say without hesitation or moderation, that our system is wrong; that as a church it is unscriptural, and as an establishment unjust: that it owes its origin and progress to priestcraft, and is now indebted for a lingering existence, to the stronghold which priestcraft has given to prejudice, and the interested ambition and lordly pride of the owners and holders of its lucrative and distinguishing honours. In such bold and unhesitating language do they represent our church establishment as a nuisance of the dark ages, to be swept away before the rising progress of knowledge, and the manly decision of intrepid reformers.

This is an imposing tone, not because of its truth, but because of its courage. Courage is commanding; and this mode of speaking by our opponents, reiterated briefly, strongly, and very often without the trouble or embarrassment of even an attempt at proof, has produced its effects, even where such effects might have been least expected. It has excited enfeebling doubts in many, who little suspect it of themselves, but who nevertheless have been rendered lukewarm thereby. And now, it is not from the noise or strength or activity of our avowed assailants that we have real danger to apprehend: but when we hearken to the tone taken by many of our professed friends and defenders, then it is that our hearts tremble. When we mark their indecision provoking a fresh assault even at the moment they are engaged in a repulse when we perceive that, tempted by a reputation for discretion and

a

judgment and moderation, they maintain forbearance, both in word and deed, which is misconstrued into a betrayal of weakness, if not of disaffection; defending our established church on the low grounds of her prescriptive title, her legal claim, her political and social usefulness, her comparative economy, (pleas which, however sensible in themselves, and sufficient in times past, when even non-conformists in detail were still advocates for the general principle of a national church, are not fundamental enough to endure the present scrutiny -bulwarks which, however valuable as outworks, are of man's construction, and may be of man's demolition,) but shrinking, to all appearance, from the higher and more commanding position of avowing her scriptural character, and challenging inquiry into her unchanging principles.

Hence a feeling is propagated that the defenders of our church have themselves some doubts about her character, and are in consequence but halfhearted in their advocacy. I cannot, therefore, but feel strongly that we are called to give all faithful diligence to vindicate fundamentally the SCRIPTURAL standing of our church; to distinguish between what she defines as essential to Christianity, and what she only adopts in preference for her own management in detail; to show, by a candid avowal of our own views, that sincerity of attachment to her does not require rigid coincidence in the detailed grounds of that attachment; and may therefore be found in men who interpret

variously many of her formularies; and so to give courage to her friends, not to be ashamed or afraid to defend her, each in his own way. It would be a fatal mistake to withhold our advocacy against those who are without, until we can conduct it in detailed uniformity with all who are within. And if our adversaries point to the differences which exist amongst us, our answer is ready; we are freemen, each exercising his own judgment, without any prostration, under arbitrary authority, upon a Procrustes bed of slavish uniformity; and yet we have substantial unity for whatever may be our differences in some respects, we all agree in loving and defending our holy and our beautiful house where our fathers worshipped.

Our arminianism in doctrine, for example, is such, that we can all sign, ex animo, her high, rigid, dogmatical, uncompromising articles: and our calvinism is such that we can all cordially enjoy her tender, fervent, penitential, affectionate liturgy.

Why should all the defenders of our church use exactly the same weapons? No! to insist on such sameness in our warfare, would be to cut down our army to a single regiment. We have no sympathy with those who would so narrow our ground. We desire (without wilfully wounding any fellow soldier, or readily believing that he intends to wound us, and at the same time, without allowing complaisance to any to enfeeble our own blow,) to war an honest straightforward warfare in defence of our well-beloved church. And we

are convinced that if her foundations can be shown to be scriptural indeed, and the secret misgiving upon this point, which has caused some to desert and many to stand neutral, can be removed; we shall have nothing to fear from an assembly of English gentlemen, invested with the deep responsibility of a nation's confidence, a majority of whom are still actually members of the church, and can never so far forget their high and honourable calling, as to neglect the interests of truth and righteousness, the legitimate results of practical Christianity in its national application.

This view of the controversy in its present stage must plead my apology, if apology be needed, for entering with more minuteness into scriptural definitions, and dwelling more largely on the scriptural foundations, and consequent paramount claims of our church, than under other circumstances might be deemed suitable for a course of lectures like the present.

To this I may add, that because my distinguished predecessor in this chair felt it right to confine himself chiefly to the practical view of the question at issue, we have been taunted with our unwillingness to bring the matter to the direct light of revealed truth, and challenged with somewhat of boastful reiteration to come to the law and the testimony. We accept the challenge, and cordially rejoice in the assurance that, after all, nothing has the same extensive and permanent effect upon the

British public, as an honest appeal to the word of our God.

The true excellence of any system of means must be estimated mainly by reference to the end to be attained. Without clear and correct views of the ultimate design, it is manifestly impossible to form enlarged and adequate opinions upon the character or suitability of the incipient or progressive steps. It is equally obvious that any serious error or fostered prejudice with reference to the end in view, must seriously damage the judgment pronounced upon the means employed. This invites to a lofty contemplation; for the first and highest object of the christian church is connected with the revealed purpose, and progressive work upon earth, of Almighty God.

In the divine purpose there is no progress. The end is present from the beginning, in absolute perfection. All that has been, that is, and that ever shall be, can but give back a response, a faithful echo to the comprehensive design which occupied the eternal mind, antecedent to the first exercise of creative power. Of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things! He hath made all things for himself.

From this saying of the inspired king of Israel, that God made all things for himself, it is not to be imagined that creatures can in any way add to the essential glory or happiness of the Creator. His absolute eternal perfections render this impossible.