should have been raised up within one of our national establishments, and should have acquired extensive influence within the other, who is producing results tending directly to the separation of church and state, such as no individual without the pale of the established church could, by possibility, have effected. Voluntary churchmen have been looking, for years, to the ultimate success of measures and of arguments plied from without, but God has seen fit that the first ray of hope should dawn upon us from within. If that highly respected man, Dr. Chalmers, had even done nothing more than deliver his series of lectures in London, we should have regarded it as a very striking circumstance that the advocates of establishments should have been led to moot the theoretical question of the propriety of such institutions, before the opposite theory had been mooted with equal publicity in the metropolis. Such a course was not the course which cool calculation would have dictated as the most prudent policy for the defenders of an existing system to adopt. It would have been wiser, in the sense of worldly wisdom, to have met partial and detailed assaults by corresponding lines of defence, and not to have raised the general question, not to have brought the whole garrison into the field, until a general attack was made by the assailants. Such a course, we say, would have been more politic; and it is remarkable, that a numerous society of intelligent churchmen (as we believe the Christian Influence Society to be) should have failed to perceive beforehand the probable effect of their originating such a discussion, and should have succeeded in procuring the services of a man of such singleness of vision, and such resoluteness of character, as to overlook considerations which would have suggested themselves to a more cautious partizan. It must now, we think, be clear to Dr. Chalmers, and to those who concur in his sentiments, as it has from the first been evident to the high-church party in England, as well as to voluntary-churchmen, that a great advantage was conceded to the latter class, when the friends of the establishment raised the question of its expediency. It at once removed the subject out of the category of questions, which the great majority of the community were unprepared to listen to, into the category of questions which the church wished every person to examine for himself. It bespoke attention to the opposite arguments. A spirit of fairness, not to say a feeling of curiosity, would lead those who had attended Dr. Chalmers, to read, if not to hear, Dr. Wardlaw in the following year.

But if it was singular that these considerations should not have been adverted to, it was not less so that a Scotch Presbyterian should have been invited to defend an episcopal church, and this at a moment when transcendental* opinions were acquiring increased influence within that body. It was not possible that he should otherwise than repudiate those views. He did so, and has thereby given great offence to the parties entertaining them, and rendered it nearly impossible that they should ever hereafter combine with the Evangelical and Erastian parties (who were his principal hearers and supporters in England) in any defensive proceedings. The British Critic has con

Chalmers, p. 178.

demned Dr. Chalmers's argument with greater vehemence than the Christian Observer has applauded it.

But the most remarkable feature of all, in connection with these lectures is, that the distinguished clergyman who delivered them, and with whom the evangelical party in England has, to a certain degree, identified itself, has, in a more public and decided manner than heretofore, taken ground within the last few weeks in Scotland, in the contest between the Kirk and the Court of Session, which, if adhered to, must inevitably and at once separate church and state in that country. Dr. Chalmers's argument in his lectures, in answer to those who assert that contamination necessarily follows from the union of the church with the state was, that this would be perfectly true if the church must necessarily be dependent of the state; but that this is not an inevitable consequence of an establishment. Consistently with this argument, he has proclaimed in his speech before the General Assembly in May last, in their celebrated debate on the Auchterauder case, and in the last of the "Series Tracts" published by ministers and laymen of the kirk, (the title of which will be found at the head of this article,) that the church demands independence of the state in the following essential particulars. She demands that the communicants shall have the veto on the appointment of their pastor, (which would virtually give them the choice), and that she shall not be compelled to receive as communicants, mere moral men, whom she believes to be unconverted; Tract xi. p. 6. This truly scriptural ground has not been taken, we believe, with a distinct perception of the consequences which it involves; but it has been taken gradually and deliberately, and with the ardour of men who felt sure that they had the mind of Christ, and who were prepared to imitate the example of their forefathers, the covenanters, in contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. We are convinced, from extensive enquiry among members and clergymen of the kirk, that the leading men in the church will abide by their principles, whatever be the consequences. Some of these are imminent. There are two parishes in which the Presbyteries have refused to induct the patron's nominee, and in one of them they have ordained a minister in opposition to the patron. The House of Lords have confirmed the decision of the Court of Session that the Presbyteries have acted illegally, the veto act of the General Assembly being ultra vires of that body. The next step will probably be, that the members of one Presbytery will be sued for damages by the Presentee, for depriving him of his legal rights, and it is not improbable that the members of the other presbytery will be imprisoned for contumacy, if they persevere in disobeying the mandate of the civil court. That court will defend vested interests. It remains to be seen how far the majority which carried the Veto Act in the Assembly, will stand by their brethren in their extremity. We feel convinced that Parliament can never alter the law, as it is now sought to be altered by the Kirk. The House of Commons, much less the House of Lords, will never consent to deprive patrons of their patrimonial rights without compensation. Such a proceeding would subvert the foundations of all property. If tithes shall ever be applied to educational or other state purposes, we hope and believe that the first

step will be to satisfy the vested interests of the owners of advowsons. And who do the Assembly, in their application to Parliament, propose shall become the virtual patrons? The communicants. Now, what was the pervading principle of the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts? That the Lord's Supper should cease to be a stepping stone to civil privileges. And is not patronage, or a share in patronage, even though it be only virtual, and not direct-is not this a privilege? is it not property? On what other principle do the civil courts take cognizance of the rights of patrons, than that patronage is property? Surely a Whig government can never consent to its being proclaimed to the Scotch people, that every one who can persuade his minister to admit him to communion, shall have a voice in the appointment of his successor! Independently of the unsound principle involved, it is evident that such a law would put the immediate patronage into the hands of the clergy, not to mention the ultimate remedy which it is intended to place in the hands of the presbytery, who, if the patron and people do not come to an agreement within six months after a vacancy, are to possess the uncontrolled right of appointment! How, again, can Parliament make the communicants the patrons in Scotland, unless it is prepared to pursue the same course in England? There are leading clergymen in England who would be glad that the example should be followed, and the evangelical party (those who are uninfected with Oxford views,) would, to a great extent, fall in with the policy sanctioned by Dr. Chalmers. It would be fruitless to say, that the proposed measure is part of the constitution of the Kirk, and is inapplicable to England. If it were the law of the established Church of Scotland, the General Assembly would not have applied to Parliament to legislate on the subject. The Assembly being witness, the Veto is not yet the law of the land; and if it ought to be made the law of Scotland, by parity of reasoning, and on the same scriptural grounds, the Imperial Parliament ought to make it the law of England. There is no escaping from this inference.

We say, then, that the Veto will never be legalized. But Dr. Chalmers and his party have proclaimed that less than a veto the "christian people of Scotland" cannot and ought not to have. Between the two authorities, the civil and the religious, the sound exposition of constitutional law by the one, and the equally sound exposition of the law of Jesus Christ by the other, we shall, then, have two propositions, containing all the truth that voluntary churchmen have ever contended for, and forming, with their conclusion, as clearly reasoned a syllogism as any logician could require.

The Kirk asserts, That a popular veto is essential to a christian church.

The state adds, That a popular veto is incompatible with an establishment.

If the premises are true, the conclusion follows, (Dr. Pusey, if he were examiner in logic, could not deny it)—

That one element which is essential to a christian church, is incompatible with an establishment!

The strongest voluntary could not desire a conclusion more satisfactory to himself than every christian statesman must arrive at, if his

theology be that of Dr. Chalmers, and his law that of Lord President Hope, Lord Brougham, the Lord Chancellor, and the great majority of the Scotch and English bars. It is remarkable, as we have already observed, that such a conclusion should have been precipitated by the most distinguished modern advocate of establishments.

Dr. Chalmers's Lectures are thus introduced to the readers of the British Critic, an organ of the rapidly increasing section of the English church which holds the Oxford views.

"It is above a year since the newspapers informed us that the cause of national Establishments was deriving a great accession of strength from the Lectures delivered by Dr. Chalmers in London. For some days he divided the attention of the London world with the Zoological Gardens and Exeter Hall; and after the requisite number of pirated copies had been circulated and disclaimed during their delivery, Messrs. Hamilton and Adams extended the benefit of his lucubrations to the more rustic parts of our land. All this, if it were allowed to pass away with the other amusements of a London spring, might be well enough. A London May without its excitements would resemble, we presume, one in the country without leaves and flowers; and we have no right to deprive the citizens of their spring. But when we see a disposition in the minds of many professed Churchmen to adopt the argument of these Lectures as their vantage-ground in defending the English Church, it becomes our duty to inquire into the fitness and wisdom of such a course.' p. 228.

We should not have prefaced our own comments on the same publication with a passage the flippancy of which we hold to be unworthy of so serious a subject, were it not to show, that we do not stand alone in our opinion that Dr. Chalmers has descended from the only vantage-ground from which establishments can be defended—the high ground of superstition. This writer exposes, in a contemptuous style, which we certainly shall not imitate, the inconclusiveness of most of the lecturer's arguments. He ridicules Dr. Chalmers's solemn enunciation of irrelevant truisms, and proves that his favourite theory of an original compact between the state and the church-the state employing the purchased agency of ecclesiastics for the utilitarian object of moralizing the community-is as contrary to historical fact, as the notion of the church entering into the "service" of the state, and yet retaining its scriptural independence, is contrary to common sense. On this last point-the church's independence-we cordially re-echo the reviewer's indignant sentiment. "If any church be taken into the service of the state, she has become false to her Lord; she is no true servant of Christ, she is married to another." We need not say, however, that by "the church" we understand a very different society from that sacerdotal organization which the writer contemplates.

It would be out of place, in an article like the present, to offer to our readers a full analysis of the contents of the lectures of Dr. Chalmers. The following are the principal heads of argument. The opponents of establishments are represented as entertaining the opinion, that human agency in the extension of the gospel, is superseded by the acknowledged principle, that the conversion of individuals and of the world, depends upon the agency of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Chalmers eloquently proves that such a notion is both irrational and fanatical;

contrary to the analogy of human conduct in other departments of labour, and contrary to the express inculcation of Scripture. After describing an establishment as consisting in the employment by the state, (for the fulfilment of objects which the state is bound to seek, but which it has no agency of its own to accomplish,) of the machinery which the church supplies, he argues the compatibility of this contract between the parties, with the entire independence of the party whose services are purchased. He denies that the early contamination, and progressive deterioration of the church was owing to its establishment; its contamination having commenced before its establishment, and its deterioration being referable to causes capable of being separated from a state church. He considers that John Knox and the other reformers, took the right view of this subject, when they retained the existing ecclesiastical machinery, while they applied it to better purposes; and he places in strong and advantageous contrast, the enlightened procedure of the sixteenth century, with the violent and irrational assaults of the "machine breakers" of modern times upon the machinery itself. The second lecture commences with a powerful argumentum ad hominem, addressed to those who hold the endowments of individual congregations to be legitimate, but deny the propriety of territorial establishments. Having thus created in the minds of his hearers a prepossession against his opponents on the ground of their inconsistent practice, he next represents them as perverting and misapplying the principles of political economy. He asserts that voluntary churchmen would, if they had their way, deal with the spread of the gospel on the principles of free trade, leaving the supply of that commodity-as Dr. Chalmers himself would do in the instance of every other commodity-to be regulated by the demand for it on the part of those who need it. He shows, in the most unanswerable manner, that christian instruction is not an article which cau be thus dealt with; inasmuch as it is the only “good” for which there is no natural longing, nay, to which there is an absolute aversion in the human mind. He proves that the conduct of voluntary churchmen belies the theoretical principle which he imputes to them; inasmuch as their missionaries are not paid by the heathen whom it is sought to convert, but by the friends of the gospel at home. He shows too that, at home, there are few voluntary places of worship which have not a debt upon them, or which do not owe their existence and maintenance to other sources than those to which the strict principles of free trade would limit them, viz. the contributions of their actual frequenters. If, however, the principles applicable to commerce are inapplicable to Christianity, may not, he asks, the voluntary principle be rested upon? in other words, if the ungodly will not seek and pay for religious instruction, will not the godly furnish it gratuitously? In order to answer this question, Dr. Chalmers subdivides voluntaryism into two sorts, voluntaryism ab intra, and voluntaryism ab extra, the one being the motive which would induce a man to pay a minister for himself, the other the motive which would prompt him to maintain a minister for others. Internal voluntaryism and free trade are shown to be convertible terms; while external voluntaryism is said to involve a recognition of the establishment