accursed." And this anathema is deliberately repeated. "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than which ye have received, let him be accursed." Here, to say the least, the liberty to teach-la liberté d'enseigner is in a given case prejudiced, limited, and restrained. And that the excommunication was to be social as well as ecclesiastical, appears from St. Paul's canon to the Corinthian Church. "I have written unto you" he says, "not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be...... covetous, or an idolater, or a railer ...or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." + And St. John is, if possible even more explicit and unsparing. "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, ...hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,"—what is to be the measure of toleration-social toleration be it observed, accorded to him?" receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed. For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." And the Gospel itself embodies the same spirit, when it is said—" he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; and"—for that is only half the truth, "he that believeth not shall be damned."

* Gal. i. 8, 9.

+ 1 Cor. v. 11., Cf. SS. Can. Apost. 10, 11, 25. 2 Thess. iii. 6, 14. 1 Tim. vi. 3, 5.

2 John 9-11 verses.

And further it should not be forgotten in the discussion of this subject that liberty of conscience, or the right of private judgment upon the one hand, and toleration upon the other are far from being convertible terms. As M. de Bonald has very correctly remarked; "to demand liberty of thought is but a little more absurd than to demand liberty for the circulation of the blood." * The fact is that liberty of thought is in every case inevitable. A man cannot help thinking his own thoughts. In the words of the late Principal Hill, of St. Andrew's, "liberty of conscience, as the word implies, has its seat in the mind. Its essence consists in freedom of judgment, If Christians are required

NOT IN FREEDOM OF PRACTICE.

to believe as doctrines of God, or to receive as commandments of God, what his word has not prescribed, their liberty of conscience is invaded. But, if their judgment is left free, their practice may, without any sacrifice of their liberty, be restrained by many considerations.” †

Supposing then that the principle of state-establishments does impose restraints upon the practice of dissident

*

"On a réclamé la liberté de penser, ce qui est un peu plus absurde que si on eût réclamé la liberté de la circulation du sang; mais ce que les sophistes appelaient la liberté de penser, était la liberté de penser tout haut. Or, parlér et écrire sout des actions, et on ne peut demander de tolérance pour des actions coupables, sans rendre inutiles tous les soins de l'administration pour maintenir la paix et le bon ordre, ou plutôt sans renverser de fond en comble la société."-Mélanges :-in M. Simon.

Lectures on Divinity, p. 588.

sects, we are nevertheless prepared to affirm, that, as such principle is conducive to the public good and that in the highest degree, so far from its being, as Dr. Winter Hamilton has asserted, "a principle and means of tyranny," it is upon the contrary compatible with the very largest possible measure of civil and religious liberty. For, to cite the words of Archdeacon Paley,-"Religious liberty is, like civil liberty, not an immunity from restraint, but the being restrained by no law, but what in a greater degree conduces to the public welfare."*

* Moral and Political Philosophy, Book VI. c. 10.

But now to what have been named "The Principles of Dissent," which, however, are in reality nothing better than a series of obstinate negations;—an averment, be it observed, which is fully substantiated, were that needed, by the authority of the late Mr. Angell James.

"One thing observes that author must ever be borne in mind, that as dissent is founded on, or is rather a series of objections to the Established Church, its principles cannot be stated without impugning that system against which these objections lie. The reasons of our separation are necessarily arguments against the Church from which secede.'

we

* "Principles of Dissent," by J. A. James,-Preface.

Now, it is of these so-called principles of dissent, that we propose a brief and concise discussion.

First of all, then, it is said that by the constitution of the Church with the state, the church's independence is necessarily compromised.* But we would ask, what is the nature of the independence, which is here said to be thus prejudiced? Dr. R. Wardlaw shall answer :-" independence I mean of all earthly authority."

But has the Church ever possessed such independence? Certainly not. Upon the contrary the Church, when the

"The Church of England is not founded on Scripture, but on Acts of Parliament."-Christian Penny Magazine, Vol. II. p. 77.

"Je crois que chaque culte doit rester maitre de sa constitution, et que s'il se lie à cet égard par des conventions même libérales, il abdique son independance et compromet sa liberté."-La Liberté de Conscience, p. 91.

"The original and the permanent principle of an Establishment is......the dependence of the Church upon the State.”—Lectures on National Church Establishments, by Dr. R. Wardlaw, p. 345.

"The Church has undoubtedly surrendered a part of her independence, in return for ample endowments and temporal power."— Hallam.

"The Church of England, says John Angell James, is "in vassalage to the State."

"The Church resigns up her independency, and makes the magistrate her supreme head, without whose approbation and allowance she can administer, transact, and decree nothing."Warburton," Alliance," Book I. c. 3.