the gates, prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the high-way; gather out the stones; lift up a standard for the people. Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold thy salvation cometh: behold his reward is with him, and his works before him." It is impossible to peruse the most pathetic and sorrowful of the ancient Psalms, without observing an exact counterpart in the doleful lot of Belgium. Do we not imagine we hear some heart-broken successor of the Belgic martyrs pour forth such strains as these, into the ears of God, and of his people? "O God, the heathen are come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they defiled; they have laid Jerusalem on heaps, the dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth. Their blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem, and there was none to bury them How long, Lord? wilt thou be angry for ever? shall thy jealousy burn like fire?" O let us hasten to the relief, to the solace, of these mourners; and soon may God, by our means, put off their sackcloth, and gird them with gladness; and the most joyful strains that ever ascended from Judah's land, from Zion hill, may soon be heard on the plains of Belgium! "When the Lord turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them that dream. Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing: then said they among the heathen, the Lord hath done great things for them. The Lord hath done great things for us, whereof we are glad."

CHAPTER VII.

FACTS AND OPINIONS IN GENEVA AND ITS VICINITY, RESPECTING THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

IN Geneva, as elsewhere, two distinct questions are presented for examination respecting the mutual relations of the Church and the State. The one is to this effect: Is it fit that in any circumstances whatever, an alliance should exist betwixt these two parties? The second is to this effect:-Existing circumstances being considered, what is the relative position which it becomes these parties to occupy?

The former of these is an abstract and independent question of duty, applicable to all places and times; and the inquiry is, whether, from the nature of the christian religion, and from the revealed will of its Divine Author, it appears that the christian church is ever at liberty to form an alliance with the secular powers? latter rather relates to the voice of an enlightened expediency, wisely regarding the relative circumstances of the Church and the State as presently existing, and is an inquiry of this sort :-The question of abstract

The

duty being kept in abeyance, does the existing state of things demand or forbid the alliance of the church with the secular power?

It is plain enough that these are distinct questions. We can conceive one holding in the abstract, that the christian Church is at liberty to accept the protection and support of the State, and that the State is under obligation to afford protection and support to the Church; but that such is the existing character of the State, such its obvious views and demands, in the protection and support which it proffers or confers, that the Church cannot, dare not, fulfil the conditions with which the boon is connected, and ought to forego state favour, to maintain inviolate her allegiance to her Divine Head. We need not go beyond our own country to find an example sufficiently large and distinct to render the difference palpable to any mind.

In regard to these inquiries, however, two remarks are naturally suggested. If the first be settled in the negative, no room is left for the second. Should it appear that Christianity, from its spiritual nature, repels alliance with the secular power, or, that its Author has sufficiently indicated his will in opposition to such alliance, then the temporary question of expediency is superseded. On the other hand, the question of expediency naturally enough leads to the question of right; the inquiry, What ought we to do in present circumstances? to the prior and paramount inquiry, What ought to be done in all circumstances? A question of mere expediency is often perplexed, and requires to be decided on grounds not sufficiently perceptible and solid

to give satisfaction and establishment to the mind. So that from the very difficulty with which the discussion of the second inquiry is often confessedly attended, and the unsatisfactory results to which it leads, the thoughtful and conscientious inquirer is naturally thrown back to the first named question, and seeks that rest in the solution of the one, which he finds it so difficult to arrive at in that of the other.

The order in which these questions have often been investigated, has, nevertheless, been the inverse of that which I have observed in naming them. Some strong cases have occurred in point of fact, rendering the solution of the question of expediency (notwithstanding the embarrassment with which it is generally attended) simple and urgent, so that separation from the State, or which amounts to the same thing, from the body that exclusively holds state alliance and favour, has been decidedly resorted to by the best informed friends of the truth and liberty of the Gospel, as the only expedient consistent with duty. Circumstances have so clearly defined and fenced the path, as, that without stopping or turning back, they have had no option but to obey, "the voice behind them saying, this is the way, walk ye in it." Examples in illustration of this fact are at hand in plenty. Few of the older Non-conformists of England separated from the English church on account of its alliance with the State, but solely because they could not enjoy in its communion that measure of evangelical truth, or of christian liberty, which their consciences demanded. The Scottish Dissenters, both old and new, have been in similar circum

stances; each of these parties having seceded from the established church, not, at least primarily, on account of its connexion with the State, but from the sacrifices of christian truth, independence, and freedom, which, they felt, their continuance in the Church, and their connexion with the State through the Church, would have extorted from them. The first refugees from this country, by whom the North American provinces were colonized, "the pilgrim fathers," were in circumstances precisely similar. These venerable men left their country and its church, not from any aversion to the union of the ecclesiastical with the civil power, but to escape from the oppression and persecution to which they were subjected, and the corruptions to which they were exposed. It has been remarked, that in this matter at least the church has often been put right in fact, before she has been put right in principle; or rather, that she has been driven to the position she occupies by a happy necessity, which she ought ever to have occupied from regard to duty.

I shall, then, begin with the second of these questions as it affects Geneva and its vicinity, and shall adduce some of those facts by which many Christians in these parts have been carried to the conclusion, that in existing circumstances the church and the state ought to be dissevered, and to the important step of actual separation.

I have already detailed the circumstances of the case of Dr. Malan. He was excluded, we have seen, from the exercise of his functions as a Minister of the Gospel in the Genevan church, he was deprived of office in