Suppose a gracious renewal of miraculous communications from the Lord to his people, and suppose some favoured servant to receive an inspired message, in terms similar to that we have been considering, addressed "to the angel of the church of London," we are so scripturally constituted, that we would have no hesitation in at once selecting the individual to whom it should be forwarded; but who is the primus inter pares, to whom the dissenters would send it?

And here I desire, in a few words, before I conclude, to point out the essential difference between the polity of the Church of Scotland in this respect, and that of the Independent Dissenters. Does the Church of Scotland recognise the independence of every separate congregation as a church in itself, so that the pastor thereof may follow his own devices in doctrine and discipline, without being subject to authoritative reproof, and even rejection? Certainly not. The proceedings of the General Assembly, during the last few years, have proved beyond a question, that the Scotch church possesses a very effective episcopacy in fact, though she has discarded it in name. What is the General Assembly, with its delegated commission, but a sort of collective episcopacy? Its censorship of doctrine, its watchfulness over the details of established discipline, its grave admonitions of offenders, and after the first and second admonitions in vain, its authoritative rejection of heretics and schismatics -these are precisely the functions of the episcopate.

The difference between this and our own church lies in the name and republican form which they have given to an institution which certainly originated in individuals, and not in assemblies; but the authority, in its effect upon the geographical section of the church, is substantially the same. Uniformity in doctrine and discipline is maintained. The authority of a superior tribunal is recognised by the pastors throughout the realm; and thus what I must call, without intending any offence, the heterogeneous patchwork and feudal insubordination of independency is excluded.

And now I feel emboldened, in the combined light of these several scriptural applications of the true church, to declare, and I trust without making my conclusion longer than my premises when compared with facts will legitimately vindicate; that the Church of England, in her clear doctrinal recognition of the church mystical, her national comprehensiveness as the church visible, her christian arbitration (though not to the extent we could wish, yet who can estimate its amount?) as the church local, and her episcopal constitution and diocesan superintendence as the church collective, is comprehensively in accordance with the word and will of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father.

46

LECTURE II.

THE APPOINTMENT AND SUCCESSION OF THE MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH THE APOSTOLICAL COMMISSION THE POWER OF THE KEYS, WHAT? THE PRACTICE OF THE

APOSTLES APPEALED TO FOR A DECISION-IN WHAT SENSE ST. JOHN XX. 23, MAY BE USED IN THE ORDINATION OF MINISTERS DEPARTURE FROM APOSTOLICAL DOCTRINECOMPLETION, MEANTIME, OF THE INSPIRED CANON-PREDICTED APOSTASY OF THE CHURCH-PROMISED PRESERVATION OF THE CHURCH IN TRUTH AND HOLINESS-HARMONY OF THESE-THE GRACE OF GOD MAGNIFIED IN THE AR

RANGEMENT.

ON occasions like the present, there is a strong temptation to feel impatient under protracted examination of holy Scripture. The source of that impatience is a secret craving for something more presently, practically, and perhaps politically exciting. To yield to this is to hazard a superstructure, without having duly and carefully made good a foundation. Such is proverbially the description of a foolish builder. Similar to such folly would be an attempt to point out the duty of man (whether sovereign or subject) towards the church, without having examined carefully the nature and

claims of the church itself. We must give diligence to investigate what God has done and said upon the subject, before we can hope to discuss, with power or profit, what men of any rank or condition of life ought to do. We are all deeply interested in the duty of professedly christian rulers, touching the church; but there is a preliminary inquiry in our way.

If there be no visible society on earth constituted fundamentally as a church, according to the mind and will of God as revealed in the Bible; then, civil rulers, who are ordained of God, do not seem to have any duty in the matter. What would be their scriptural duty towards a spiritual church, is beyond their reach of performance, because no such church is to be found. But if there be such a church; then, civil rulers professing to receive the Bible as a revelation from God, do not seem to have any choice. It is obvious, therefore, that preliminary to any satisfactory discussion concerning our connexion with the state, it is necessary to examine our accordance with the Bible.

To overleap this branch of inquiry, is to leave an open door for pretension to every society, however constituted, which chooses to call itself a Christian church, and put in its claim. If the legitimacy of all such claims be admitted, then, the civil ruler must either receive all equally, or reject all equally; or, by receiving some and rejecting others, raise against himself an outcry of partiality and injustice. The rival claims can never be adjusted at the bar of

the state. They must be adjusted at the bar of the Scripture. We say, let the state prefer, and establish by all means, whatever is found scriptural, because it is scriptural; and let those who doubt about our respective systems, rigidly examine them in the light of Scripture. Our opponents say, no; let the state prefer nothing, and establish nothing; away with all invidious distinctions; that is, as we interpret it, let them make no difference between scriptural and unscriptural, true and false, the appointment of God and the invention of men. For those who hold such sentiments as these, it may be consistent enough to feel impatient of a scriptural investigation, and to rush at once into general discussions and plausibly indignant appeals upon equal rights and unjust preferences. But we cannot do so, because we feel that if there be any church constitution which God has called right, it is not equally right with others, but pre-eminently right above all others: so that to prefer it is not injustice, but not to prefer it is infidelity.

Under this conviction I have already entered into an examination of our ecclesiastical system, and pointed out in some particulars its happy accordance with the word of God. Our object is to commend for cordial adoption, and prompt and vigorous extension, what we conceive to be correct, rather than expose or condemn what we deem erroneous. If, therefore, I refer to the position and practices of dissent, (whether of Roman or British growth,) it is not from any feelings of personal unkindness, or