Independency, in like manner, so far as it is a mere scheme of church government, is found to contain, under the same outward form, the most discordant materials. in one case it contains the most decided Calvinism. In another, it may be found internally Arminian. While, in a third, it may be found to contain within it the very lowest principles of Socinianism.

We are not to be surprised, therefore, if Presbyterianism, like other outward forms of church government, should occasionally be found to vary in its doctrinal contents. At one time it may contain Trinitarianism; at another, Arianism; at a third, Socirianism. But in all this it merely suffers in common with every possible form of church government; and teaches us never to be content with the mere outward architecture of the tabernacle or the temple, but to press through the now opened veil towards the ark, and the testimony, and the mercy-seat, and the God who is worshipped within. What are to us the boards. and the drapery of the outward tabernacle, and the pillars and the doors of the outward temple, if the mercy-seat be removed, and the glory departed from the inner sanctuary? We worship not the temple, but the God of the temple. Yet the very dust of that temple is dear to the children of God; and, to the eye of faith, their God never appears so glorious as when, in his mercy and power, he builds and repairs his Zion. Psal. cii. 14, 16.

3. The consideration of the scriptural principles of Presbyterianism, will serve to correct an erroneous opinion respecting the "constitutional principles" and "inalienable rights of Presbyteries." That Presbyterians should occasionally mistake the principles of their own church, is a matter common to them with the members of other churches. The mistake, in the present instance, originates from want of distinguishing between "Presbytery," and "a Presbytery." Every Presbyterian holds Presbytery to be of divine right;-and as he has been accustomed in ordinary language, to consider a few Ministers and Elders of a district as forming a Presbytery, he readily transfers the divine right of the general system to the usual routine duties of a particular assembly; and, should the general church interfere with one of her particular courts, he pronounces the rights of that court to be invaded, and Presbyterian principles destroyed.

If we would dissipate this fallacy, let us attend to the

B

meaning, and not the sound of words. By" Presbytery,' as distinguished from Prelacy and Independency, we mean a form of church government, founded upon the FOUR general principles which we have already deduced from Scripture. But by "a Presbytery," we understand a certain number of Ministers and ruling Elders, whom the general eldership appoint to take charge of a particular district of the church. Presbytery is of divine right, and is unchangeable; but a local or geographical Presbytery is the creature of human convenience; may be erected or demolished, diminished or extended, according as these changes may contribute to the easy and successful discharge of local duties, or the general accommodation of the church. A Presbytery is merely a certain number of the eldership, to whom is committed the care of a particular district, subject to the examination, review, and control of the whole body. A local Presbytery is therefore, in reality, a Committee. A Presbytery and Committee are, in essence, one and the same. The sole difference is as follows: To the local Presbytery there is no fixed date of dissolution; the ordinary Committee is dissolved when it has reported progress. The local Presbytery has a commission for many duties; the ordinary Committee has generally one duty, and no more. But both owe their existence and duration, and extent of commission, to the general will of the church, and differ merely in name, but not in nature or constitutional principle.

Has a Presbytery, then, it may be said, no such thing as "inalienable rights ?". We answer Each individual member has his own inalienable rights, as enumerated in the FOUR general principles; but a Presbytery, as such, has not even a right to existence, but holds its name and extent from the will of the assembled delegates of the church. Had a Presbytery, as such, any inalienable rights, it would surely have the right to existence; but this, we know, it has not. It is merely a Committee of the church, in a form more permanent than that of ordinary Com mittees, but as subject as they are to change, limitation, or dissolution. Whenever, therefore, it shall come into the mind of any one to speak or write concerning the "in alienable rights of Presbyteries," meaning, thereby, local or geographical Presbyteries, we would request him to inquire, whence any particular Presbytery obtained its name, its extent, its jurisdiction. And, provided the general meeting of the eldership were minded to change

that name or extent, or to merge the whole into some other locality, we would request him to prove, from Scripture, the inalienable right to name, extent, and permanence. And, if he effect any of these objects, he will display a knowledge of which, we confess, we are destitute.

We are, in fact, almost ashamed, at being compelled thus to argue so plain a point; but the times demand it. For when, lately the Synod of Ulster found it necessary to erect a Committee, for the religious examination of candidates for theology, license, or ordination, and to direct that none should be received as students, licensed, or ordained, without their approbation, an immediate and loud outcry was raised concerning an alleged invasion of the "inalienable rights of Presbyteries." It has become, therefore, necessary to show that this outcry has originated from an imperfect and erroneous view of the subject. We will, ourselves, never knowingly invade, nor suffer any others to invade, one solitary right or privilege of the Presbyterian church. We will not only occupy her outposts, and man her impregnable bulwarks, but we will defend, to our best capacities, the very frieze and cornice of her temple. But though so forward in her defence, should an enemy appear without, we shall be equally ready to resist the vain terrors or false alarms of the garrison within. We have proved, that Ministers have an original and inalienable right to examine and approve of candidates prior to ordination. This right is inherent in every individual. The manner in which individuals may exercise this right, lies entirely between God and their own consciences. But, if each individual has this right, and the existence of it cannot be questioned, then the whole church must possess a similar right, and may equally adopt her own means for attaining the most distinct satisfaction. This right has been exercised by the Synod of Ulster. She has said, that no candidate shall be licensed, until her Committee has been satisfied; but she compels no Presbytery to grant license; she leaves them to examine, receive, or reject for themselves. She has said, no man shall be ordained until he has satisfied her Committee; but she compels no Presbytery to ordain; she leaves them at liberty to examine, receive, or reject, as their own sense of duty may deter mine. This has been called "invasion of the rights of Presbyteries;" but, we are persuaded, we shall hear the argument no more.

4. The next purpose for which we shall employ our original principles, is to counteract another fallacy, arising from mistaken views of Presbyterianism. We allude to an idea not uncommon in our times-that Presbyterianism means a union of churches holding any, or all, possible varieties of religious opinions. That Presbyterianism has been so exhibited, we doubt not.-That Prelacy and Independency have been so exhibited, we are certain. But that such an amalgamation is unscriptural, in whatever form of church government it is discovered, we trust we shall make appear by three plain and irresistible arguments. First, we shall suppose Presbyterianism to signify a union of churches, holding Arianism and Trinitarianism indifferently. That such a union is unscriptural, we demonstrate thus:-The New Testament contains either Trinitarianism or Arianism; but it does not contain them both. So, a church, founded upon the New Testament, must contain the one or the other, but it cannot contain them both.

Secondly, we argue that a union of churches holding Trinitarianism and Arianism, cannot be scriptural; and we prove our position from considering the overwhelming importance of the two doctrines thus opposed. Trinitarians honour the Son, even as they honour the Father; but if Arians be correct when they say that the Word was a creature, then Trinitarians must be idolators, when they worship him with the honours of the Creator. But, on the other hand, let Trinitarianism be correct; then are Arians guilty of rebellion; for though commanded to honour the Son, even as they honour the Father, they rebel against the injunction, and worship not the Son as God. How far the members of a church may bear and forbear, we pause not, at present, to consider; how far patience, and exhortation, and warning, require to be employed before actual separation, it is not our object to estimate; but this we will say, that a church, whose principle of union is the admitted and unlimited existence of disunion, seems to us equally distant from the principles of divine revelation, or the ordinary dictates of common

sense.

Thirdly, we argue from Scripture the most express, that the ministry of the Gospel, instead of being a union of men holding every variety of doctrine, has, for one of its great objects, the resisting of false doctrines. Where

doctrines, like Trinitarianism and Arianism, are diametrically opposed, one of them must be wrong, must be false. Now, instead of uniting the preachers of such opposing dectrines, mark what the Scriptures enjoin. Separation is commanded. 1 Tim. vi. 3, 4, 5. Erroneous teachers are condemned to silence. 1 Tim. i. 3. And the acknowledgment of a Gospel, opposing the true Gospel, is expressly forbidden. Gal i. 8, 9. Let any reasonable man consult these three passages of Scripture; and, we care not what may be his peculiar doctrinal opinions, he will yet be compelled to acknowledge, that separation, and not union, of opposing doctrines, is the order of the New Testament.

5. To another general consideration we call the attention of our readers, it is the fact, that we believe Presbyterian. ism, rightly understood, and rightly organized, to be the system of Church government inculcated in the Bible. We pause, therefore, with peculiar pleasure, to take a cursory view of the advantages of Presbyterianism.

;

Amongst these we cannot overlook the fact, that the Presbyterian church has ever sought to procure a learned ministry. We value not learning above its true deserts we substitute not the learning of men for the teaching of the spirit of God; we rank not ourselves above our natural or acquired level in the scale of human learning; yet we rejoice in being able to affirm, that the schools and colleges of the Presbyterian churches have produced in France, Holland, Prussia, Geneva, and Scotland, men as truly eminent in the several walks of literature and science, as any who have adorned the pages of history.

We would notice, as a second advantage of Presbyterianism, that she provides a ministry, which except by their own fault, is never sunk below, nor elevated above, their people. A Minister should always be the common "cement of society." His learning and his character should bring him into contact with the highest ranks; his functions and humility should unite him with the lowest. There are ecclesiastical systems in which the mental attainments of Ministers depress them below the better levels of society; but there are others whose rank, and titles, and powers, form most dangerous temptations to their possessors; and perhaps, lead them occasionally to" forget that they are men." Against these two extremes the Presbyterian system most admirably provides. And, if we dare not offer our