"licentiousness in ecclesiastical, but rebellion and disorder "in civil government. And therefore, as the Reverend "Commission have by their sentence declared, that diso"bedience to the supreme judicature of the church nei"ther infers guilt, nor deserves censure; as they have "surrendered a right essential to the nature and subsist"ence of every society; as they have (so far as lay in "thein) betrayed the privileges and deserted the orders of "the constitution; we could not have acted a dutiful "part to the church, nor a safe one to ourselves, unless "we had dissented from this sentence; and craved liberty "to represent to this venerable assembly, that this deed "appears to us to be manifestly beyond the powers of a "Commission.

2. "Because this sentence of the Commission, as it is "subversive of society in general, so, in our judgments, "it is absolutely inconsistent with the nature and preser❝vation of ecclesiastical society in particular.-The cha"racters which we bear, of Ministers and Elders of this "Church, render it unnecessary for us to declare, that "we join with all Protestants in acknowledging the Lord "Jesus Christ to be the only King and Head of his "Church. We admit that the church is not merely a "voluntary society, but a society founded by the laws of "Christ. But to his laws we conceive it to be most "agreeable, that order should be preserved in the exter"nal administration of the affairs of the church. And

66

66

66

we contend, in the words of our Confession of Faith, "That there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to "be ordered by the light of nature and Christian pru"dence according to the general rules of the word, "which are always to be observed.' It is very evident "that unless the church were supported by continual miracles, and a perpetual and extraordinary interposi

❝tion of Heaven, it can only subsist by those fundamen"tal maxims by which all society subsists. A kingdom "divided against itself cannot stand. There can be no "union, and by consequence there can be no society, "where there is no subordination; and therefore since mi"racles are now ceased, we do conceive that no church " or ecclesiastical society can exist without obedience re"quired from its members, and enforced by proper sanc❝tions. Accordingly, there never was any regularly con"stituted church in the Christian world, where there 66 was not at the same time some exercise of discipline "and authority. It has indeed been asserted, 'That the

censures of the church are never to be inflicted, but 66 upon open transgressors of the laws of Christ himself; "and that no man is to be construed an open transgres"sor of the laws of Christ for not obeying the commands "of any assembly of fallible men, when he declares it was a conscientious regard to the will of Christ that "led him to this disobedience.'-This is called asserting "liberty of conscience, and supporting the rights of pri"vate judgment; and upon such reasonings the reverend "Commission proceeded in coming to that decision of "which we now complain. But we think ourselves "called on to say, and we say it with concern, that such "principles as these appear to us calculated to establish "the most extravagant maxims of independency, and to "overthrow from the very foundation that happy ecclesi"astical constitution which we glory in being members "of, and which we are resolved to support. For, upon "these principles, no church whatever, consisting, as "every church on earth must consist, of fallible men, has " right to inflict any censure on any disobedient person. "Let such person only think fit boldly to use the name "of conscience, and, sheltered under its authority, he ac"quires at once a right of doing whatsoever is good in his "own eyes. If anarchy and confusion follow, as no

པ

66

" doubt they will, there is, it seems, no remedy. We are sorry to say that brethren who profess to hold such principles, ought to have acted more consistently with "them, and not to have joined themselves to any church "till once they had found out an assembly of infallible 66 men, to whose authority they would have acknowledged "submission to be due. We allow to the right of private

judgment all the extent and obligation that reason or "religion require; but we can never admit, that any "man's private judgment gives him a right to disturb, "with impunity, all public order. We hold, that as "every man has a right to judge for himself in religious "matters, so every church or society of Christians has a " right to judge for itself, what method of external admi"nistration is most agreeable to the laws of Christ; and 66 no man ought to become a member of that church, who " is not resolved to conform himself to its administration. "We think it very consistent with conscience for infe"riors to disapprove, in their own mind, of a judgment 66 given by a superior court, and yet to put that judginent " in execution as the deed of their superiors for conscience"sake; seeing we humbly conceive it is, or ought to be,

66

a matter of conscience with every member of the church, "to support the authority of that church to which he be“longs. Church-censures are declared by our Confes"sion of Faith to be necessary, not only for gaining and "reclaiming the offending brethren, but also for deterring "of others from the like offences, and for purging out "the leaven which might leaven the whole lump.' What "these censures are, and what the crimes against which "they are directed, is easily to be learned from the con"stitution of every church; and whoever believes its censure to be too severe, or its known orders and laws to "be in any respect iniquitous, so that he cannot in con"science comply with them, ought to beware of involving himself in sin by entering into it; or if he hath

❝ rashly joined himself, he is bound, as an honest man " and a good Christian, to withdraw, and to keep his con"science clear and undefiled. But, on the other hand, "if a judicature, which is appointed to be the guardian and "defender of the laws and orders of the society, shall "absolve them who break their laws, from all censure, " and by such a deed encourage and invite to future "disobedience, we conceive it will be found, that they "have exceeded their powers, and betrayed their trust in "their most essential instance."

*

"

NOTE M. p. 112.

R. ROBERTSON's system with respect to the law " of patronage proceeded on the following principles : That as patronage is the law of the land, the courts of "a national church established and protected by law, and "all the individual ministers of that church, are bound, in "as far as it depends upon exertions arising from the "duties of their place, to give it effect: that every oppo"sition to the legal rights of patrons tends to diminish "that reverence which all the subjects of

a free government ought to entertain for the law; and that it is dangerous to accustom the people to think that they can "elude the law or defeat its operation, because success "in one instance leads to greater licentiousness. Upon "these principles Dr. Robertson thought that the church"Courts betrayed their duty to the constitution, when the "spirit of their decisions, or negligence in enforcing obe"dience to their orders, created unnecessary obstacles to "the exercise of the right of patronage, and fostered in "the minds of the people the false idea that they have a " right to choose their own ministers, or even a negative "upon the nomination of the patron. He was well aware "that the subjects of Great Britain are entitled to apply

"in a constitutional manner for the repeal of every law "which they consider as a grievance. But while he sup"ported patronage as the existing law, he regarded it also "as the most expedient method of settling vacant pa"rishes. It did not appear to him that the people are competent judges of those qualities which a minister "should possess in order to be a useful teacher either of the "doctrines of pure religion, or of the precepts of sound "morality. He suspected that if the probationers of the "church were taught to consider their success in obtain❝ing a settlement as depending upon a popular election, many of them would be tempted to adopt a manner of "preaching more calculated to please the people than to "promote their edification. He thought that there is "little danger to be apprehended from the abuse of the "law of patronage, because the presentee must be chosen "from amongst those whom the church itself had approved of, and had licensed as qualified for the office "of the ministry; because a presentee cannot be admitted "to the benefice, if any relevant charge as to his life or "doctrine be proved against him: and because, after "ordination and admission, he is liable to be deposed for "improper conduct. When every possible precaution is "thus taken to prevent unqualified persons from being "introduced into the church, or those who afterwards "prove unworthy from remaining in it, the occasional "evils and abuses from which no human institution is "exempted, could not, in the opinion of Dr. Robertson, "be fairly urged as reasons against the law of patronage."

"

"Such was the system which, in conjunction with the "friend of his youth, Dr. Robertson ably supported for "thirty years after his first appearance in the General "Assembly. In speaking upon a particular question, he "sometimes gave the outlines of this system for the satis"faction of the house in general, and the instruction of