doctrines, worship, and government of the church, are all based on the authority of the Saviour. These would have no meaning, and could possess no authority, as binding on the consciences of men, did they not proceed from Christ as the king of Zion. In this character, Christ not only reigns in his church, but reigns alone. To introduce any other authority into the church than the authority of Christ, or to admit of any other jurisdiction in it than that which he has established, were not only to offer dishonour to the Saviour, but to subvert the very principle on which the constitution of his church is founded,-a prineiple which requires that, in all things, entire, supreme, and undivided homage be rendered to Christ. Now, it might have been supposed that, with the professed friends and followers of the Redeemer, there would have been no dispute on this point. But this is not the case. Here the voluntary and state church systems come into conflict. According to the voluntary system, it is held that the authority of Christ, in all its divine dignity and supremacy, should remain untouched and uninterfered with, in the christian church, and that it should be allowed directly, and to the fullest extent, to exert its influence on the minds of men, according to the claims which Christ has upon them; agreeably to the state church system, a connexion is intentionally formed between the powers of this world and the church of Christ, by means of which, what is human is mixed up with what is divine, and a foundation is laid for a constant interference, on the part of worldly men, with what belongs to Christ alone. Nor is it easy to see how, according to the principle on which state churches are constituted, this interference can be avoided. In some state churches, such as the church of England, the control of the church, by the supreme power of the state, is avowedly and openly acted on. Hence the supreme ruler in the state is designated" the Head of the church of Christ on earth," all acts and appointments connected with its administration deriving their validity from him, as sustaining this character, In other state churches, while the headship of Christ over his church is nominally maintained, the power which belongs to him, in this capacity, is virtually superseded or surrendered. And how can it be otherwise? In every state church, is it not the case, that the chief ruler of the state determines, not for himself only, but for all those under him, what is to be known and believed as the truth of God? Is it not the case, that he establishes this truth, or what he deems to be the truth,-by civil enactment, calling upon men to yield subjection to it, on his authority, as part and parcel of the law of the land?" Is it not the fact that, even in the case of the church of Scotland, it has been, and still is, one of the fundamental laws of her constitution, that the civil magistrate "hath AUTHORITY, and it is his duty, to take order that peace and unity be preserved in the church, and that the truth of God be kept pure and entire?"* And, farther, is it not the case that, in every state church, the provision which Christ has "ordained" for the support of his gospel, is, by civil legislation, set aside, and another law, which he has not appointed, substituted in its stead? And who does not see that, in all this, there is a direct interference with the authority, and an invasion

Confession of Faith, chap. xxiii, sec. 3.

of the prerogative, of Christ? Why should not Christians seek that the church should exist as at first constituted, apart from this connexion with the powers of this world, under the benign sway alone of him who is the "Prince of peace?" Then would those who are the followers of Christ have an opportunity, according to his own injunction, of "rendering to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's."

2. It is the object of the voluntary system to secure the spiritual character of the church of Christ. When the Saviour made the declaration, "My kingdom is not of this world," he gave utterance to no unmeaning truth. It was his design to intimate that, in its nature, objects, principles, and interests, his kingdom was not of an earthly, but of a spiritual character. And this the word of God elsewhere most fully makes known to be the case. What other kingdoms "of this world" are not, this kingdom is; what this kingdom is, other kingdoms are not. They are essentially distinct in their characters. The relation which Christ sustains to his church is a spiritual relation, and the reign of Christ over his church is a spiritual reign. It is the reign of truth, it is the reign of grace,it is the reign of love! The empire which Christ claims, and which he obtains wherever his kingdom is established, is an empire over the hearts, the affections, and the consciences of men. His people are a "willing people," prepared to do homage to him" in the beauty of holiness, in the day of his power." And seeing that the church of Christ is thus à spiritual society, separated from "the world lying in wickedness" by a holy calling, is it not desirable that this character should be maintained? But how can this be done, if a connexion is to be formed and perpetuated by which the world is blended with the church, and the church with the world? What are the effects of this connexion? One effect arising from it is, to bring into existence, to a frightful extent, a mere nominal christianity. Is it not the case, that with the great proportion of those who conform to a state church, the profession of the gospel is nothing more than a mere name, intended as a mark of outward respect to "the institutions of the country?" The principle is inculcated, that it is the duty of a nation, as such, to make a profession of the christian faith, else it would not be entitled to the appellation of "a christian nation;" but, where living convictions of the truth of the gospel do not exist, where is the honour to Christ, or the advantage to his cause, from masses of men saying, by a false profession, that they are the subjects of his kingdom, when they are not? Another effect of this connexion is, that it secularizes every thing connected with religion. Where the world is systematically united to the church, and the church to the world, what can be hoped for in regard to the interests of true religion? A church formed on the principle of such a union, cannot but derive its tone of sentiment and governing impressions from the world; and, to answer the end for which it is called into existence, it must be conformed in all things to the world. Its services, its requirements, its observances of a religious nature, must all be of such a kind as the world shall tolerate. It must sustain a worldly character, and breathe a worldly spirit, and present such attractions as shall attach to it the men of the world. The wealth, the honours, the distinctions, which the state bestows, are all

needed to gratify the avarice, the pride, and the worldly ambition, which are called into operation by such a system. And how unlike is all this to the spiritual nature of the religion of Jesus Christ? A farther effect arising from this connexion is, the necessary use to which it leads of means of external compulsion for the maintenance of the church of Christ. The aspect which this gives to a church, established by the state, is one which is any thing but spiritual. Surely Christ never intended that his gospel, which is the gospel of peace, should ever be either maintained or propagated by "the sword." It was his design to attach men in allegiance to him, not by external force, but by the power of his truth and love; and why should men, who have not yet become subjects of the gospel of Christ, have reason to say, the system of christianity, in which we are called to believe, is not a system of spiritual means aiming at the accomplishment of spiritual objects, but one of external violence and compulsion?-For these, and other reasons that might have been mentioned, those who advocate the voluntary system desire to see the church of Christ detached from all state connexion, that her spiritual character may be made fully to appear. And is not this an object which every one should seek, who would truly seek the good of Zion? The church occupies her most befitting and graceful attitude, when she is seen "going up through the wilder

ness leaning on her Beloved." Then she appears "fair as the moon,

clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners."

3. It is the object of the voluntary system to secure the church's independence. The independence which is claimed on behalf of the church of Christ, is not an independence in relation to Christ himself, but an independence in reference to the state. The members of the church, indeed, in their individual capacity, owe allegiance to the supreme power in the state, as other men, and their religion teaches them "to render honour to whom honour is due, and tribute to whom tribute is due," as these are required of them in connexion with the province of civil government. In spiritual matters, however, the church is independent of the governments of this world, and is subject to Christ alone. It was evidently the design of Christ that his church should exist in this independent condition. His kingdom was constituted, not only a spiritual kingdom, but a kingdom which, with Christ himself as its King and Head, should possess all power and all resources within itself, essential to its own healthy and prosperous existence, and needful to the carrying out the great objects for which it was instituted. Were the church not thus spiritually independent, it could not be in a condition to do the will of Christ, as revealed in his word. When the Son of God, however, makes his people free," they are free indeed." It is one of the blood-bought privileges which Christ has secured for his church, that, freed from the yoke of every human authority, she shall be at liberty, in "all things whatsoever he hath commanded,” to serve her divine Lord. It is because state churches, from the relations they occupy, are not in a condition to do the will of Christ, that it is wished to see them independent, and that it is desired to see all churches of Christ kept independent, that the Saviour's will may be done by them. It is a common enough thing, indeed, for those who belong to state churches, to boast of their independence, and to say that,

though allied to the state, "we never were in bondage to any man.' This, however, does not alter in the least the facts of the case. How can a church be said to be independent, if the powers of this world have to do with it in all respects, both with the constitution under which it exists, and the government which it carries on? A state church, as such, cannot exist without the power of the state being exerted to give it the position and standing which it occupies. As an establishment, it is in fact a civil institution; and, viewed in this light, it is needless to say, that the government of the country in which it exists, must have the control over it as over other civil institutions. Nay, according to all proper ideas, it would be wrong were the state not to exercise this control. And how, then, can it be said that there is spiritual independence where this civil control is exercised? It is in vain to talk of "a co-ordinate jurisdiction" in such circumstances, -as if the church had one sphere of action and the state another. Such an idea may look very well in theory; but all experience shows, what has recently been exemplified in this country, that a church in the service of the state, must be subject to the state's control, and that, as there cannot be two supreme powers in a state, all questions that may arise, either as to the original constitution or administration of the church, must be finally determined by the state's authority. But not to insist further upon this point, it may well surely be asked, what kind of independence must that be which a church has, which is dependent every moment of its existence on the state for its temporal support? State churches are in the habit of saying to the government of the country from time to time, "Without your aid we cannot be extended, or even exist for a day.” If this be the case, then why speak at all of independence? We would put it to those who were once held in the trammels of the state, but who, in the providence of God, have been delivered from its bondage, whether they ever knew what true independence was-although they often boasted that they were independent-till they came to occupy the position of other christian churches who were free from all state connexion? And is it not a right thing that those who all along have held this position, should assert, and, if possible, extend, the principles by which spiritual independence is to be secured? "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

4. It is the object of the voluntary system to secure the rights and privileges of the members of the church. Those who compose the church of Christ are not simply "communicants"- -as the people belonging to established churches are usually styled-but members of a spiritual society, in which capacity certain christian privileges belong to them. These privileges are not derived from the rulers in the church, or from any mere human authority, but are conferred by Christ himself, the church's King and Head, To take but one example. It is the privilege of those who are members of the church to choose their own office bearers-as well those who are to rule over them, as those who are to break among them the bread of life. It belongs to them "to try the spirits whether they be of God," and "to look out from among them men of good report, full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,"

who may be "ordained over them," to execute the duties connected with those offices which Christ has established in his church. In the exercise of this privilege, inherent in the church according to the will of the Saviour, all the members of the church occupy an equal footing. Worldly station, or rank, or wealth, or office, give to a man no other right than that possessed by the humblest member. This arrangement, so fair and equitable, which the Saviour has appointed in his church, it is the desire of those who advocate the voluntary principle, to see fully maintained. It is unnecessary to remark that, in state churches, it is not maintained. In these churches, the rights of the people are a mere name, and the privilege in question, in any proper sense, has no existence. How stands the case? Patronage is "the law of the land." Presentations to "livings," as they are called, are bought and sold like any other marketable commodity. A large proportion of these are held in the hands of the government, and are disposed of, as might be expected, in such a way as to promote state purposes; others of them are vested in various parties who regard them as their patrimonial property. And what have we brought before us in all this? Why, the indubitable fact, that, in state churches, the spiritual rights of the professedly "Christian people" are made a matter of merchandize! The privilege which Christ has granted to his church, of choosing its own office-bearers, is not only taken away, but is exercised, according to civil right, by others who may be utterly destitute of religious character and principle, and who may not even be members of that church whose ministers they are accustomed to supply. Without entering at present into the question, whether those who refuse to comply with the law of Christ, in regard to the mode he has appointed for maintaining his church, are warranted to complain, to any great extent, when the privileges of the church are denied to them, one thing is very evident, that, both according to the constitution and practice of state churches, the people connected with them can have no security whatever for the enjoyment of those rights which belong to the church of Christ. How humbling to see professing Christians going, from time to time, with petitions to the civil government and legislature of a country, craving that they might concede to them those rights, or a part of those rights, which Christ has already conferred upon his people! What can be conceived as more degrading than the petitioning of civil government at all, in regard to the spiritual rights and privileges of the church of Christ, as if the civil legislature of a country were the source whence these were derived, and had the power to give or withhold them at pleasure? Why should persons calling themselves Christians still continue their attachment to a system by which such injury and disgrace are inflicted upon them? If patronage be a sin, why should not every man who believes that it is So, come out " from that church in which it is tolerated, and "touch not the unclean thing?" Were the church separated from state connexions, patronage, together with all the train of evils which flow from it, could find no place.

5. It is the object of the voluntary system to secure purity of administration in the church of Christ. Much of the prosperity of the church depends on the manner in which her affairs are administered.