

own.

A Protestant church may do so, and ought to preserve to itself the liberty of doing so, because it is one of a number of sects that have all, as once a part of the apostacy, been carried away from primitive truth and primitive customs, are all professedly laboring to get back again to the state of things under the apostlesare all bound, therefore, to be ready to adopt any change that shall bring them nearer to their desired object—and, till they are sure that they have attained this, none of them can call itself the church, or can, consistently with its character, either bind itself to inquire no more, or forbid its successors to inquire for themselves. The Church, however, may do this. Its doctrines and constitution are true and apostolic; they cannot be changed without arrogance and injury-and, therefore, it would seem, may be attached by it to its buildings, and imposed on its successors, as Protestants may consistently attach the Bible. Is every Baptist and Independent society this church? Are they in every point, -doctrinal, ritual, and constitutional,-perfect and apostolic? Is there nothing for them to alter, that they ask the law to see to it that for ever they alter nothing?

But nobody thinks of what deeds may specify or appoint. Most ministers and churches are probably ignorant of the contents of their own. They never practically have any operation, and therefore the whole matter is much more speculative and curious than useful. To this objection, there are two replies. If it be true, the thing is not right; and if it be false, it is not good. If churches are holding property on a certain tenure, and are yet utterly regardless of that, using their liberty to think and act in opposition to the legal injunctions against it, what is this but another form of clerical or ecclesiastical subscription without caring about what is subscribed, or without intending to be bound by it? But the objection is false in fact. Not only is it always possible, at any moment, for any individual to take advantage of some clause in a deed, to annoy or eject a church that may be exercising its undoubted prerogative,' but such cases actually occur. It also occurs that churches are saddled with what they dislike, or a majority in them, but they choose to bear it for the sake of the property rather than exercise their undoubted prerogative.' We have in our eye, at this moment, a Baptist church which became open in its communion-one of the simplest specimens of change -one that will be admitted by most, to have advanced it nearer to what a church should be; but, after doing this, it was discovered that it was not their 'prerogative,'-they might do it as a 'church,' but they could not as an endowed church.' Some few stuck to this. Whether scriptural or not, it was law. Law was on their side. The founders of the church had given them the advantage of an argument in favor of their views, which enabled them to listen, with perfect composure, to the most convincing

demonstrations of their brethren, and to look calmly at their over whelming numbers as compared with themselves. The result was, that the majority departed, to exercise their undoubted 'prerogative' of building for themselves another sanctuary, which will probably be secured to open commuion; so that, if their successors, using the rights and liberties of their fathers, should come to be convinced that strict communion is, after all, right and apostolic, they will be compelled, by force of law, to violate their consciences or quit the place! There are cases, also, in which churches submit to the reading of the prayers, because they cannot get rid of them, but at the expence of their building, which they cannot afford. In many things, indeed, trustees are sometimes found practically to interfere with the proceedings, peace, and independency of a church.

We

Here, however, for the present, we must close our remarks. We shall be glad to see the subject thoroughly gone into by some able hand; and as we have left many things unsaid, and may probably be called upon by some to say them, we shall be happy, in this way, to contribute our mite towards the discussion. are not disposed to apologize for remarks which may seem to embarrass our own friends. We have no friends to be put in comparison with cONSISTENCY and TRUTH. We have no doubt either, but that many of those with whom we side in the great controversies of the day, have often revolved the subject before us, and have seen their way through all its intricacies. We shall deem ourselves happy in eliciting their thoughts. For Dr. Wardlaw, Dr. Halley, and others, to whom we have had to refer, we cherish unfeigned and profound respect. Our opinion of Dr. Wardlaw's volume, with the exception to which we have now referred, and perhaps one other, is before the public. Dr. Halley we hold in high estimation. The sentiments we have quoted from his discourse are, we are persuaded, deeply felt and ardently cherished by him, and sincerely believed to be such as he could consistently avow. With him, we hold and value them; like him, we feel that they must be held by us, and held fully, practically, consistently, or we shall be able to defend ourselves neither against those from whom we dissent, nor against those who dissent from

Dr. W. has done the first; Dr. H. the second. On the ground they take, they are safe and successful; but, as we have our doubts whether this ground is always kept, or whether it be not practically abandoned by the bodies to which our friends belong, these doubts we have taken the liberty to throw out. By the way, we wonder what the brethren,' for instance, and some like them, who profess to have not only the Bible in the midst of them, but the Spirit, in a peculiar, if not miraculous, sense, so unfolding to them the truth, that they can never affirm that they will think to-morrow precisely as they think to-day-we wonder

what they do with their buildings? When they erect a place, and thus create property, how do they secure it? That there must be some sort of security we have already admitted. Public property is not private. As to our views of the extent to which, and the terms by which, a society of Protestants, more especially Dissenters, should secure theirs, in consistency with their professed and fundamental principles, these we reserve to a future

occasion,

Such were our intended last words. It strikes us, however, that one or two may not improperly be added, to guard against the misconception of our spirit and purpose. We are not unaware that the lamentable defection of the English Presbyterian churches, their sliding into Socinianism, or dying out,-is often attributed to the want of specificness, in their trust-deeds, of the doctrinal sentiments to be maintained by them; and in these days. of insinuation and calumny, it might be said that the Eclectic had become Socinian, because of our introduction of the present discussion. To these objections, we reply, in the first place, that the defection referred to may perhaps admit of explanation on other grounds. We believe it may, and that it might have been prevented without the legal specificness demanded. But if not, the question still comes, whether legal securities are the Scriptural way, according to certain popular and controversial commonplaces, of preserving and perpetuating the true faith? If not, and yet if necessary, where are we? On such an admission, can the great Protestant principle, the Bible, and the Bible only,' be honestly professed, or confidently trusted? If it be felt that it cannot, let it be acknowledged. If experience have proved that it is inexpedient to leave succeeding churches and generations to the Bible and to themselves, let it be avowed that we do, from expediency, what it may be difficult to reconcile with theoretic maxims; and then let this moderate, in some degree, the tone and language with which such maxims are used in debate. As to any leaning, on our part, to that irreligious and impious recklessness of speculation, which may be supposed to be guarded against by protecting the faith by legal securities, we think it unnecessary to deny the existence. The evangelical spirit that has ever distinguished this journal, and which we are as anxious as any of our predecessors to maintain, is denial enough. There are other evils besides heresy; and other rights besides those of man. God has his rights, if we may so speak without impropriety; and, jealous for his honour, we have thrown out, what, in our view, may tend to maintain them. A legal instrument may not only restrain the spirit of man, the liberty of human speculation that leads to error; it may restrain the Spirit of God; it may limit the liberty of the church to listen obediently to the voice of its Lord-to mark his stately steppings in the sanctuary-to

VOL. VI.