IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) « A: ,% < '^ :/ % 1.0 iiiil^ ■1.25 L4 ill 1.6 re page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par lo second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux som filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la darnfdre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »• (meaning "CON- TINUED' ), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left har^d corner, left to right and top> to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reprcduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 d oartir de I'angle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 4 5 6 f i»- LETTERS ON Mnim wiik ikt §lmtck ot fcatlm^. AND ON CHURCH INDEPE>fDENCE. BY Rev. JAMES MIDDLEMISS, MINISTER OF CHALMERS JHURCH, ELORA. «.^.X"W\.-f^-V^'V.-WV^>.'V»."W>.->.-VW Reprinted, 7vith notes, from tke British American Presbyterian. TORONTO : JAMES BAIN. PRICE, 15 Cents. PRKSBYTKRIAN PRINTING HOUSK, 102 BAY STRKKT. 1874. vrwKxmmrwmm ,,', ^■ 'i'"ii^n: Jb^iXaL j^'-L' JL« :/,^^ii;f^bi' iiikp fyn»:-'vn^ t'M' wy:^r< ui-i^0;\}"Kf< -jJf'i.^'J'.Wiat . , =; . i . ^rttm 0tt ^»i0n ttiitft the (Jhut<:fc 0f f ^ottanl ;ii;/-;iK»ri-' wi.;sm'Jt- ^*fr. (Brilish Amerkan Presbyterian ^ Sept. ja, iSj^.y^,,- '■k- i^^' UNION WITH THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. r^ Editor British American PRESByxERiAN. My Dear Sir, — I trust you you will give me room in your paper for a statement of views on the subject of Union, which I entertain, in common with many of the office-bearers and members of the Canada Presbyterian Church. Many of my brethren are in great perplexity in reference to Union with the Church of Scotland in Canada — a union which, judging from the present aspect of things, they fear may shortly be formed, without any due regard to principle on the part of our own Church. A great deal is said in favour of the proposed Union that has no bearing upon the great question that should occupy the mind of the Church in reference to it. It is not a question with any of us, whether Union among Christians is a desirable thing. However much may be said about thi desirableness and advantages of Union, and the evils of dissension rnd separation, it need not be said, for nobody is disposed to dispute ." Neither is it a question with any oi us, whether Union with the Ciit ^h of Scotland in Canada would not be a desirable and happy thing, if circumstances were such as to justify the persuasion that it can be eftected without any sacrifice of principle, and without any detriment to the interests of religion. But I must frankly say that looking at things as they aie, — taking into consideration the past history and procedure, and the present state of the Church of Scotland \n Canada, I do not think a Union with that Church is desirable at the present time. There are various things that weigh heavily on my mind in view of such a Union, and that make me dread and dislike it, because, in view of them, I am persuaded that it would be productive of no real good, but that, on the contrary, it would be injurious to the interests of religion. I am fully convinced that it will be unspeakably better for the moral and religious interests of the country that we remain, in the mean- time, as wc are, leaving the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland to whatever course it may judge proper. My conviction is strengthened by the fact that it is shared by a large proportion of the religious people that I am in the way of associating with. I have no doubt that the experience of others may be different, and I know that many persons of the most decided piety are strongly in favour of Union. But such is my experience. So far as my own personal religious associations are concerned, I find that aversion to the proposed Union is most decided on the part of those whose piety is most unquestionable. Those who know me will not readily entertain the suspicion that such an experience is the result of any direct attempt on my part to influence the minds of others on the subject. I believe the experience of many others is similar to my own ; and I would ask those who seem to have a commanding influence in favor of Union, whether they have given, or are giving, anything like due consideration to the fact that no contemptible number of serious-minded people are averse to ^he proposed Union, and in great perplexity of mind as to their duty, in the event o^ the accomplishment of Union, on such terms as are at present before the Church. Is there not a disposition, to say the least, to presume on their unwillingness to separate from the majo- rity ? But even supposing that few or none should carry their opposition to such a length, it is surely no light thing that a course should be pursued that makes many pious people — ministers and members — consider whether separation may not be their duty, and that is likely to issue in a Union which they can only regard as a calamity. Much as the considerations above referred to weigh with me, as they are of such a nature that one cannot well introduce them into dis- cussion on the subject of Union, I shall only further say respecting them that, while in view of them, I would feel constrained to oppose the contemplated Union, I would probably not think of carrying my opposition beyond voting against it, were it not that I am persuaded that, setting aside all these considerations, the Church is on the road to 5/nion at the e tpense of the sacrifice of a principle of vital importance. J hope I shall not be regarded as disrespectful to esteemed and honoured brethren from whom I differ on this subject, when I say that all along the negotiations seem to me to have been conducted on the principle, that Union being a most desirable thing, it ought to be eflfected speedily, and that with this view we must refrain from doing, saying, or asking anything that might stand in the way of it. It is, in my judgment, much to be regretted that the idea of drafting and submitting to the Church a basis of Union, before a careful and trustworthy statement was ]|irepared clearly exhibiting the points of difference and agreement |>etwixt the two Churches, was not rejected, whoever suggested it. Such a statement ought to have been presented to the Church, and the qu&stion having been put, Do you consider that the difference of senti^ I to it. id- ment betwixt the two churches is such that a Union may be formed with- out any sacrifice of principle ? and that question being answered in the affirmative, with some good degree of unanimity, by our Presbyteries^ Sessions and congregations, then, but not till then, should an attempt have been made to draft a basis of Union, But as matteis stand, how- ever willing we may be to hope the best, we have no certainty of mind as to the sentiments of the other Church in relation to a principle df vitl importance ; and instead of anything being done to relieve our minds, a course is persistently followed, which we canned but regard as fitted to confirm our suspicion that the great principle referred to is to be s icrificed for a Union which we can only contemplate as fraught with evl in relation to the interests of religion. Do we not sacrifice that great principle if it ceases to be a fundamental principle of the Church, as it is now ; and not only fundamental, but a principle the assertion of which was the raison detre of the Presbyterian Church of Canada ? Let me not be told that I am speaking as a Free Churchman. My answer to that is, that on entering into the Union of 1861, we did so, dis- tinctly declaring the Canada Presbyterian Church to be identical with the Presbyterian Church of Canada.* f What we wish, and what we consider indispensable to Union, is that it shall not be consummated unless provision be made for a full, express, and authoritative exhibition of this great principle as a funda- mental principle of the United Church, if not in the basis of Union, theft in some other way equally satisfactory. In other words, let it be dis- tinctly declared, — not assumed, — but distinctly and expressly declared that the United Church holds, as a fundamental principle, that Christ has appointed in His Church a government distinct from, and not subordinate to, that of the Civil Magistrate, and that the (^ivil Magis- trate does not possess jurisdiction or authoritative control over the regulation of the affairs of the Church, — let this be done, and speaking for myself, though I have no expectation of good from Union, I shall submit to it, and do my best for the interests of the United Church. I do not wish to go back upon the past more than is necessary or unavoid- able, and I am willing that nothing be said on what we conceive to be ♦ See last Minute of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada, and of the Synod of the United Presbyterian Church in Canada, From these Minutes, it appears that it is not correct to say that the Canada Presbyterian Church is not the " Free Church," or that it is not the " United Presbyterian Church. " It is both the one and the other. The Union of 1861, it is true, left both parties free to enter- tain their peculiar views ; and for that very reason it would be most ungenerous in either party to drag the other, or a portion of it, by force of number.i, into a position ■which they feel to be inconsistent with their peculiar views. But in the present case, the minority (not exclusively, however largely, composed of Free Churchmen) ane contending for the exhibition of a principle common to both parties, and embodied in their Basis cf Union ; so thpt to charge Free Churchism on the minority is v!i»x\\{t:sSXy unreasonable, if not unjust. Though the charge is, I believe, associated with respectable names, I am very unwilling to think that any conside>able number c«f United Presbyterian brethren can allow themselves, on stuh a ground, to be parties to the forcing on of Union. inconbistencies, if we can obtain anything like reasonable satisfaction as to the sentiments of those with whom it is proposed to unite. Know- ing that we may greatly wrong brethren by charging them with holding an erroneous principle, because th^y hold what, in our judgment, in- volves it ; or with not holding an important principle, because of their hoivling or doing what, in our judgment, is inconsistent with it, I am willing that the past should be forgotten, as much as possible.. I say as much as possible, for surely the past teaches lessons which it were folly to ignore ; and great principles must be viewed in the light of the controversies that have arisen in connection with them. But I can conceive of brethren holding the great principle which is to me every- thing in these discussions on Union, while they may have been charge- able with what was, in my judgment, even grossly inconsistent with it. Can nothing be done to relieve the minds of the many who ^re in the same perplexity as I am ? Some of my brethren say, "Your suspi- cions are groundless ; the brethren of the Church of Scotland in Canada are perfectly sound — just as sound as you are — in reference to the principle ot which you speak ; your dread of Erastianism has no better warrant than a child's fear of a ghost." 1 have little personal acquaint- ance with ministers of the Established Church of Scotland, so that I judge 01 their sentiments chiefty by the position which ihey occupy. But others, who have the means of knowing, assure me that I judge rightly in believing that they are not sound, and that, at least, many of them hold that in all cases the civil courts must be the courts of last re- sort against the possible wrongdoing ot church courts.* Well, whom am I to believe — my brethren who make a joke of my suspicions, and rally me perhaps on my Highland proclivities, or those who tell me that my suspicions are too well lounded ? And who are the parties to end my perplexity ? Of course the brethren of the Church of Scotland. Let them speak out frankly and explicitly. Let them (still believing that the proceedings of the civil courts in connec- tion with the non intrusion controversy did not warrant the course we took at the disruption) assuie us by a distinct and authoritative utter- ance, not only that they believe the church courts have an exclusive jurisdiction in all purely spiritual cases, and that the civil courts have no right of review in things purely spiritual ; but that they believe the civil courts have no right, under the plea of civil interests involved in * This is the view maintained by "Presbyterian" in the letter that originated the discu ssion on Church Independence my letters on which are reprinted in this pamphlet, I have always supposed "Presbyterian" to be a minister or a member of the Church of Scotland, fnd thought that he presented in that letter the views of many in conrection with that church. Though he professes to have changed his views and became an 'Ultramonanist," that is no ground for belie\ing they have changed theirs. And such a conversion is net to be desired. Erastianism is bad, very bad; but •'Ultramontanism" is much worse. 1 am surprised to learn that some suppose "Presbyterian" to be a minister of our own Church. I cannot believe it. But, in justice to others, he should let the Church and the world know who he is. the Church's procedure, to interfere, in the way ot interdicting, suspend- ing, or annulling the Church's acts, or of enjoining them, any more than they have a right to interfere with a man's government of his family, or his disposition of his property, if, tor instance, he should turn his son out of doors because he believed he was corrupting the morals of the family, or should cut him off with a shilling. I am not blaming the brethren of the other Church for not giving a distinct an^l authoritative exhibition of their sentiments upon this point. I blame my own Church. It seems we must not ask this, because our doing so will endanger the Union. We are told we should be content with sub.icriplion to the Confession of Faith, and with the assurance given us b> our committee that the brethren of the other Church hold as firmly as w.^ do the doc- trine of Christ's Headship. But do we not know what the value of sub- scribinyj articles of faith has come to be in another Church ? And do we not see a tendency in other churches to move in he same direction? Do we not ignore one of the most important ends of a church organiza- tion, if we content ourselves with seeing that our articles are signed, and are not careful to know what sense those who sign our Conlession attach to its statements? These are not days in which we can be satis- fied with the general profession of the admission of great truths, when men everywhere, in all the Churches, are veiling their infidelity and their errors uuder the language of faith and orthodoxy. It is not con- cei/able that any man calling himself a Christian should deny the Head- ship of Christ over the Church. Even the dignitary who recently paraded his Erastianism with applause before a Scottish audience of high intelligence, admits it. But what 's the admission worth, when it is made, as in his case, in connection with a complete oversight, if not total ignorance, ot the fundamental idea of a church? But it is said, you may know what the brethren of the Church of Scotland in Canada believe to be involved in the doctrine of Christ's Headship over the Church, by reading their own Declaration of Inde- pendence. I cannot but feel that brethren have committed a great mistake in referring to that Declaration, emitted, we believe, soon after the disruption in 1844. It is referred to for the purpose of showing that the Presbyterian Cnurch of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland holds, and has always held, views identical with our own. But we cannot view it except in the light of the time and the circumstances in which it was issued. And viewed in this light, my though s about it are such as I am most unwilling to express, because, as I said, I am willing to forget tne past, and to submit to the wishes of the majority of my brethren, it I can get satisfaction in relation to my great difficulty. Let this Declaration be forgotten, and let it now be not only as- sumed, but distinctly declared on both sides in the consummation of Union, that it is a fundamental principle of the United Church that the civil magistrate does not possess authoritative control, under any plea or pretext whatever, over the regulation of the afiairs of the Church, and then I, for one, shall perhaps not even dissent from a consumma- tion which so many seem to have set their hearts on. ' .■■J -:- ^\ But why, it is said, insist on this, when the Synod is willing to ter- minate its coimection with the Church of Scotland, and thus yield the very point on which the Canadian disruption turned ? I answer. This amountb to no more than simply not asking us to unite with the Church of Scotland, But more must be said. In the first place, though the disrupticn hinged on that particular point, have we not been accustom- ed to look upon the disruption as having brought about a separation desirable in other respects ? Were there not in the Church of Scotland previous to the disruption, two parties whose views and feelings were so different, that th*ir separation was, as we believe, in the interest of true religion, although it actually hinged on one particular point? And were we not thankful for the separation on this account ? Have these differences disappeared ? Are they less than they were ? And if less, is the assimilation owing to the one party being educated up, or to the other party being educated down ? Such insinuations, it will be said, may apply to some extent to Scotland, but not to Canada. I 'vish 1 could think so. But let it be so. There is something more to be said on the matter now before us. Had the majority in 1844 consented to the projjosal to cast off connection with the Scottish Establishment, which, as we believe, was then become hopelessly recreant in relation to great principles for which she had contended tor generations, they would have been joined with their brethren in the privilege and honour of maintaining the Church's testimony unbroken. But instead of this they resolved to adhere to the Church that had fallen from her tes- timony, and for thirty years they have constanrly declared their prefer- ence for her, and their approbation of her principles as ai present con- stituted^ and are now as loud in their praises of her as ever? Does all this make no difference between 1844 and 1873? Does it not at least justify our being very careful in the business of this Union, and warrant our insisting upon something very definite in regard to the great princi- ple which we regard as 3eing of such vital importance ? We wish no confession of wrong-doing. Let the brethren of the Church of Scotland live and die in the belief that they did right in adhering to the Scottish Establishment in 1844, and that they do right in separating from her thirty years after : but if there is to be a Union, let them not only tell us by word of mouth in committee, that their taking the position they did in 1844 does not imply in their judgment as it does in ours, any dis- regard of the great practical principle that we have ever been so ready ♦o charge hem with the disregard of; but, let them show their readiness to dispel le suspicions which we think we have good reason to enter- tain, by saying that they are willing that that great principle shall be declared, in the most express and unmistakeable terms, to be a funda- mental principle of the United Church. I cannot see any ground lor the charge oi discourtesy in asking this. I feel quite sure that if we had given them any ground, in their judgment^ to suspect our soundness upon any point, we would have been not only willing, but desirous, to gi^e them any satisfaction they could possibly require. It ims been said^ indeed, they might as well insist on our giving them explicit assuraiic* that we believe schism to be a sin, inasmuch as they considered that our action in 1 844 was schismatic ; and we are asked what we would think, and how we would act, if the brethren of the Synod of the Church of Scotland were to make such a demand upon uf.. My answer M, that whatever I may think of them, I believe them to be incapable either of the miserable sophistry or the gross impertintnce involved in such a demand. Is the guilt of schism determined by arithmetic ? Is it only a minority that can be guilty of it? Who does not know that we charged on them the sin of schiam, as strongly as they charged it on us ; and, as we think, with far more reason ? It would be a waste t terms expressive of their belief in the inspiration of Scrip- tures, and told that we would insult them if we insisted on anything different from the terms of the confession ? I might carry the parallel further, but I forbear, and will con- qlude with implori .g hose who seem to be set upon this Union^ to give to their own brethren some of that consideration which hithe to they have been giving so exclusively to the brethren of the other Church. So lar is I can see, the feelings of the brethren of the Church of Scotland are ;very thing with them, while our views and feelings are nothing. It is unworthy of them co treat us as a helpless minority. Their doing so may be found the reverse of conducive to the realization of the great idea of one Presbyterian Church in the Dominion of Canada. I shrink from the very thought of disruption. I cannot look at it, till all means to obtain reasonable satisfaction have been tried in vain. I would, in the meantime, rather appeal to the better feeling of my brethren ; and while we refrain from everythmg that looks like a threatening of separa- tion, I would have them not to govern themselves by the notion, so often proved a mistaken one, that the spirit of the fathers is not inherited by the children. JAMES MIDDLEMISS. II {British American Presbyterian, Dec. iz, iSjj.) UNION WITH THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. '4 Editor British American Presbyterian. My Dear Sir :— I shall not wait longer for Mr. McKay's further remarks upon my letter of September 12. With your leave, I now offer to your readers some delence of myself against his attack upon me in your paper of October 3, leaving him to wind up his observations leisurely or otherwise, as he may think best or find most convenient. My reasons for taking no particular notice of his second letter (Oct. 31) will, 1 trust, be readily understood and appreciated.* Mr. McKay has entirely overlooked the fact that, in my '^tter, 1 deal not with the brethren of the Church of Scotland, but with brethren of my own Church, of whom I am entitled to assume, fiom the very po- * The writer of the letters referred to is the Rev. Ale-,. McKay f Eldon, who having written what he considered an unans^verable reply to ray first letter, was re- proved uy "Presbyter Junior" (liRiriSH AMERICAN Presbyterian, Oct. 17), and replied hi a letter whose language is a nearer approach to scurrility than that of any- thing 1 hf've seen in the course of the prtsent discussion. I hope lie regrets deeply the part he has taken, as am sure his brethren must do. m sition they occupy, that their views of the Disruption controversy are in the main identical with my own, — the fact that I am not discussing the qustion, who was right and who was wrong at the Disruption? but the ques- tion, On what terms may v/e, assuming that we were right, and knowing at the same time that the brethren ot the other Church beUeve that they were right, enter into union with them, without either party modifying their views in reference to the mer ts of the Disruption Controversy, and yet without any sacrifice of principle ? 4 w »'»**3(» "^: In reference to the earlier portion of my letter, I cannot see that I expressed myself in such a way as to warrant the use of the language applied to me by " Presbyter" (Sept. 26), and by Mr. McKay. I cannot but think that they are both of them open to censure for the impropriety of their language, and that Mr. McKay is un air in the representation he gives of my views, and in the mferrnces he draws from them. Feeling as I do on the subject of Union, surely I was warranted, if n:>t bound, to utter my mind to my brethren, avoiding offensive language. But as I have no design to oppose Union by urging the considerations referred to, I shall say no more here in rela- tion to them, but shall pass on to the chief matter of controversy. ?* I expected that my views on this matter would not be allowed to pass without adverse criticism ; but I could not have thought that my objections to the terms of Union would have been met with nothing more worthy of consideration than has been advanced by " Presbyter" and Mr. McKay. The letter of the former calls for no particular notice. Mr. McKay, however, regards h" own letter as unanswerable both in *' spirit" and " argument." As to the " spirit" of it, I think it best to say nothing ; and as to *' argument," I believe it can be shown to amount to nothing. He does not throw a particle of light upon the subject. He makes no attempt to rcHeve the perplexity of brethren, or to meet their difficulties. Statements, the insufficiency of which I endeavored to point out, are simply reiterated, without any apparent thought of its being proper to take notice of the arguments of the per- son whose views he professes to controvert. .^ aiiur That I have good reason to speak in this way of Mr. McKay's letter will, I hope, be* evident enough in the sequel. Meantime, let me state briefly the position that I occupy in this discussion, and from which I cannot see how I can withdraw. We have been accustomed to believe, and we do believe, that the position assumed by the brethren of the othf Church in 1844, and occupied by them ever since, was inconsistent with the principle of the Church's distinct and independent jurisdiction, involved in the Presby- terian doctrine concerning the Visible Church and Christ's Headship over it : a principle not only contended for in the controversy that iisued in the Disruption of 1843, but maintained by the Scottish u» Church, in all its branches^ up to that date. We differ among ourselves on the subject of Establishments, and some of us may be of opinioa that the independence of the Church must be affected by alliance wiA the State* But whatever difference of opinion may exist among us, ©a that point, the fact cannot be disputed that botli the EstaWished Church of Scotland, and those who sought relief from the oppressioa of a dominant Moderatism, maintained the great principle. And I may add, in reference to the Establishment, that it was thought, up to the time of the Non-Intrusion Controversy, fhat the Church's daitn to spiritual independence was allowed by the civil authorities^ and that it was only by the decision of tfie civil courts^ in connection with that contro- versy, Uiat it became apparent that they claimed, notwithstanding the strongest remonstrances of many eminent legal authorities, to have a supremacy in matters in which hitherto the Church judicatories haa been supposed to possess a recognized power, supreme and irreversible. We have always held that in 1843 the Established Church of Scotland, by consenting to the encroachments of the civil authorities upon the jurisdiction ol the Church, acted inconsistently with the Church's inde- pendence. On the other hand, the brethren with whom we are nego- tiating about Union maintain, or are understood or represented as maintaining, that we put an unwarrantable const^ruction upon their action iu 1844 : that it did not involve, on their part, the sacrifice of the Church's independence, or anything inconsistent with it ; and that they hold the principle as firmly as we do. Well, then, what we desire is this. Holding, as they say they do, as firmly as we do, the great prin- ciple, while we differ from them in this, that we hold that certain action of theirs was inconsistent with »it, while they hold it was not, we are prepared, (that is, on the supposition that all existing relations are can- celled, so that there may be no offence to the feelings and convictions •f either party), — we are prepared, I say, to consign to oblivion the matter of in.Lonsistency, alleged on the one side and repudiated on the other, provided such a place be given by the United Church to the principle itself that no one can doubt that it is a fundamental principle of the Chirch. -^ Mr. McKay, in his letter, objects to this, in language which I ven- ture to call unwarrantable, if not highly reprehensible, and for reasons which, the more I think of them, the more I am convinced, are without any weight. He speaks of me as making a " demand," using the word several times. I make no demand I stated, indeed, what I consi- * To be more particular : Some of us believe that there may be an allianoe between the Church and the Sta*e in which the former may enjoy the privileges oi ko. Establishment in return for the services which she renders to the moral, and thereby to the material well-being of the latter, but in which all her tssential powers and liberties hhall be intact and inviolable ; and some of us believe there cannot be suck an alliance. But we are all agreed that it is only such an alliance, if it be possibU^ that the Church is at liberty to enter into. Such an alliance was thought to exist i« Scotland, ««/■// the action of the Slate in connection with the Non-Intruiion cOft- troversy determined otherwise. m ■' ' '-i,'- II *=< dered indispmsablg to Union. To describe such a statement as a demand is a misuse of language. Surely something is indispensable to Union, even in the judgment of those of my brethren whose views are farthest removed from mine, — we shall say the cessation of connec- tion with the Church of Scotland. If they say such separation is indis- pensable to Union, is it proper to speak of them as demanding it ? As Uttle is it rght for Mr. McKay to speak of me as demanding anything, insinuating, as such an expression does, an imperative and peremptory mode of asking what we think reasonable, that cannot justly be charged against me. There are other instances of Mr. McKay's misuse of language that will call for notice before I am done. Before giving his reasons for refusing to accede to our proposal, Mr. McKay puts it in a form which I can only regard as equivalent to evading the point at issue. Referring to our desire to have a full, express, and authoritative exhibition ot the principle as fundamental in the United Church, that Christ has appointed in His Church a govern- ■nent distinct from and not subordinate to that of the Civil Magistrate, and that the Civil Magistrate does not possess jurisdiction, etc., he represents this as being, " in fewer words," a desire on our part for " a declaration from the adherents of the Church of Scotland, that they believe in the Headship of Christ over His Church." He then proceeds to give reasons why he cannot consent to the making of such a declara- tion. Now, in point of fact, we do not want such a declaration. What we desire is of a much more definite and specific character. I do not charge an evasive design on Mr. McKau ; but he has no right tO put our proposal in this general form, without taking any notice of the fact, that instead o( asking for such a declaration, I made no question of their believing in the " Headship of Chris': over His Church," but pleaded the necessity of its being made apparent that a certain principle, which we regard as involved in the doctrine of the Headship, is con- sidered fundamental in the United Church. I said : " It is not con- ceivable that any man calling himself a Christian should deny the Head- ship of Christ over the Church,'* and referred to the admission of it by a dignitary of the English Church, who has, since my first letter was written, told his northern friends that the Scotch doctrine respecting the * While I am revising these letters, I see the in the B. A. Presbyterian, of M*r«h ay, that a writer, who is of a syllogistical turn of mind still imagines that he gravels my friend Mr. McTavish and all Free-Churchmen, by the following reducHo ad absurdum. : If a Church denies the Headship of Christ, it is not a Christiam Church ; but tke (Esttblishcd) Church of Scotland (according to Mr. McTavish and the Free Church) denies the Head-ship of Christ ; therefore the (Established) Church of Scotland is not a Christian Church ; which is absurd, the Church of Scot- land being unquestionably % Christian Church ; and herefore it holds, and cannot hut hold, the Headship of Christ, Q.E.D. I have no right to blame the writer for not knowing what I had wrht«n on the subject ; but I do blame him for not knowing the state of the question, in a controversy tha has been so prominently before the world for the last forty years. I>et me advise him, in all his future aitemj>tii •t reasoning, to attend mainly to his pretnises ; which, if he does, he may leave a child to draw the conclusit being not much more difficult than to da a sum in simple addition, ^ 12 it visible Church, and Christ's Headship over it, belongs to the same category of error as the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation. He, too, would say with Mr. McKay, that he holds " this important truth as fully and broadly" as we do. Does he mean that he holds it as including the principle of the Church's independent administration of the law of her Head ; or does he mean, in accordance with the current usuage of the word broad, that he rijgards it as being fully and consis- tently held by those who will not admit that great principle ?* >l f Mr. McKay Gives three reasons why tht brethren of the Church of Scotland cannot in his judgment, accede to our proposal, Th^Jirst is, That " Christ's Headship over His Church is expressed as clearly and satisfactorily in our confession of Faith" as we are capable of setting it forth in words. In reference to this, let me remind your readers that it is simply the reiteration of an objection to our proposal which I took up in my fir t letter, in which, besides referring to the duty of the Church to be careful, especially at the present time, to know wliat sense those who sign her Confession attach to its statements, I pre- sented the true state of the case by supposing a controversy, ending in disruption, to have arisen on the subject of inspiration. There is no call to say anything more on this point, except that Mr. McKay's letter cannor reasonably be regarded as a reply to mine, when, instead of replying to what I plead in defen'^e of my position, he simply reiter- ates what I plead against. As to his representation of our request as a proposal to tamper with the standards of the Church, I can only say it is another instance of his misuse of words. We do not wish to touch the standards; we simply wish the assurance, after a great controversy, that we are as one in relation to a great fundamental principle. Mr. McKay says, Secondly, That " to accede to our request would be a practical acknowledgment that they had in some way denied this great truth." I cannot see this; and we certainl} do not present our proposal with any such view. I have said that I was quite sure " that if we had given them any ground, in their Judgment^ to suspect our soundness upon any point, we would have been not only willing but desirous to give them any satisfaction they could pos- sibly require. '" We ask no more from them. But let me call the attention of your readers to a distinction referred to in these words: "We may greatly wrong brethren by charging them with holding an erroneous principle, because they hold what, in our judgement, involves it ; or with not holding an important principle, because of their doing * Mr. McKay, in a subsequent letter, (B. A. Pkesbyterian, Jan. 23) represents me as insinualiiig here that he understands the w^rd " broad" in the same sense as the Romish Church ! The mind of the Church of Rome, in relation to the meaning of that term, it has never occurred to me to inquire into. I ask if he uses ii in its current acceptation. If he does, he admits the very thing we are afraid of We are constrained to set cur faces against broad views in relation to the royal office of Christ, as well as in relation to His priestly and prophetic offices. what, in our judgment, is inconsistent with it." Surely this distinction will be admitted to be a sound one, and of great impc tance in con- troversy, mnch as it may be overlooked or disregarded. \nd I repeat that I can conceive of brethren holdmg the great principle which is the chief matter of our anxiety and perplexity, while they may have been chargeable with what was, in my judgment, inconsistent with it; and that we wish no acknowledgment of inconsistency or confession of wrong-doing, but simply such a recognition and exhibition of the principle as may remove doubts and fears which we think we have good reason to entertain. Even if Mr. McKay had thought that the distinction was not a sound one, or that it did not apply in the present case, and that 1 am inconsistent in saying that I wish no confession of wrong-doing while I ask that the principle in queotion shall be dis- tinctly and expressly recognized as fundamental, it would have been well if he had refrained from the use of such words as " pitiable and fear- fully dishonest." And what shall I say of the way in which, in his second letter, he misrepresents me in relation to the perplexity we are in ? I had said that, while I judged of the sentiments of the brethren of the Church of Scotland chiefly by the position they occupied (a lawful thing surely), some nf my brethren said one thing about them, while others said the reverse ; and that this was a cause of perplexity. This perplexity, occasioned by conflicting testimony, he represents as a manifest openness on my part to receive any evil report and unwilling- ness to believe any thing favourable. Shall I say this is " pitiable "and fearfully dishonest ?" Certainly not. Mr. McKay says, thirdly^ That to accede to our request would he conceives, help to confirm me in my belief that I am right in charging them wuh denying Christ's Headship. Now I am fully persuaded that the effect upon our minds would be quite different from what Mr. McKay conceives. Speaking definitely, the charge is not that they denied Christ's Headship, but that they acted inconsistently with a principle mvolved in it, viz., the Church's independent jurisdic- tion. In reference to this, my conviction is such, that I believe it is not likely to be affected in any way. But it is not to this that our difference has reference. We are not discussing who was right and who was wrong at the disruption. If our views of the old controversy are not likely to be altered, we do not ask them to modify theirs. But, I repeat, to charge with doing what we regard as inconsistent with a principle is one thing, and to charge with not holding that principle is another thing. In relation to the former, my conviction is not likely to be afi'ected in any way. But in relation to the latter, /. ^., in relation to the question whether the brethren of the Church of Scotland hold as fundamental the great principle under consideration, my views must depend greatly on the issue of present negotiations. If our request be acceded to, our suspicions ^-ill be removed ; if not, they can only be strengthened into conviction. As Mr. McKay in.«iists that I have as good right (so he expresses *4 ,1 I himself) to make confession of schism, as he has to plead guihy to thr sin of denying the Headship ^f Christ, let me say, that if I had been aware that the argument ori that point had been put otherwise thaii hypotheticaily, I would not have used expressions regarding it that I have done. But it is certainly most fallacious, and I am surprised that any one can plead it. The simple fact that the sinfulness of schism never has been, and never can be questioned, makes the alleged call for its exhibition wanting in the first element of parallelism with the necessity for the exhibition of a great spiritual principle that has been in controversy for ages, is still in controversy, and will be in c\,:^- troversy so long as the Church is a distinct institution in the world. As to Mr. McKay's way of putting the argument, enough has already been said to show that neither directly nor by implication do we wish him, or any one else, to plead guilty to the sin of denying the Headship of Christ. No good cause can be benefitted by such an argument, and only a bad cause can be in need of it. I trust I am done with Mr. McKay, who, like *' Presbyter," does really nothing more than make a noise, if it be not to throw dust in people's eyes, though not, I am persuaded, enough to mar the vision of any considerate reader. And while neither of them con- tributes anything that is fitted to lighten any difficulty that presses on our minds, all that I see and hear is fitted to deepen our perplexity, and confirm our suspicions. As I am almost vilified for entertainmg these suspicions, allow me to justify myself, which I believe I can do, in the judgment of every candid person. Brethren highly esteemed, and favorable to Union, say (I give, as nearly as I can, words I have heard used) they are aware that some are of the opinion, that while the Church's legislative power is not to be interfered with, she should be held^ in her administrative capacity, to her own laws, by the Civil Autho- rities — the view presented by " Presbyterian," in his first letter (Oct. 3) — and they say, further, that this opinion may be a matter of forbearance on our part. If this information does not surprise me, it excites astonishment and apprehension that I should have to argue with any of my own brethren, that this opinion involves the total surrender of the Church's independence. To say notning of the intrinsic absurdity of the opinion, are brethren losing sight of the elementary truth that the Church's ruling function is, strictly speaking, purely administrative ; that Christ is the only legislator of His Church j that H^ has not delegated to Church officers a power to make laws for His Kingdom, or to m jdify them in any way, but has committed to them the adminis- tration of the laws He Himself has imposed ; that it belongs not to Church officers to legislate (in any proper sense of the term), but only to declare and apply the law of His Kingdom^ as it is the function of the Civil yudge to declare and apply the law of the land ? W ho wiM say that the information of these brethren is incoitect, and that I am bound not to believe them? Am I not, rather, bound to call upon the Church to awake from her apathy in relation to one of the most im- I 15 portant and distinctive of all her principles, and to take heed lest she be juggled out of it, and awake some day to find that she has got, instead of it, the high sounding fiction of a legislative supremacy, which can be no other than a nullity withodt invasion, on her part, of the prerogative of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am, yours truly, JAMES MIDDLEMISS. Elora, December, i 1873. i i r ' '-■■■.'■/' , ' 't'.,' • - :p.a.i^t II. !)r §j^ttm m €%\m\x §\xAt)fm&mtt (British American Presbyterian Oct. 7. 187 j.) CHURCH INDEPENDENCE AND THE "EXTREME CASE." \ Editor British American Presbyterian. My Dear Sir, — In your issue of Oct. 3, a correspondent signing himself "A Presbyterian," presents what he calls "an extreme case," and expresses his desire to get light in regard to it in connection with the spiritual independence of the Church. As the subject of your correspondent's letter is intimately connected with the subject of Union, on which I ventured tc write a short time ago, I crave space for some remarks upon it, trusting to be allowed to say something in defence of the views expressed in my former letter, in reply to the animadversions of other correspondents, as soon as they appear to be at an end. The case that your correspondent states is certainly a very ex- treme one. He supposes the case of a minister, sound in the faith, it is assumed, and of irreproachable life, deposed by a Presbytery that has become utterly lawless, and making his appeal to the superior courts only to find they are equally lawless, and he asks if the ad- vocates of spiritual independence hold that theie is no redress for this unhappy man, but in the court of heaven, his own opinion being that he should seek redress by appealing to the civil courts, which are not, however, he says, " to review or revise the decision of the spiritual court, " but, as I understand him, to insist that the case be dealt with in a proper manner, declaring that they intend to see that their I «7 <■' ■■ }) m ir injunction ii duljr attended to. What he would have the civil •courts to do in the event of the Church refusing to do anything furthtr in the matter, he does not say.* rjfi.'o * - ^ In reference to this case, I would remark at the outset, that, to t»if ihe least, the supposition of it has the aspect of great extravagancy. Your correspondent is aware, that, among Presbyterians, the contentioa for the principle ofspiritualindependence is maintained in connection with an equally strenuous contention for what we believe to be Scriptural views respecting the popular constitution of the Church. That a case •uch as he supposes should jccui !i a Church constituted, as ours it, On, Scriptural principles — a Church iu which, in accordance with Scrip- ture, Church power is lodged essntialiy in the Church properly so called^ *.<., tlie Christian people — seems to me nothing short of impossibly. That it might occur, or has occurred, in a Church (so called) whose government is pure despotism, or in a Church constituted on princi- ples very differen^^ from ours, does not in the smallest degree warrant the supposition of your correspondent. He certainly overlooks the difference of the constitution of the two Churches, if he thinks it possi- ble that the rulers in our Church, its constitution being and continuing to be what it is, should ever act as men claiming for themselves the ,po^er arrogated by the priesthood of the Church of Rome. , "f But setting aside the impossibility, or the extreme unlikelihood 'df the occurrence of such a case as your correspondent presents, let me remind him of the danger of running counter to any great general principle, in our anxiety to prevent or remedy evil or wrong in particular cases. There are always occurring cases of individuals subj ected to great hardship, which cannot be prevented or remedied otherwise than by such action as would involve in it the breach of some important genersd principle; and we are all agreed, that to prevent or remedy individual cases of hardship in siich a way, would be productive of far greater evils than those which it is sought to remedy. Your correspondent seems to be aware, in some measure, of the danger of the remedy he suggests in his •* extreme case," for he says, " It would surely not answer well if Church courts, at every turn in the administration of discipline, were threatened with civil pains and penalties as having trenched on charac- ter, or interfered with vested rights." Instead of using such mild language, I would speak of such a thing as a tremendous evil ; and yet I do not see how he can refuse to the civil courts the right thus to interfere with the affairs of the Church, if the remedy in the ^" extreme case" is to be such as he thinks. 5^ ♦ '• Revise" is probably a misprint for " reverse." How the Civil Court Jc»n insist upon the case being properly dealt with, and yet not " review" the decision, it is not easy to see. I suppose, however, the writer's meaning is, that inasmuch M Civil Judges cannot perform ecclesiastical functions, they are to exercise their pecn- liar powers to constrain thqse who can perform these functions to exercise them is the way which they (the Civil Judges) think proper ; t,^., ordering them to perform ^ Ihem in that way, and punishing them if they will not. See my fourth letter on this «B ' I would further submit that your •correspoodent is not wftrrantotf titber to Aaaumc that there can bene mmedy in the gsmc »\iT^^Btd otherwise than by appealing to civil ccmrts ; •or teassume^ti.b^q^itit lio other remedy appears to be applicable, it would be rt'g/it to seek a, tt*n#dy m Hhat way. Thefc roved, let such punishment be awarded to the offenders — 'not only The lawless "half-dozen" who may constitute the iPresbytery, but tne flawless Synod and General Assembly as well — ^let such pvinishment, '^1 say, be awarded, as the law he administers warrants the civil ma- ^'jjistrate to inflict on others who offend in the like way. But your .correspondent woUld have something quite differiftnt from this. Se "^jfroUld have the xHvil authorities to say, "We don't interfere with'the Itws you make, tMit we insist upon it that you will keep by the lattrs "Vou have made, and We shall, in the kst resort, be judges whether you •nave done so Or not?' In other words, he ShoUldliave the administra- tion of the laws of the Church to be conducted under subjection to ihe civil authorities, — a view which 1 hold to be utterly inconsistent Srith our Presbyterian views of the visible Church as the kingdom of ;'l£!hrist, the house and family of God, and of its distinct government '^ks laid down in our Confession, cJhapters xxv and xxx. There arc ^%ome, it appears, who cannot, in their view of the Church, rise aboVc 4he idea of a number of people associating by: mutual contract, the ful- . jf. * Benefit of ckrgy {or ^rtvtlepum clerifaH) or}giaz\]^ SLiid properly denoted tht ^^emptioH of the persons of c/erics frbm criminal process before secular courts. -It 't'imui afterwards gKsatly extended, thoxx^ such a j>rivil«ge could not but be atteiMted hfifithgreatabusef, i^wsasinot/nft'fvi^iaboTished in England till the reign of George IV. The more I think of it, the more my conviction i grows, that nothing but a. gMat degree of improper feeling towards the " Highfliers^' cotdd have led any one, after denying the independent jurisdiction of the Churqh, to pretend to run to the opposite ' liktreme, to defend anything that has even the aspect ol a privilege so detestable, and #t9-'maintainthataiBati Now, it will be seen that we dvv not maintain the first of these positions. We have admitted that Church officers may act in si^ch ^ fray, in their administration, as to make themselves amenable to the Ulw of th^ lan4, as transgressors of it ; and we havft indicated when they may warrantably be regarded as having done so. But your correspondent, while holding, we are persuaded, . from vaiious expressions he uses, the s^me view, \ai& not only failed to indicate the principle accoi'ding to which Church officers may be guilty of breaking the law of the land in one case of mal -administration and not in, another, but allowed himself to lay down a principle that cannot" be sustained," unless we ado|)t the thtrd position, viz., that every act of mal-administiatioa on the part of Church rulers, including eveh the slightest departure from the regular otdei* of Church, and judged to ie'^ so by the chit authorities constitiites a breach of the law of the ?and.1 TJils positidn I take to be so inconsistent with our Presbyterian princi-'* p!e8, tj'iat I say not ene word with the view of showing its untenable-*' ness, iihles^ it shall be maintained in your columns; m which case I ^ hope the writer »/ill not fail to state the ground on which he maintains ' it, and present his views of the nature, constitution, and design of the' yisibli Chufch; Christ's kingdom in the world. ^ I am, yours truly, ' ^ JAMES MIDDJ.EMISS. yOft:»* yionx ntjitw b ^ >/ "win !•'■ J - ■ •? .ft fill// ■ ' > tetb^, Octbbet «i, 1*73. :??•'•■ r: .-: . 1 » f . * Mj meaning in the first part of thi» p«r«|praph is not well cx]^essed, the word M itreguUuritjr^' cspeciaUy being unsuitable, owing to its being almost always used t«f( denote what is contrary to rules, without lacing criminal or morally wrong. In a««ord9^nce with the ricws maintained by xne, in this and subsequent letters, I should liaYe said, "Either, (i), t^iMX whatever be the character of the action of Church ralos, ia their official capacity, it is in no case to be regarded as constituting a breach of the law of the land; or, (2,) That their action may be of such a character as to constitute a,breach(»f the law of the land ; pr, (3,) That every irregularity," etc., -Wn)?3» M i udi Un' ,yi . i»1 .':-*\ •^i j*S:(i '*;>'^? . iniuc|» froin.yx^^, in regfieatm^rpom, ip, your qc4uiii^s/;)r soin^ rqq»^^:^Q::.^ ^ oii tj>fmecond, lett^ oi. *' P^sbytwn,'' 'w^ Yfm ws^^^oCQfctpbct 31^^^,'. I' qcft^nly. did hope that na^. letter t>f OgtppVff t^^wpulShs^c b««i»ji., sufl&fi^t to iequ)v.e hif difh£ulty ijn relation to ^ " e:icjtM3l^e.c«s^")r^~ apd tfi{ lead to his t9^Wg right views, on the siij^jf^ of Oiurffh ;Ilifte*T;;j'. - ^tx^daice; but, reveafV-d aj^ he is in his secpnd, Ipttirj. I have Uttlfj, h«|||i^^ . o^ ^Ming anythiQ|^t^atwill Jl^ad hiiUr to.jo. justice eititer tot Uie vieiu^ . . whicft I contend fopji or ta t!^^ w^p hold tliem., jpU^ 4;x{^s9es.h»M^j. .^ with a flipp^cy, and, con6iicnc;e tiiat ill a^ hi& o^l{iQs4 P^c:^^ ^ a^onof himsel^r a^ an inquirrx sedqcig light., ^^j^;^ ^^^^i nx/t nojt; wanting in his yfi^ letter;, but ^e]^ axe-SQ.<;ofif(picupMS iathe JVf^ii^ as.' to justify the suspicion th£^: Wwptej^ WJU^v a>i^^ relief from a difficulty that peiplesneqi him. I have, however, a much more serious cha||g(e tqi milcA. I l^e^^o charge him with misrepresentation of the worst kind ihort of defibeiatc misrepresentation — misrepresentation both without a shadow of ejccujK^ aizd in the facejof stiong 4nd definite statement^ mif'aich X mamtain the 7feiy reverse of what he aseiibiss: to> me^ Hi^ enliM rq^ Imeiilg' l^undipd 03 that misrepresentation', it is of cowse*, Blflf re^f»tc^incv o^ whatever use it may be in other respects. Fbr onV thing', it. lett tl^ l^owwhat his views were beff>r« Hi (;^vnve»;iipi|, ifjtliin, the- Ia%li Jw& night, to what he cans' " Presbyterian UltiAniootanism,'''-^yic«vs fsbich k suspect too maey hold, said wish to hold under ti*e 'belter of the estoft' dally defective Sasis of Union now before tlie Church. Your correspondent sets out with saying that Mr. Middlemiss ** acknowledges that the civil aithorities may in some cases intervene in Church disputes and ecclesiastical difficulties." He means, of course, not that I admit the possibility of their interfering, but that I acknow- ledge that they have the right to interfere. In reference to this state* mcnt, I say, — First : That with my whole heart, I disavow and detest what he says 1 acknowledge ; and Second: That my letter of October ijtk, not only gives him no warrant to ascribe such an acknowledgment to me, bui makes him inexcusable in doing so. That the civil authori* ' r- IIm im^ interfere m anjr-ease mtti the pfpcttedings o€ the Chu^ im nlMion ttr her atStt-beaiKts atid! iiie^bef^^ ifr ^Ae^tfitrfAAig tfiftt I db WM^ adlMiir ; tUid I (beT ^re ^at no porson olcftdiiakrf ciabenttTient and* cari^ #Mireaii>fki>td'9ee frt^ nhty iMteP as a* #hd)e, aEnd fi*«m' tibfinitb ataM^i ncBU •cduttibg. tftroughtifnt tile eg«¥s« «>f it thae dt i» /^ ontthmg ttkl^ 1 will' not ailiol^i but eii- the ebiltt*«ftyj ^et^st^titly ^jc^tend a^titaefit Vc^mihsftUnrding' expresstbtis drop]led> ih> the \asMt of a pi«tt^ long aon^ fesi^ol!!', fSt oecasioned' by t9t<^ vety extta^Yagft&ce of your coitespon<9^ em?* Stti)positiOn> how could he* btit say^ that?, even in reflsi-ence to hiir ^'ealfrefne case," I indicate repeatedfy undi diMinctly my conviction tftnV tile remedy suggested^ by h^, vi&, an appeal; \» tlie cml courts, l»«ulti Be at 0BCe wrong' and' dangerous? He will 4ay that I' make an adniit)> 8WIB wfiicfc he cMtasAws equivalHtt toh the ackirowlb(%ment which' h^ aecribes tt> nte: If this be^ so, he ought to' have said- sO. T may assunti tfittt^ at* a person interested- in the di.^nssion now [Moceeding inyooif paper, he fan read my letter of Sept li, ita which I sayj '"We rnnql* grieatiywroifig brethren by charging th«m with holding an erroneoctf |!rmcTple, becanse they hc^tf wftat, ih^ ow judgpnenf, involves it/* N-oiiy It !« jiist stich wrong that your corresp«mdeni iafliets on me: fostead' of saying t^ait F acknowledge what, m psint'of fact, T contend against, h# should; JiHf feirness, have said that, wiSilie contending against the intep^ ferencc of the civil authotlties in df>fy€asei I had ma^ an admissibtf *at he regardfed as meonsis^t wilJi that contention, and equivalent' «i VK acfcnow^ed)gment' which he sserfbes- t»o rtie. Ihstfead of this \ik •ssames that the one is equivalent to the other; and in doing so display* afiiilttre in discernment ^ich may Be sufficient to shield him from tw imputation of disingenuousness. He- does not dfecem between^ th# matter of /^/w7<5f? and' that of yi'rzjv/wrt^i My adinission l^as respeOf tOdiejt>rm(!r; the acknowledgment he ascribes to me has respect- 1* Hie latttr. Privilege is freely and justly accorded to persons actrng '^ an officia! capacity, including civil rulers, and church 0flRcers. Ob' the one hand'j it is freely allowed by the civil auihoritles to church rtuteri^') and' on the other hand, it is fteely accorded' by church rulers to Kei members who are magistrates or judges, or who fill any other oflScMif position. In other words^ it is adtnitted on all hands that persons ac** iirg in any official capacity are entitled to have it /V-^Jwwerf that their prO^ ccedings in that capacity, even though they should, in point of fact^ ra, having, faiil^ UL^iwdr]ihe«4e«vcHirs to assQw xRyv^m rimm. 't)kimaiAx(gt«< o)»J««e^' visMT .mJAtM iiAm oaamsion mpyiits, k«~is aeiuict «raiiioAUf3;«(Hi ^v^ ceipons^jls-: if, oa tk«r<««iiiinum iieiHMlitln«ceajiaa taumditmkrforu wr j, .(I m . 'Hi; 9 m i- ■: tMs pfivilege is, and larj;e as k o^ghi to be, and really 4f, it mar ^t abused, and is not without limits. Ca^es mayan*e, both in civil coiutfv ajp4 ^l church courts, in which it may be a qucstioa whether a man hMIe abused his privilege or acted in such a way that his privilege cannot b4) m^ shelter to him ; and each court must i^ettle the question fitr itsdf. Bu|t tiie i:<;fusal of a court to allow a man the shelter of privilege which iar frilly and laigelv acc(»ded to him, is a wholly different Umi^ from |r tefusal to allow the dist'^xct and independent jurisdiction of the court ol which the man is a member, or from invading or usurping its, jurisdig«« tion. That no man, whatever be his official position, is to be ^llowe(l» Ij the civil authorities to shelter wrong-doing, which it belongs to them t^, tiko cognizance of, under privilege freely accorded him, but which iof their judgment he has abused, does not imply a liberty or right, on thcis l^rty to intarferc with the church's administration, or to meddle in anjft way, or in any case, or under any plea, with her exclusive and indepeoh dent jurisdiction. Reverse the position of the parties. A civil nder isar Viember of a church, and is guilty of receiving bribes and perverting jus- tice, ffts privilege in such a case does not shield him from the censures of the Church ; but, however heavy and just may be the censure inflicted, Ao one will say that the Church's action implies her right to interfere in. matters of civil vadministration, or to invade the exclusive and independ- ent jurisdiction of the civil authorities. There is, and need be, no dis- pute about the matter oi privilege^ and certainly it was not the matter in discussion in the non intrusion controversy. What was contended for, and what was thought ;o have been accorded to the Scottish Church, but what the civil authcritie? of last generation refused to accord, was Bot the jMivileged position of Church rulers, but the distinct and inde- pendent jurisdiction of the Church — a refusal which compelled those Tprho could not acquiesce in it, to take up a position in which certain alleged grounds of that refusal could not be pleaded. We have since seal that other grounds can be pleaded ; and such productions as those pf yodf correspondent only increase our jealousy in relation to the great principle of Church Independence, and our fears that, unconnected with the Stale though we are, a conflict is not far off. If our own minis* ters and p^ojJe, in spite of their professions rf what your correspondent calls " Presbyterian Uitiamontanism," assumed evidently for the pur- Tjose of raising a prejudice against us in reference to our consistency, contend for the supremacy of the civil authorities in spiritual matters, what may not the civil authorities themselves be expected to do ? Putting aside, then, the matter of privilege — leaving both civil and ecclesiastical mlcrs to determine for themselves whether or not an official terson subject io them, as a citizen in the one case, or a member of the Church in the uther,* has acted so as to place himself beyond the shelter *I haix refetcnceh ere to the rasomng of "Presbyterum, " that xHh". civil court bu a ririit tc determine w^m a Chu .ch Ruler, aetir.g oin«iaIly, has brokea the law of thtt 1«M, it has a sapreaucj >;: ^^^1 administration or the law of the Church. The absur- dity of this is suhicientlj apparent from what is said above ; but I may add that the Qf,;his- priTilcge,— we hold the Presbyterian doctrine^ t^at th^ Church, apd the civil government have each its own prpper spHere, and each itis^ Cffm distinct, an4 independent, jurisdiction ; thak, spnnging tliough they hfvAi do from the same source, the appointment of Cjod,.thc.6ne does' not come throuji^ the channel of the other; and that neither is sub(^<^i^' nate to the other,. so that there can be no appeal from the ope to the^ other. If any such appeal is made, it should be i>i^^»//v,.dismissediy iiithout examinatiauj so soon as the terms of it are understood. T^ijl^ f resbyterian doctrine is equally a protest against Romish assumption o'^ tl^e one hand, and against Erastian supremr'^y on the other. Presbyte- zian Ultramontanism " is a contradiction la terms, and equally so is, ''Presbyterian Eras^ianism." To excite a prejudice against us by speal;; iog of us as " highflyers," and by charging us with Romish assumption, is nothing new. When men talk in this way, they only do as their fathers did thirty years ago. How differently they would speak if they knew the weight even of the Pope's little finder ! In opposition to those who say this doctrine of co-ordinate jurisdiction may sound well as a theory, but it won't work in practice, we confidently say that no other doctrine can work anything but evil, and that the history of the past evinces the wisdom ot God in appointing that the civil and the ecclesias- tical jurisdiction should be entirely separate and mutually independent Though it is to. the clear apprehension and maintenance of this great principle by our fathers, that British liberty owes more than perhaps to anything else, yet, it would seem, it is so much a spiritual principle th^t men are unwilling to receive it, as they are in relation to the peculiar and simple gospel^ which is equally remote both from legalism an(j| antinomianism. ^,r Allow me, before closing, to refer to a charge of inconsistency t^rought against us. I would not do so in this letter were it not tt "Presbyterian" makes common cause with another corre^pon- it (L. M. N. ), who founds his charge on the fact t^ai we re- solved recently that, if the majority shall ask the Legislature to pass an act which, we believe, would alienate property from the purpose to which it was originally destined, we shall ask them not to do so. My references to this charge will be such as may throw some further light upom the subject of my letter. I shall suppose, what I have not the slightest fear of, another "extreme case." I shall suppose that at the General Assembly next June, the majority considering that we are no longer to be borne with in our opposition to Union, as they l^ould say, or in oiir dissatisfaction with the terms of it, as we would say, and believing that the good of the Church requires it. should surnma* rily depose and excommunicate us all, present and absent alike with- out distinction: then whatever we might do, there is one thing we would not do. We would not appeal our case to the civil courts. Such appeal on any plea would be utterly inconsistent with our prin- rifht t9 determine finally jf»r themselves WMEtf Ihe laws which they respectively td* minister we fovekea, :s of the xssbnce of the i.^ependetue of both courts. « ifH 15." ■! '.'I il tft • ill" ■I acc6td!tt|f t!^'#hr<*ff; tfitty'iiifW8ft«dd.ttwke it, itthouM be id^ illmtly; dismissed, without investigatioD, and without t}i« intrpdiictMlfe^ ^ il»y ,^tf«/f wfcate^v^r, iniliidi is only a pretext far tSie invasion by the ciiH authorities of a proyinpc that does not belong to th«m. Of cocrie we would not be without our reinedy. BijHerifag thai Ae sentcncf^ piMsed upon us was pevfettly null atid void in heaven, we would treat tt a« null and void. We would, without a thought of civil courts, auH^ i^t to the sentence as severing our cotuiection. with at) apostatisinfj^ If not apostate, bbdy ; but we would, at the same time, wttjiout payiJ« lihe slightest respect to il, hold ourselves to be divinely appointed ioinisters of Jesus Christ, ds wiuch as be^re, but more honoured than bKore, as being persecuted for the tnith*s ssAit, and we would act ac» <;ordihgly. But suppose my congregation, having the tame views a* X ftkye, possessing property which they contributed to the afiq^&ition Of ibr 4vi^ purpose, ai^. unwiRing that it shook! be alienated to what; tjhey believe to be a di:9%rent purpose, and dediiie, though tfiey adlicre to me, to be dispossessed of their property until the crVil authorities' with whom rests the final and irreversible disposal of all property, shs^ pronounce they have lost their right to it. Can any man m his rigftt senses say they are inconsistent; or sav that I am inconsistent, becai.ie 1 4o not insist upon their giving up their property till the civil authoi^l i6es say it is no longer theirs ? I do not dispute the superior siv^lic^ of thip American ruling on this subject. Your correspondent say%' "The civil courts vn the United Slates have ruled that they will withota WvestigaUon give Icgsdrorcft in thie disposal of Church property to -diti decision of a majority of ^« body by Which it was held." It would be more satisfactory if all civil courts, whether British or American, were to rule that they would without investigation dismiss all references made to ^em respecting matters with whidi they have absolutely nothing to d<^ without divestingthemselves of their right, or renouncing flieir obhfatioil to do their best in determining in matters whose fi^l determinating l^longs to them. .1 trust you win excuse the length of this letter, which when I began ft, I had no thoug;ht would be so fong. I have no wish but to be help* ftil in the settlement one way or the other, of flle grea' question no# before the Churcli. But let me say that, if it is to be settled in th/e way ol satisfactory Union, it will not be by the communications of thoae who deny the Church's independent jurisdiction, in <7»?/r letter, and, tt Oie nexty plead for the civB magistrate dSvesting liftnbelf dhts jurisdic*- tiigto, and who maVe Ehistianism to consist in the refusal of a minoritir tp submu themselves :i jud|;itieiit, concience atid estate to iStUt qjngority. If such want to damage the cause of Union, kt them p^ wvere : if not, let them leave the matter to those who, like somedf ■Qur correspondents on the other side, are capable of nnderstajxditit it position of their opponents,, and are incapable of misrepresezKdH «her their uttentnces or theif fl**tio«s. "^ ^^'l ««^ mlm^% /^Swlf llora, Nov. it, itTj. J»T3; JA«i£S MI A^-A^MjtMi&IL SOO. ■He '$=& q CHURCH IIH>El»ENDENeE AND ULTRAMONTANHSMl'^^^ My dear Sm, — After havmg^occ^pred n tiiiscllx of'fom s^ot} if is not without hesitation that I ask further indulgence. But the subject of Church Independence is so imports^, and mi^re ir so nntciSf misapprehension fil relation to it, thAt Y bMreve yon do good service' to the Church in keeping your paper open to discussion on it. It is in this belief that; I crave room for some remaps occasioned by the M/r^ letter of "Presbyterian," and the mLeflri<»s put t:hat her courts keep by the laws she has made, and of judging fiiwily whether she has; dode so or not. At tfie same time he seemed to be aware that thete was some dangsr iil^ this, for he adds immediately, ** Yet, on the other hand, it would noT answer well if Church Courts, at every turn in the administration^ of discipline^ were to be threatened with civH pains and penalties as; iiaving trenched on character or vested ti^ts." To this I answered^/ that, while I would speak of it as a tf^emfy^i evil, I could not see that he could refiise to the civil courts the ri^ht thus to interfere, ^ tjie remedy in the extreme case was to be such as he suggested. '^ But while contehdiiig against the subjectibh of the Chvrch, in hti^ administration of her laws, to the civil authorities^ I contend, witl^ i|0 less earnestness, that Church Rulers are ainenable to the Iawo£ tWeii" country, and tiiat whenever ih^j hit^k \t, W^kkvtr cafoiiiji tliey may be actffil when they do so, they ought to bfe punishwf. If contend thjlt the chardi Ruler who, " uikfer die cloak of administtt^' a8 ing discipline, brands a man as infamous, though innocent," etc., ought to be punished, and that without any " alternative" and with especial severity, because of tke most peculiar heinousness cf his crime. This is the whole amount of what your correspondent, in his second letter, represents, and, in his third letter, persists in represent- ing, as my acknowledgment that the civil authorities have the right in some cases to interfere in Church diniculties and ecclesiastical dis- putes. Presuming upon the intelligence and candour of your corres- pondent and your res^^rs, ithe necessity of ^xpresisi^g myself in very guarded language did not occur to me. But in looking over my first letter on the subject, I cannot see anything that would warrant any honest-minded person to ascribe anyuiing to me, except the denial to ecclesiastical person?, of, ihp^ privilegium clericale or hnefit of dergy^ our detestation of whic^,^ in. every fQrm and degree of it, cannot be too starong, while we freely grant to them the privilege common to all offi- cial persons, and refipi^eil tQiin niy second let;ter on thjus subject. ,, ,^ Your correspondent* however, will have it that my view on this point involves the right of appeal hy the injured man to the civil courts; and from this, he says, it follows that the civil courts have the right of final disposal in the ecclesiastical case in which the crime originated. And inasmuch as I affirinpd, that according to the Presbyterian doc- trine, there can be no appeal from the court of the one jurisdiction to that of the other, he intimates, in the style of one who has no earnest qonvictious, that he is delighted with my "saying and unsaying the same thing.^' Now, in poiiit of fact, his delight and self-complacency j^ise simply from his own confusion of thought, — from an inability to distinguish between things that diflfer, which more or less characterizes all his communications. In reference to the matter now before us, he overlooks the difference between two very distinct senses in which the word " appeal" is used, the one popular and the other technical. When 4, man resorts, in the first instance, to a court, civil oi ecclesiastical, in the way of bringing befpre it any wrong-doing with which it is com- petent for it to deal, h^ is s^id to appeal to it ; but this is not making an appeal in the technical sense of the term, which implies the remov^ of a cause that has been already tried, from the court in which it was tried to a court of higher jurisdiction. I n-ed not occupy your space by illustrating a distinction the simple statement of which makes it sufficiently obvious. It is in this technical seiise that I use the term, when I say ** that there cgin be no appeal from the one court to the other/' And I maintain that the fullest recognition of the utter incom- petency of an appeal in this sense, on the ground of the difference of lunsdiction, is no way inconsistent Avith the possession of a right of res«rt to the civil autLorides against an ecclesiastical person, who ^' under cloak" of actihg in his official capacity, commits a crime, or is guilty of an offence which is, in its own essential character, such as to he cognizable by a civil court. If I am mistaken in supposing ^t the " extreme case/' as your correspondent pvt it, involves such ., .' ■ - ■ vis m. m. o if etc., nth his a crime, that is The questions I have to propose at* the fOlld#iii|^ ; Firsts On the supposition that certain property is held in trust for the maintenance and promulgation of certain religious views, and that the church to Which the property belongs, determines, by a majority, to change its principles, say from Orthodoxy to Socinianism, or from Socinianism to Orthodoxy, the minority protesting, Separating, and appealing to the civil authorities as to the future use of the property, or defenditiq them- selves against such appeal made by the majority; does the civil court, in forming its own independent judgment on the conditions of the trust, and deciding acordingly, invade the turisdiction of the church, or do anything inconsistent with its spiritual mdependence ? Second^ Narrow- ing the case, by further supposing 'hat the majority maintain there is no ehange of principle, as averred by the minority ; does the civil court, in still forming its own independent judgment, and deciding accord- ingly, invade the jurisdiction of the Church? Let your correspon- dents consider these questions, looking at the matter to which they refer, in all its btarings, and taking care how they commit themselves. And until they are satisfactorily disposed of, let the charge of incon- sistency remain in abeyance. I shall allow them, in the meantime, tQ pass over another question, that may afterwards be considered, viz. : Does an application to Parliament m relation to property, by a majo- Se« note on page 35. 9. 1^ or by a minority^ imply their recognition of the tu|>reina':y of the dvil power io rekticn to.p^itters withia the Church's distinct and ex^m> five jurisdicliOQ ; or does it do so only on the part of the minority, and, ;jf so, on what ground does it do to on the part«f the one and not^f ' the other ? While proposing the above questions to your correspondents, In ^scuscing which it is their part to tsd^e the lead, as making a charge which depends upon a settlement of them, and whieh it is their part to ■ustain, let me say that I earnestly hope and pray that there may be no disruption ; and that if there is, everything may be done that is necct- ; ^•arv to prevent the scandal and other evils of litigation. I consider it \ little less than heartless in X. Y. Z. to seek to drag me into a discus* | 4ion about what I would do in circumstances that I cannot thidb.jpf' i^thout pain, and that I have no wish to speak of. I really do n9t ' rknow what I would do. There are elements in the determination ^f such questions as he puts, that he evidently has no idea of. And let Bie further say that it was not quite hrnourable in ••Presbyterian," z a .. .x..^ i. There is ohe thi^g that I can hardly leave out particular reference to. His last paragraph is perhaps the worst thing he has written in the tourse of this discussion. It is hard for me to believe that he is so ad- mirably innocent, as to think that my complaint respecting his improper use of his knowledge of my name had reference to his M/>^ letter, and not to his second, in which he introduced the matter of Church property. And how can I characterize his insinuation tliat I entertain a doubt in Reference to the warrantableness of an application to the civil court in relation to the disposal of Church property ? He knows from the questions J proposed, and which he cannot venture to answer, that I have no doubt on that point. To speak of such an appiication as an appeal from the decision of the Assembly to the civil court, is another instance of his inability to discriminate betwixt things that are essentially different, and a begging of the question at issue. And any measure of good feeling, combined with the exercise of ordinary judgment, would have made him see that my avowed inability to say what I would do in certain circum- stances, had no respect whatever to the cause which he insinuates. In parting with *♦ Presbyterian," as probably I now do, let me state an impression made on my mind by careful attention to what he has written. Having, as he says, been always suspicious that there was a deal of Erastianism in ^he *• Highfliers," he cannot reasonably complain if one of them, founding exclusively upon a " conjunct view of his whole appearance," should express a suspicion oi him. To be frank, I cannot vest my mind of the idea that he is shamming Ultramontanism, and has been doing controversial hocus pocus in your columns. I can no more believe that he is an Ultramontanist than I can believe him to be a Mohammedan ; while the general strain of his references to Erastian- ism, and his low views of the Church, indicated, for instance, in his speaking of it as a " religious firm," almost convince me that he is Eras- jban to the core. rffiss 1? I am, yours truly, ,j- Elora, Jan. 23, 1874. JAMES MIDDLEMISS. ♦ See my next letter. n: (British American Presbyterian, March /j, IS74)- CHURCH INDEPENDENCE. Editor British American Frusbyterian. My dear Sir, — I would probably not have troubled yoii firther on the subject of Church Independence, had I not been ?ed to enter- t^'n the design of publishing, in another form, the letters which I have written for your paper. In view of this, I would add another, havin^; especial reference to the unworthy attempt to subject to groundless re- proach certain brethren of the Canada Presbyterian Church. The additional remarks that I now ask your insertion of would not be necessary^ were it not that there are so many who lend a ready ear to the misrepresentatons of disingenuousness or want of discernment, and so many others who are apt to be perplexed by them. For the sake of the latter, especially, I am willing to be at any pains, in exhibit- ing our sound Presbyterian doctrine in relation to the supremacy of the Churoh and the civil power — a doctrine of the utmost importance both in its assertion of the independence of the Church, in opposition to the Etastian claiin of the civil powers; and in its assertion of the supremacy of the civil power, in opposition both to the teachings of Rome, and to. the statements of parties who cannot or will not understand the doc- trine of their own Church, or see that, Uke so many essential truths, it is Xht Juste milieu between two most dangerous extremes. A Church holding, as ours is understood to do, the doctrine of its own supremacy, subject only to Christ, in all matters spiritual, is sup- p<»ed to contemplate a certain decision, which will, in the judgment of.a minority, involve a departure from the principles of the Church, in which they may not be able conscientiously to concur. Whether the decision has respect to doctrine relating to the prophetic^ the priestly, or the /^/«^/y office of Christ, does not affect the present argument. In view of this contemplated decision, the majority, in the name of the Church, apply to the legislature asking a modification of the law relating to their property or real estate, and the minority present a counter ap- plication. In reference to these applications, it may be held; -^'f-*"f> Th^-t both imply an acknowledgement of the supremacy of the civil power in matters spiritual ; or. Second, That neither implies such an ac- knowledgment ; or, Third, That the ?pplicarion of the minority does, while that of the majority does not. I have no reason to think that the first position will be maintained by any minister or member of the Can- ' 38 ada Presbjrterian Church, whatever may be the views of those outside of it. The present discussion is between those who maintain, as I do, that neither application impHes anything inconsistent with the fullest persuasion of the Church's proper supremacy ; and those who insist, as some of your correspondents do, that it is only the application of the minority that imples an acknowledgment of the right of civil power to supremacy in spiritual matters. It is evid..nt that the mere fact of appli- cation implies the very same acknowledgment of the supremacy of the civil power by both parties. Both acknowledge the supremacy af the legislative branch of the civil power, in the making and modifying of all laws relating to the tenure of church property; and the supremacy of the judical branch of it, in the interpretation and application of these laws. And both parties being not "Presbyterian Ultramontanists," but simply intelligent Presbyterians, this supremacy is recognized by them both, as being not only an actual but a rightful supremacy. If the mere fast of the application implies anything more than this on the part of the min- ority it must do so also on the part of the majority. But yoi r correspondents do not see this. One of them while "standin^ aghast" at the inconsistency of the minority, ridicules the incompetency of the legislature, not perceiving that the minority recog- nise only the competency which the majority acknowledge — an official competency, — and that they may believe as firmly as he does, and with a much more pungent sorrow, that the legislature is warting in the intellectual and moral competency which its members ought to possess to qualify them for the exercise of an acknowledged office-power and right. The same writer speaks of the minority's application as a submit- ting of certain documents to be judged by the legislature, not perceiving that the application of the majority involves the very same thing, the only difference being that the ore says, "Look into the documents and you; will see that they are the same," and the other says "Look into them and you will see they are different." Unless the legislature is to con- side/ itself the mere tool of the majority, they must require good reasons for legislating, and act according to their own judgment on the reasons assigned. And here let me c?y that, if I had any object in view other ^^ than the exhibition of the right and the wrong in relation to a "jubject of -V growing interest throughout all Christendom, I might be disposed to fe- ^ mind "Presbyterian" that, according to his own admission, the applica- tion to the legislature by the majority as an attempt to secure foi them- selves a legal right to more than they have a moral claim to — an attempt to induce the legislature to give sanction to an immoral claim. But I let that pass. The same want of discernment appears in the statement that the minority, in presenting their counter-application, are seeking to make the power of the legislature in relation to property to bear upon the majority so as to prevent union. For this application recognizes and ii. m seeks the exercise of no power but that which the majority recognixe and seek the exercise ot. In their application they are seeking to make^ the power of the legislature in relation to property to bear upon the min- , ority for the furtherance of union. The success of the application of either party may operate as a temptation to keep the other pa/ty from following what they may conceive to be the line of duty — in the one - case Union, in the other separation. But that is a very different mat-, ter from the exercise of power claimed and put forth by the civil au- ; thorities, with the express design of controlling the action of the Church, in her administration of the law of her only Head. The acknow- . ledgment oino such supremacy is involved in the application oi either ^^ party. l Again to speak of the application of the minority as an appeal against an ecclesiastical decision is to utter pure and undiluted nonsense* There is no decision to appeal against. The Church has decided * nothing. The minority are simply counter-petitioners to the majority, ; in relation to a matter in which the Church's acknowledged place is ' that of subjection to another authority than her own. ^ If it be said that the application of the minority implies their in- \ tention to appeal to the judicial branch of the civil power against an ec- 5 clesiastical decision, I answer, it implies no such thing. The minority ) have no such intention. When the time comes (and I hope we shall t all pray and labour incessantly that it may never come) for the minor-:* ity to appeal against an ecclesiastical decision, their appeal will not be ?. made to the civil pov/er ; and when the time comes for them to apply i to the civil power, their application will not be an appeal against an ec-T clesiastical decision. When the Chui\.h, by her majonty, has pronoun- s ced the decision which the minority cannot, with a good conscience,^, concur in or submit to, then the minority knowing that the Church isfi responsible only to Christ for the decision it has pronounced, knov/ing ' that He has committed to Church rulers the keys ot the kingdom of heaven, and that they are subject only to Mim in their use of them; but \ Knowing, at the same time, that they may err, and greatly err, in their use of the keys, and believing that this particular decision has been pronounced clave errante, and is contrary to the mind of Christ, theyriJ will appeal to Him and to Him alone. In other words, they will separate, !> believing that the majority have, contrary to their solemn engagements, i departed from the principles of the Church. I presume it will be ad- ' mitted that this appeal involves the fullest acknowledgment of the Church's peculiar supremacy, — nay, that is the strongest expression and proof the minority can give of their recognition of the supremacy of the Church and the due supremacy of the majority, while they cannot allow the injallibility of either (see Confession of Faith chap. xxxi). I pre- sume even our sham Ultramontanists will not require argument on this point. * I-etters of Presbyterian, *^L. M. N. and X" Y. Z. everywhere I,:; 1 i -I 40 Thert are now then two separate and distinct churches, each, let lis ■appose, claiming identity with the Church that has been broken up, and denyirg the other's identity with it. These two Churches are as" distinct as any other two ecclesiastical organizations of the land. The one is nof subject to the other and owes it no allegiance. A.s the majority" are responsible only to Christ for the decision to which the minority' cannot submit, so the minority arc resp nsible only to Christ for their action in not submitting. The minority may be right, and must not be- charged with inconsistency tor acting on the presumption [that they arel, And further, they are equal, perfectly equals in the eye of the law of the" land, which cannot justly rtiscriminate in favour of Churches according to their numerical strength. But there is propi.^ \ be disposed of, and the civil power alone can dispose of it. It is ; ^ed that it has the exclusive right to dis- pose of it, and that the exercise of this right is in full consistency with the proper supremacy of the Church. Bu*^ it is affirmed that, if the minority shall assert, or sanction the assertion of a legal right to the property or any portion of it, they will be acting inconsistently with their doctrine respecting the supremacy of the Church. That is to say, a Church, possessing all ecclesiastical powers, not subject XxiZXiy other Church, having, it is admitted, a moral right to a portion of the proper- ty in que: tion, and whose very action in separating from the majority' implies its persuasion that it has a legal right to the whole, must, on the sole ground that it is numerically weaker than another Church which, it believes, has no legal right to the property, refrain from asserting its' right and forbid all its congregations to do so; ehe it acts inconsist- ently with the spiritual independence of the Church. If this is not the ne plus ultr^ of absurdity, I do not know what is. The man who maintain^ it is not to be reasoned with. Your correspondents of courseP do not maintain it ; but, like all false accusers of the brethren, they do '' their best to deceive themselves and mislead other.j by their fallacious re- presentations of the state of the case. I have challenged them to say^ wHether, in the case before us, the civil courts, in determining accord- ing to their own independent judgment, invade the jurisdiction of the Church, or do anything inconsistent with its spiritual indepen- dence. That challenge they decline accepting. They know doubt- less that they cannot answer the question otherwise than in the negative. That, it seems, they are unwilling to do, because ^ hey are unwilling to depart from a charge which is manifestly groundless, if the minority are asking the civil power to do nothing inconsistent with the proper supremacy of the Church. And accordingly they will, with to6* manv others of the same spirit, persevere in their endeavours to mislead the prejudiced and the inconsiderate. I trust their success may be' sraa.ll. I believe that when the minority are represented as appealing to the civil power against'an ecclesiastical decision, discerning and candid people will see that there is no decision to appeal against^ and that their application to the civil power has respect to a matter in which the ma- *• it^ _.ii .J 41 jontjr, nave w nr^-w, and cuum nd rtffit to decide, and iir relation tp wliicK their proper place is that of subjection equally witii the minority j anidtfiat when their promise of due subjection to eccleaiasticaj authon^ is appealed to us barring them from the assertion of" a moral and legal xi^t, all such readers wUl see that the minority are not bound to sutjec- - tton to a church, against whose decision they have appealed to Chi.ist, on the ground that that decision is, in their judgment, to the prejudice, and subversion of principles which they solemnly engaged to maintained whatever trouWe or persecution might arise. It ifif said that the attempt of the minority to sustain a legal right, inJi the onl^ way in which it can be sustained, implies the right of civil judges to examine ecclesiastical documents and to decide in accordance, r/^th tliiir ovn views of them, which may be contrary to the views of the Church. If there is anything wrong, in this, I trust your readers , will see that it is not the ptMoritjf alone that are responsible for it. Thf| majoril^ are^«a//y responsible for having their trusts so framed as ta nepessimte such examination on the part of the judges. All references, ta the infcbmpetency of the judges are aside from the question. They, alone have the right and the power of deciding in the matter; and not, only have they the right, biit they are bound to use all available means that , are necessary to enable them to form an intelligent and independent*, judgment. And when they decide accordingly, tiiey no more interfere with the spiritual independence of the Church, in deciding against the majority, tikan they do in deciding against the minority, whose Church possesses the same' independence as the other. The decision simply involves the expense" and inconvenience to the one party t«at the op^^ posite decision would do to the other. It it be said, May not thc^ dread of an adverse decision operate as a temptation to keep the m%>.. jority from doing what they believe to be their duty ? the reply is, The , same thing is true of the minority. But to represent an action of the magistrate acting in his own sphere, which operates incidentally as a temptation, as being identical with the forth-putting of his power to con- trol and concuss Church Courts, is an instance of confusion of thought which, I trust, not many besides your correspor dents will be capable oil; "Presbyterian" having begun with ascribing to the civil power a right to invade the jurisdiction of the Church, — to control ^e administra^;, tdon of the law of Christ's kingdom, — now insists on civil judges making themselves the tools of the Church or of its majority. They alone can decide in questions of Church property ; but they ought to decide as the majority requires the -n to decide. They are to ignore the law of the,^ land in relation to Church property ; they must not look at the Trust deeds ; but whe.: two Churches dispute about property they must give it to tbe bigger one. It is the American way.* It may have been so from , tke days of Walter Van Twiller, of whom the authentic Knickerbocker Vi.' w J. J ...... - '..i .. »■ * I do n6t believe it is, though Presbyterian s&ys so* 1 1 .1 records that, having decided according to the number of the leaves and the weight of the books of the parties in a suit, he thereby established his reputation as a magistrate, saved himself a world of trouble, and put an end to litigation all the rest of his days. However unable "Presbyterian" may be to see the truth that lies between his alternative of the civil power being either the invader of the Church's province or her /i?^/, he may be sure the fault is entirely his own; that it can be seen, and that many others see it. There are many who can conceive of civil judges seeing it clearly, and saying to a majority against whom they decide, "We are satisfied that you Lave departed materially from the principles referred to in this trust, as of. course you have a perfect right to do to any extent. It appears also, that you have deposed and excommunicated your brethren, who profess that they cannot consent to the change you have made. This toe /ou have an unquestionable power to do. It belongs to you to make and niodify terms of Church office and membership, under a responsibility tdChrist alone. These are matters with which we have nothing to do. Had your brethren applied to us to exercise our powe: in any way, with the view of influencing you in the slightest degree in your decisions in these matters, we would have dismissed their application without inves- tigation, the instant we understood what they wished us to do. But they ask us to decide in a matter that belongs to us, and not to you any more than it does to them. It is true you plead that you have not departed from the principles referred to in the Trust. You are at perfect liberty to think so, but we differ from you ; and you must be aware that, in a matter in which it belongs to us to decide, we must follow our own judgment and not yours." And we can even conceive they might add, "We are personally of the opinion that your principles are now more in accordance with Scripture than they were before, and we are glad you have resisted the temptation arising from the apprehen- sion of our adverse decision. But unfortunately we differ from you in believing, after careful consideration of the Trust and other documents submitted by you and others, that you have departed from the principles referred to in the Trust, and that the other party in the suit adheres to them, so that we are obliged to decide against you." And if the majority were so foolish as to tell these judges that their decision was an inter- ference with the spiritual independence of the Church, they would simply reply, "It is no more so, than our decision against the minority would be. We recognize the spiritual independence of you both, and of theirs equally with yours -, but, at the same time, we shall maintain cur own, and not determine our solemn judgments by counting tlie heads of the parties before us." I shall, with your leave, analyse the contents of "Presbyterian's" nutshsll in your next issue. I am, yours truly, Elora, March 7, 1874. JAMES MIDDLEMISS. VI (Brituh American Presbyttrtan, March ao, 1874.) THE TWO SUPREMACIES. Editor British American Presbyterian. My Dear Sir, — I proceed now to the examination of the contents of .the "nutshell" which "Presbyterian" has presented to your readers, as his final contribution on behalf of "Presbyterian Ultramontanism," and which, I feel sure, he would not have ventured to present over his own signature. I shall state his argument fairly, as I think all will admit, and, though more generally than he p«ts it, I hope not less clearly. He represents me as "allowing intervention by the civil power in the administration ot the affairs of Christ's Church only when its rulers have under cloak of administering its affairs, committed a crime against the law of the land." From this he argues that, inasmuch as it is no crime for the majority to say that they Tiave not departed from the principles of the Church even though they kave done so, their error being one of judgment, I am inconsistent in allowing the intervention of the civil power in the disposal of Church property. My inconsistency lies in this that I allow the intervention of the civil power only in one case and also in another. I presume he does not mean to include in the expression, "affairs of the Church," everything that the Church is interested in or has need of as being convenient and serviceable to her, and to say that I hold that the civil power has nothing to do with anything that the Church is thus interested in, I'his would be saying what he knows to be untrue. And he kno^s besidetJ that in the matter of property, which the Church is necessarily interested in, the civil power has something to do, the difference betwixt us being, that he would have it to ex- ercise its acknowledged authority as being the mere tool of the majority, while I maintain its right and obligation to form an independent judgment. What, then, does he mean ? Of course that I disallow the interference of the civil power that he pleaded for in his first letter, — ^an interference in the way of attempting to control the rvlers of the church in the discharge of their peculiar function, the administration of the law. of Christ's kingdom. I need not repeat the )' I 44 language in which he pleaded for this interference. He knows that I disallowed, in the most decided way, the interference he pleaded for» and disallowed it even in the "extreme case," in which I supposed the guilty parties might have acted criminally. Yet he says I allow it in am case and on/y one. Surely he knows I do not allow such interference in any case. Surely he knows that, after his first letter, the Erastianism of which he professes to have renounced, the question betwixt us has been, not, JVAm or in what case or cases may the judges of the land interfere to control Church Rulers in the discharge of their peculiar function ? but, Does certain action of civil judges in relation to ecclesiastical persons constitute or involve such in- terference ? I laid down the great and important principle that civil judges have the right, and are under obligation to regard ecclesiastical persons as standing in the same relation to the law of the land as other i persons, and to regard and treat as criminal in them what they regard, and treat as criminal in others ; and I have maintained that in doing, this, their bounden duty in their own sphere — they do not encroach' upon the peculiar province of church rulers, or interfere in ecclesiastical administration. I have challenged "Presbyterian " to prove the con- trary. He does not attempt to do so, for he knows he cannot. Hc: knows that this action of civil judges, in taking cogniiance of criminal conduct without distinction of persons, is not interference yriih. the rule of the Church. And yet, though I have afiirmed that it is not, and have challenged him to prove him thatitw^ he has the marvellous auda- city (under a mask to be sure) to say that it is a case of interference which I allow. And thus the argument falls to the ground, being ba- sed upon what is, in point of fact, simply untrue. In reference to what he says about the minority not bowing to the majority, and ab^ut their submitting ecclesiastical documents to be judged by the civil authorities, I need not say an)^hing, as I would only be repeating what I said in my last letter on these points. In a word, while I say that I allow «^€i^am'>^r>^^^sSi^^-x^Ssf^mi. -