Let me, in the last place, direct your attention, which I shall now do very briefly, to THE CLAIMS OF This Independency.

I hold, my friends, that Independency has high claims upon us, because it is of divine origin. It has sometimes been said, that absurd doctrines have been entertained as doctrines of divine right; for example, the divine right of kings to govern wrong; the divine right of prelacy, the divine right of the presbytery; the divine right, in a variety of instances, applied to human affairs. And hence, to speak of any thing as a "divine right," appears to me to adopt a phraseology that the world and the Church have agreed to banish from their vocabulary.

Now let me, for a moment, look at this readiness to throw away this phrase. It is not because there is no divine right, that it is absurd to apply it to certain things; it is just because it has been improperly applied. And if we are to run down every phrase that has been improperly applied, we shall find ourselves utterly destitute of a vocabulary that can convey just views of our feelings and sentiments to one another. But I hold that the Bible stands on the ground of divine right: no one can question this. The Bible has a divine right to demand our obedience; it has a divine right to assert its doctrines; it has a divine right to urge its precepts. The Saviour, when he appeared, had a divine right to introduce a new economy: the Apostles had a divine right to diffuse the knowledge of the economy thus introduced. And hence, under these circumstances, we find divine right constantly illustrated, and very properly applied.

Now whatever has the divine sanction, has a divine right to the extent of its demands upon the conviction, and the feelings, and the practices of all. Unless we are to throw away divine right from the Bible, divine right from the Redeemer, and from the Apostles, we must not deny any thing merely because divine right is connected with it. And hence I have no hesitation in speaking, according to my conviction, a sketch of which I have laid before you-in speaking of the divine right of Independency. I call it a divine right, because I find nothing else in the New Testament. It has a divine right, therefore, I would say, to claim your homage. It does not appear to me that anything else is contained in the Oracles of Truth; and therefore I am bound to admit these oracles; inasmuch as I conceive the system comes directly from God: for the field over which I have been travelling, is a field which the Holy Ghost has planted; and the fruits that grow up in it are of the right-hand planting of God. Whether I may be right in the view I have taken of the Word of God on this question, is another thing: but let me assert that this system is in the Word of God, or any other system, and I am bound to accompany that assertion by a corresponding one, that that system is a system founded on divine right.

But again: I would urge the claims of Independency, because I think Independency best suited to the moral constitution of man. My friends, we cannot, upon the grand question of religion, yield to the veto of any individual, or the authority of any individual, and so give up our conviction or knowledge. Whether those convictions may be groundless or not, and whether that knowledge may be correct or erroneous, our faculties are not at our bidding, like the

limbs of our body. We cannot stretch out the understanding to receive that which is obviously unsuited to its conceptions, as we can stretch out the hand to accept of punishment to which we may be compelled to submit. We have no power over our understandings; opinions have power over them; and where we come in contact with these opinions, we must yield to them: if those understandings are enlightened in a proposition, they dare not refuse it. Take a man whose understanding has thus been enlightened, whose judgment has been convinced: bring him to the stake; threaten him with all the punishment which persecuting invention can possibly discover as applicable to the tormenting of his body; bring that punishment to bear upon him: but you have not touched the understanding: that dwells, shielded from your vengeance, within the tabernacle that you are taking down, and which, when you have succeeded in taking down that tabernacle, will ascend with its convictions to heaven. You cannot touch the powers and faculties of the human mind: you may compel the individual to profess what he does not believe; you have the word of his lips; but his thoughts are not with you. You may compel the individual, either by bribes, or by torture, or by some other improper influence, to turn away from the opinions that would enlighten him, and thus keep him in darkness, and so carry his mind with you. But you succeed in this just because you do it at a certain stage; you prevented it going farther in inquiry and in its progress towards development; you denounced it, because it was ignorant, at that moment to be a slave; a slave it became : it acts henceforth in the chains in which you at that time enclosed it. And you succeed, in exercising your dominion over it, not because you are capable of touching its faculties, but because you have taken them before they were informed and matured, and prevented their being informed and matured. And if you glory in the homage done by faculties thus paralyzed in the outset of their intellectual career, your glory is not good. But this system requires no such trammelling of the powers of the intellect: all are free; every one acts under the influence of the principles of the Gospel: the Word of God is the common fountain of information for all: and hence, when to that Word of God all come, if some should have one interpretation of a passage, and some another; the Independent system admits of forbearance in this instance; and unless there is a direct violation of the recorded decisions of the God of Truth, that forbearance will be extended to the parties.

that Indepen

But again, without dwelling further on this point, I would say, dency has its claims upon all, because it is suited to extend the Gospel of Christ throughout the universe. Other systems, my friends, may for a moment be glanced at in this department of the discussion before us, but without at all attempting to go into their frame-work, or their working.

Let me suppose a nation to create a Christian machinery, for the purpose e extending the truth throughout the earth; and that nation has identified its efforts with its revenues, with its laws, with its diplomacy, with all its move ments; then what would be the connexion thus established between that nation, and the nation on whose religion it was going to make a national attack? Could you say that connexion were a friendly connexion, grounded on the common principles of international law? Could you attack, for example, the empire of Turkey, by a mission, sustained by the national revenues, the national power, and

the national religion of England? Would it be possible to begin a mission upon such a principle? Should we not have immediately from the Divan a most solemn protestation against this contempt of the religion of the empire? Should we not have from the ambassador at our court the most solemn notifications of his high displeasure, and the instructions he had received from his master to put a period to this national crusade upon the religion of Turkey? Would it be possible to interfere with the religion of France, any more than with the religion of Turkey, under those circumstances? Would it be possible to interfere with the religion of any nation, if nations only were to manage the means of Christian instruction? Would not the world remain ignorant and untutored to the last? Would it not be fair to say, "We give you the opportunity of trading with us; we give you full scope for commerce and political relationship; but we do not desire you to take on yourselves to issue the fiat of your government, and sustain with the weight of your finances and the weight of your power, to overthrow the principles which we have chosen to profess." But let Independency take the place of a nation on such an occasion; and let the humble followers of Christ go forth, as they do, with their lives in their hands; let them meet all the consequences of opposition and persecution; let them raise the standard of the cross where they involve no national policy, and excite no popular jealousy; and let them hold up the spiritual things, and go out and speak to sinners perishing for lack of knowledge, and not stand by the might of any arm but the arm of God; and here is the very way in which the leaven may be cast into the meal, and extend its leavening power, until the whole lump is leavened. I know no system which can thus operate, except the system to which I have referred you; and therefore I press its claims on this groundthat it can go out into any land to carry out the Gospel, and provide a spiritual machinery for its ornament and defence, which no other system can accomplish. If it should be said, this might be done by a religious body in the land, unconnected with the nation-I here again deny it might be done. Some good might be done in either of the ways I have been referring to: but still this assembly would be looked to by the nation to which it had sent out its ministry, and regarded as an active body of men, exercising the judicial and executive power over those that represented them among the heathen. That body, could it really be known in its character, would be an object of jealousy; not so much as the nation; but still in the degree and in the extent to which it would become an object of jealousy it must be powerless.

If we go farther, and take the Independent system again, and regard it as establishing itself, without looking to any judicial body, without looking to any executive; if every church and spiritual community has its own administration; if there is no connexion in the whole Word of Truth, which forms the basis of all its movements, that would establish anything like apprehension or fear on the part of others, or jealousy either; it could take its stand where no fraud could possibly operate, and where jealousy would not be perceived. But if any should say, it wants union for this, I should here answer again, It has all the union that is efficient, and nothing of the union that paralyzes. If you look into the apostolical epistles, you will find messengers from this church, and messengers from that-fellowship amongst the large congregational communions

maintained through all the churches, made to bring the inspired epistles, made the messengers of communicating with the Apostles and other churches, of the faith, and hope, and stability of their brethren in other communities of the great spiritual body of Christ; and you will find an activity which realizes the prediction of the prophet, "Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased," carried out through the whole face of the apostolical epistles, and involved in the whole extent of the history of the apostolical churches; and known to none of the organized schemes, which would excite jealousy, without having this view of their Scriptural unity. There is nothing, therefore, to prevent unity so far as co-operation is concerned-but everything to prevent unity so far as judicial and executive power are concerned. We protest against the unity of legislation, and we protest against the unity of execution in consesequence of legislation: but we do not protest against the unity that lies in brotherly kindness, in community of views, and in community of exertion: on the contrary, we live peaceably, secure of that unity: and we are compelled to adopt the sentiments of no body external to ourselves, whilst we can act with all that may call themselves brethren in Christ.

Lastly: I consider the Independent system as having claims upon the people of God because it is liberal. I have no doubt that it may excite some surprise, that I should say that a system is a liberal system, which, whilst it asserts its own divine right to urge the precepts of the Gospel, denies the scriptural authority of others. For this must be the character of that system, should its claims be true. But, my friends, when we come to look at liberality, and ascertain what it really is, I think there will be no surprise at my considering the Independent system as a liberal one. I am quite aware that the term "liberality" is very frequently understood to mean, the refraining to exercise our own sentiments with any degree of distinctness, in a great many matters. not of the highest importance, lest we should touch the feelings, or seem to offend the judgment of others. Now, I consider "liberality" to signify the liberty which I am called on to allow to every man, to think and act for himself. This is not liberality that silences me, that I may not disturb the feelings and reasonings of my brother; this is not liberality that silences me, lest I may appear to impeach the justice of my brother's conclusions. Liberality has nothing to do with the silencing of any one liberality unseals the lips of all, permits all to speak. Liberality does not, in any instance, curtail the freedom of any body: it signifies individual and universal freedom. It is not the giving up of freedom on my part, and the giving up of freedom on the part of another, and the giving up of freedom on the part of a third, that we may all have harmony, just because all of us have nothing which we would differ about. This species of harmony would be nothing more than a kind of exterior delusion; and, far from being calculated to bring the minds of individuals near to one another, it would forbid the occupation of that very ground on which these minds may be united. If I do not speak, and my brother does not speak to me, lest we should offend one another, then the ground on which we meet, and which is held to be neutral ground between us, is the ground on which we must always be silent: yet it is all that is essential in the case. This very neutral

ground we dare never occupy; there is all the space which lies between us, therefore we are prevented from ever meeting by the interdict that prevents us occupying this neutral ground. I should say, let there be no neutral ground: let there be a distant spirit; let there be sound thinking, or, at least, an attempt to think soundly; let the word of God be examined in common, and all the principles between you and them; you are on this neutral ground, and while each has his peculiar territory, it may be, at least, adjusted between you: there should be no neutral ground. When you have ascertained the real character of the spirit you are proposing to consecrate, you find, while you may divide it between you, and possess it in common, that it becomes all your own. And thus each several territory is found to belong to the great body, and the neutral ground separating between these common territories is found to belong to the great foe.

I reckon that, therefore, to be liberality—to think, and speak, and act boldly at all times and at any time; leaving the exercise of discretion in these matters with the individuals themselves, questioning the exercise of that discretion, if we find it had not been properly exercised and so making every subject matter of inquiry, investigation, admonition, instruction, doctrine, and reproof, between us, that we may be thoroughly instructed in every good word and work. Liberality, therefore, and liberty, are with me, precisely the same. Call that which is usually called liberality, "concession," if you will, and you have rightly named it; call it "a mutual giving up," and it has its own designation. Then also call it "a common surrender on each side," and you have also a proper phraseology. But never call it liberality; for that would be insisting on the part our brother shall occupy, and the part we shall occupy and excluding all liberty.

I urge the Independent system, therefore, because it is a liberal system, and allows each man to think for himself, and each church to think and act for itself, whilst, at the same time, it maintains the strict unity of the whole. And if, my friends, we were thus to adopt the Independent system in all its bearings in going out and coming in-were we, like it, constantly referring to the Word of God; were we, like it, constantly seeking to extend the knowledge of that word; were we, like it, engaged in the service of enlightened liberality—what must be the advance, the rapid advance, of Christianity!

I am quite aware, my friends, that in submitting this subject to you, though I have occupied so much of your time, I have only touched its leading parts. Could I go into all the points, to which I might refer, I know many an objection might be met, many a doubt solved, and many a difficulty removed. I have, however, directed you to the general outlines on the subject, and I press it on your attention and consideration. Reflect whether in religion God has sent his truth into the world without any executive means to bring it to bear in the world. And if you look into the Word of Truth for the means that he has appointed, say not they are not directly stated, but only by inference; for I must be permitted to remind you, that the doctrines we draw from the Word of God are all doctrines drawn by inference. We gather up the divinity of Christ, the atonement of Christ, and the salvation of the sinner, out of conversations between him and the Jews, out of letters written by the apostles to the churches