the ground that it was not an established church, and that, being dependent upon the voluntary contributions of the people, it was obliged to concede to them some influence, whether it approved of their having it or not. In former discussions upon this point, the intrusionists felt themselves compelled to admit that the testimony of the French Church was against them, and merely attempted to neutralize it by the consideration which has just been referred to, and which Sir William has borrowed from them. It would have been more creditable to him if he had stuck to this second mode of disposing of the testimony of the French Church. The fact that the French Church was not an establishment, but dependent upon voluntary contributions, does not of itself afford any ground for conclusions as to the matter in dispute. The question is, whether the principle of non-intrusion, in our sense of it, is one on which a Christian church ought to act in the settlement of ministers. We establish the affirmative of this question, by arguments drawn from Scripture, reason, and expediency. We appeal, in support of our position, to the primitive church, and to the great body of the Reformers. We adduce the practice of the French Church. It was, beyond all question, their rule and practice to hold the opposition of a congregation a sufficient reason for rejecting a presentee, even when they failed in substantiating the grounds of their opposition to the satisfaction of the church courts. The fair presumption of course is, that they adopted this rule because they thought it right and proper, accordant with Scripture, and conducive to the interests of religion; and if so, then we have their explicit testimony in our favour.

If it be alleged that they adopted this rule for some other reason than because they approved of it, this allegation must be established by satisfactory evidence. Sir William has not only, after the example of former controversialists, insinuated that the adoption of this rule was the mere result of their external circumstances, but, with a boldness peculiar to himself, he has expressly spoken of the "concessions which the voluntary Huguenot Church was involuntarily compelled, by adverse circumstances, to accord to congregations." Now, not to dwell upon the evidence which this statement affords that Sir William was well aware that the French Church made concessions to congregations,-concessions which he has taken care not to specify, but which, beyond all question, included the principle of non-intrusion in our sense of

it, we ask him, what evidence he has to produce that they were "involuntarily compelled by adverse circumstances to accord" these "concessions?" He has produced no evidence in support of this allegation, and he has none to produce. Has the French Church, or any one of its leading authorities, ever said, directly or by implication, or afforded any materials for believing, that they did not approve of the principle of non-intrusion, and that they adopted it merely because the exigencies of their situation required it? If not, the presumption stands untouched, and must be received by every honest inquirer after truth, as established,— namely, that they adopted the rule and practice of non-intrusion, because they thought it a right principle for regulating the settlement of ministers.

Not only, however, can no evidence be produced that they "were involuntarily compelled by adverse circumstances to accord to congregations" what they unquestionably conceded to them,namely, an absolute right of dissent, even when they failed in substantiating the grounds of their opposition, but positive evidence can be produced that Sir William's assertion is unfounded, and that they really approved of this rule as a good one. Sir William says truly, that "the French Calvinist divines were a most learned and enlightened body," and it is well known that these divines have generally asserted in their writings, and defended as a scriptural principle, the great Protestant doctrine of the right of the people to the substantial choice of their ministers, while they admitted that the mode of exercising this right might be somewhat modified according to circumstances. This could be easily proved by quotations from the most eminent French divines, from Sadeel down to Claude, including Chamier and Blondel, who were salaried by the church for the purpose of enabling them to devote their great talents and learning to writing in defence of her doctrine and government against all opponents. A work was published by Larroque, a very learned divine of the French Church, entitled, "Conformity of the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France with that of the Ancient Christians ;" and in that work, which has been always understood to speak the general sentiments of the French Church, we have, under the canon about election quoted above, a full and cordial vindication of the principle of non-intrusion, from the doctrine and practice of the primitive church, without the slightest

hint that the French Church did not heartily approve of it, or that she adopted it under the pressure of external circumstances.

I have only, in conclusion, to express my hope, that my readers will not forget, that the author on whose statements I have animadverted, publicly addressed the Convocation ministers, after they had been constrained, for conscience' sake, to quit the Establishment, in these words, "Be not schismatics, be not martyrs, by mistake," that he undertook to "demonstrate to the satisfaction of all reasonable minds," that they were "completely, unambiguously, and notoriously wrong," and that the grounds on which they acted "were perhaps,-I speak it advisedly, the most signal and melancholy perversion of truth to be found in the whole annals of religious controversy;" and boasted that he had "collected a body of evidence sufficient to establish this inexpugnably."

I wish all this to be remembered, in order that readers may sympathize with the feelings which I have not scrupled to indicate, and in order that, after surveying Sir William's performances in the light of the animadversions which have been made. upon them, and noticing the ludicrous contrast which they present with his professions and his promises, they may form a juster estimate of this singular "Demonstration."

CHAPTER XIII.

PATRONAGE AND POPULAR ELECTION.*

WHETHER patronage is a thing that can be thoroughly defended, and ought to be approved of and continued, must depend on the question, How or in what way ought the pastors of Christian congregations to be appointed? This is the question on which the whole of the controversy turns. The decision of this question settles the whole matter, ay or no. It determines absolutely and conclusively what are the views we ought to entertain, and what is the course we ought to take on this point; and I venture to say, that whatever statements may be made in discussing the matter of patronage, and in whatever way the statements made may bear in favour of collateral topics, every consideration and every argument that does not bear on this question, and upon the answer that ought to be given to it, is irrelevant and evasive. I think it right to press this point; for I am satisfied, that by keeping it closely in view, we will be able to judge more readily of the relevancy or irrelevancy of the arguments adduced.

The real question before us, therefore, is, How ought pastors to be appointed to Christian congregations? And the first thing to be ascertained, in order to form a proper notion of the nature of the question, is, what are pastors? They are pastors of Christian congregations; and if we want to know how these pastors ought to be appointed, we have first to know what is the character of the office they hold, and of the functions they are called upon to execute. Those persons, in regard to the appointment of whom the whole question turns, are, as all admit, office-bearers of Christ's

* From report of a speech delivered by Dr Cunningham, in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1842, in support of the following resolution: That patronage is a grievance, has been attended with

much injury to the cause of true religion in this church and kingdom,—is the main cause of the difficulties in which the church is at present involved, and that it ought to be abolished.' (Edrs.)

house. They are appointed to administer the laws of His visible kingdom, and are entrusted with the cure of souls. Now, in regard to the mode of their appointment, we must seek for information from the same source whence they derive their authority for executing the functions committed to them; and while we apply there for information for the decision of the question, the inquiry will suggest some important general considerations, bearing on the settlement of the question itself. These persons are office-bearers in a kingdom which is not of this world. This is its leading character and distinction; and we hold that the appointment of these office-bearers in Christ's kingdom should not be regulated by mere civil law, or by mere secular and worldly considerations; and that it must not be determined or affected merely by the possession of property. Then, what are the functions they are called upon to execute? They are to administer Christ's ordinances; their whole conduct and procedure must be that of a free and independent society. No man can dispute this; and this, then, is our leading view of their character,-one leading aspect in which it is to be regarded. And if they are appointed to conduct and administer the affairs of a free and independent society, this necessarily implies that their appointment should not be determined or controlled by any foreign authority,-by any authority beyond the society itself; and surely it is manifest that an authority which is purely civil, which rests exclusively on human law,--and which is based entirely on secular and worldly considerations, must in this matter be foreign and alien to the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

These principles seem so very clear as scarcely to admit of dispute; and, accordingly, I believe this view is very generally conceded by almost all who have brought their minds to bear on the subject. Men may evade the question altogether, and contrive to rest on certain vague general notions of a secular and worldly kind, derived from worldly comforts and advantages, and the relations in which they stand to others, and which lead them to a dislike of the whole subject, and make them dispose of it as quietly as they can; but I cannot conceive how any man can seriously bring his mind to bear on the question, without at last coming to this conclusion. And I am the more confident in making this statement, from an important admission made by some of the defenders of patronage, that the only way in which