that it is, our adversaries in this matter must affirm that it is; other wise, they do not so much as enter into the question in controversy. And it is incumbent on those who take the affirmative side of a question to prove their assertion. It is contrary to the rules of just reasoning to tell us, that we cannot instruct the warrantableness of the magistrates power about religion, unless we produce a positive institution of it in the New Testament, if the whole word of God be the rule of our faith and practice.'"*

Without attempting to disprove what is here so forcibly urged, Mr Marshall entirely overlooks the unscriptural consequences which attach to his own opinions, and instead of undertaking the part of defender of himself, undertakes the more easy part of accusing his adversaries. The only two arguments by which he endeavours to justify the aspersions which he throws, with so much confidence, upon their principles, are founded-the one upon the exhortation of the apostle to voluntary liberality, and the other upon the fact that neither Christ nor his apostles made any attempt to propagate their religion by civil aid, or left any injunctions to their followers to institute national establishments. The first of these we have already answered, by shewing that a church establishment does not necessarily set aside the injunction of the apostle; for the establishment may have been erected by the voluntary decision of the nation. Besides, we have no objection, that where the Christian liberality of a parish is sufficient to make a competent provision for a religious instructor, that the compulsory provision be withdrawn. All that is necessary for the maintenance of our principle is, that that provision be supplemented where deficient, and that religion and its functionaries, be not left to starve upon gratuitous liberality. "Give thyself wholly to the ministry" is an apostolic injunction as decisive and unequivocal as the injunction, "Let him that is taught in the word administer to him that teacheth in all good things;" yet our dissenting brethren of England and Scotland scruple not to eke out a scanty stipend by a boarding or school establishment; nor do they conceive that in this alienation of their time and talents, to the instruction. of youth in profane and secular learning, they are violating a Scripture command. The necessity of their circumstances they plead as an apology; and the plea, we admit, is good, and is sanctioned by

• Statement of the Differences, &c.-pp. .187, 138.

the example of an apostle. But notwithstanding this, it is our imperative duty to adopt such means as will prevent the violation of this, or any other precept of Scripture. Such means is an establishment; it secures, or ought to secure, such a competent remuneration to every minister, that he may be able to "give himself wholly to the ministry." This, in the system of dissenters, is, in many instances, impracticable. It is, or it ought always to be practicable, in the system of an establishment. We are aware that these remarks may be retorted upon ourselves, in reference to the pluralities which exist, both in our own and in the other established churches of the empire. If these pluralities be in any instance justifiable, it is upon the same principle as the boarding or school establishments of our dissenting brethren. We have no hesitation, however, in saying, that they are altogether incompatible with the right discharge of the duties of a Christian minister, and are a violation of the Scripture precept, "give thyself wholly to the ministry." The union of a pastoral charge with an academic office, of clergyman and professor in the same person, violates not only the Scripture precept, but the ordinary principle of the division of labour; and is no less incompatible with the successful discharge of the duties of a clergyman, than the union of wright and smith, in the same artizan, is, with excellent workmanship, from the smithery or wright-shop. We are told, in English history, that when King Richard, in fighting against Philip of France, had taken prisoner the Bishop of Beauvais, a martial prelate, he replied to the Pope, who demanded his liberation as an ecclesiastic, by sending his Holiness the coat of mail which the Bishop had worn in the battle, and which was besmeared with blood, employing these words of Jacob's son to the patriarch, "This we have found, know now whether it be thy son's coat or no." In like manner, of the gown of a professor on the shoulders of a clergyman, we would say, in the words of King Richard, "Know whether this be thy son's coat or no." The entire separation of one man to the pastoral office, by the destruction of all pluralities, would be of as much importance to the clerical, as subdivision of labour is to every other profession. If thirteen men, as Adam Smith informs us, are employed in making one pin, it is not too much to expect, that two men shall be employed in the very different occupations of lecturer on science, and preacher of the gospel. The second of Mr Marshall's arguments, that neither Christ nor

his apostles made any attempt to propagate their religion by civil aid, or left any injunctions to their followers to institute national establishments, is sufficiently answered in the following passage of Mr Wilks. The argument is hardly, indeed, worthy of consideration, since it is wholly a negative argument, and therefore can prove nothing on either side.

"The Dissenter will, however, still demand, "Why is it, that, if a national church establishment was consistent with the intentions of our Saviour, he did not, either by himself or his Apostles, expressly clear up the point ?" To this we reply, that we may conceive very sufficient reasons why much should not be said in the New Testament on the subject. For, in the first place, all the prejudices, habits, and persuasions of his disciples must have been in favour of a national church establishment: they had themselves been educated under one, and could never suspect, unless it were plainly declared, which it certainly is not, that under the new economy such an institution, which before was of Divine appointment, had become unlawful. Had one of the Apostles been the instrument of converting a heathen prince and the majority of his subjects to the Christian Faith, does it appear credible that he would have thought of cautioning the newly evangelized government carefully to avoid the example of the Jewish ecclesiastical polity?—to build no temples; to appoint no public instructors; and, in short, to steer as widely as possible of every thing resembling a national church establishment? On the contrary, would he not naturally and instinctively, unless specially instructed otherwise, have followed up, mutatis mutandis, the system in which he had been himself educated; and have earnestly exhorted his royal and senatorial converts to provide, as far as possible, for the extension and permanence of the Gospel among the body of the people, by founding a regular national church establishment? This appears at least a very probable presumption;—a presumption at all events sufficiently strong to shew, that for our Lord to have expressly enjoined his Apostles to do what would so naturally follow without such excitement, would, at best, have been superfluous, and might even have been injurious, by leading their minds too closely to the old system, and reviving the lingering prejudices of their education in favour of the abolished parts of Judaism. Indeed, considering the prepossessions of the first disciples, which must have been strongly on the side of an ecclesiastical polity connected with the state, it is more wonderful, perhaps, that there are no cautions against pressing

the subject too pertinaciously upon the Gentile nations, than that there are no specific injunctions to the practice."-pp. 31, 32.

acts.

NOTE (F.)-Page 137.

To have made out the charge, that the churches of our national establishment are involuntary churches, it would have been necessary for Mr Marshall to have shewn, that our General Assembly is not, in ecclesiastical matters, a supreme court, but that its decisions are subject to the revision of a higher tribunal. Without this proof, his argument from the Bracadale case is, as we have said, a contradiction in terms; for he at once affirms that the decision was involuntary, and that it was deliberately adopted. If the decisions of our Parliament were overawed by an army, or if they were subject to be revised and repealed by a superior court, it might then be said of it, that it was an involuntary Parliament, and had not the power of redressing national grievances, and altering and amending its own But if it is a supreme court, from which there is no appeal, and if its deliberations are not overawed by some superior physical power, then the very fact that it deliberately decides upon any measure, is a proof that the measure is voluntarily chosen. In like manner with the General Assembly of our church, it is a supreme court, acknowledging no superior, and appealing to no higher tribunal. If its measures are wrong, it is not because it is an involuntary court; it is owing to the character and principles of its members. The acts passed by one Assembly may be repealed or modified by another, and the very next instance of a case similar to that of the minister of Bracadale, may be decided by a reversal of its former judgment. Agreeably to the principles of Presbyterians, our church recognizes the civil authority only circa sacra, (about sacred things,) not in sacris, (in sacred things.) In matters of doctrine or discipline, or in the adminstration of religious ordinances, it rejects all civil and external interference. If there are abuses, therefore, in the administration of these, they are subject to its own regulation. As they have originated within itself, so they may be remedied by the exercise of its own power. In short, like every other Presbyterian assembly of divines, its members may act properly or improperly, their legislation may injure or benefit the church; but whatever be the

character of its measures, these measures are at least its own deliberate choice.

presen

With regard even to patronage, there is a power which lies within the church, sufficient to counteract any vicious exercise of the right on the part of the patron. The church is the sole judge of the qualifications of the presentee; and not only may it set aside his tation on the general ground of his religious and literary disqualifications, but on the particular ground of his not being acceptable to the people. It is true, this power has long lain inactive; but the time, we hope, is not far distant, when it will again be exercised by the Assembly. Though out of use, it is not out of the constitution; and when revived, it will nobly vindicate the rights of the people, and protect them against any unprincipled exercise of patronage.

FINIS.

ERRATA.

Page 5, line 17, for "loose," read "loosely."

5, line 30, for "and," read "or."

6, line 6, for "or," read "nor."

14, line 6 from the bottom, for " independent," read " independently." 35, line 17, for "who is no less eminent as a historian than as a Christian and a divine," read " who is no less eminent as a Christian and a divine than as a historian."

-112, line 6, for "Chalmers's, Thomson's, Gordon's," read "Chalmerses, Thomsons, Gordons."