WE have been requested to publish the following letter, having reference to the assertion made by Dr. John Dunmore Lang in the Legislative Council, that the Presbyterian Ministers at Port Phillip on hearing of the recent Secession from the Church of Scotland, had "renounced all support from the state, all connexion with the Church as appointed by the State: -

"Sir, - In your 'Extraordinary' of Saturday last, which has been just brought to me, there is reported a discussion in the Legislative Council, in which my name is introduced in a way that to myself only appears extremely ridiculous, but which will probably cause astonishment among my friends.

It would appear that on the 10th instant, Dr. Lang moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Presbyterian Church Act, on the ground that my reverend brethren in this province, and I, had renounced our salaries which we have been in the habit of receiving from the government, in consequence of the disruption which has taken place in the Church of Scotland! The following is the statement, ascribed to the honorable member:

- 'The tidings of the great change in Scotland had reached this city through Port Phillip, and the Presbyterian ministers of the province, five in number, had, through the excellent minister, at present in Melbourne, Rev. James Forbes, come forward and identified themselves with and in the course pursued by Dr. Thomas Chalmers, and those others who had renounced all support from the State, all connexion with the Church as supported by the State. Sorry he was, that such an example as had been set by the Presbyterian clergymen of Port Phillip had not been followed elsewhere,' and so on.

I will not enquire how far it was in good taste for Dr. Lang, considering the relation in which he stands to the Presbyterian Church in this colony, to interfere in her affairs, without reference to any of her members, nor whether it be consistent with the dignity of a legislator to take advantage of his position in Council to make unkind reflections on those who have opposed him in another scene; I can only notice his observations in so far as they affect myself.

The whole of the learned member's statement is utterly unfounded and unwarranted - unfounded, in fact unwarranted by those whose names he has so strangely dragged before the legislature, and before the public. It is not the fact that the 'Presbyterian ministers in this province, five in number, &c. &c., have come forward and identified themselves with Dr. Chalmers,' and his friends, or 'renounced all claim to salaries accruing from the present state of the law.' There are many reasons for this. One is, that such a step as that imputed to us by Dr. Lang would have been an act of rebellion against the Synod of Australia, for which we feel all possible respect; and another is, that there is nothing in the change which has taken place in Scotland, that so alters our position as to affect the propriety of our receiving our salaries."

I can account for this proceeding on the part of Dr Lang, only by supposing that some person has amused himself by working on the credulity of the learned member, and sending him a fictitious account of the five Presbyterian ministers of this province coming forward and renouncing their salaries - unless, indeed, the whole affair be a fabrication of the newspapers. The only 'coming forward' that I can think of, has been in an article on the Disruption of the Church of Scotland, which I contributed to the "Gazette." In that article my own views were plainly enough indicated to be in unison with those of Dr. Chalmers and his followers, as had long been well-known by my friends. But there was not a single word suggesting that my views were held by any others in this colony, not a single word to commit anyone associated with me; nor a single word in reference to the course to be pursued by the Colonial Presbyterian Church in the circumstances.

I understand better my position as a Presbyterian clergyman [than] to present myself as the exponent of other men's sentiments without their authority, or be a party to any proceeding that would imply disrespect to our brethren in other parts of the colony, who are equally interested in this matter with the ministers at Port Phillip. I may now, however, state, that I have reason for believing that the sentiments entertained by me on the controversies which have agitated the Church of Scotland, are the sentiments of all the ministers in the Synod of Australia, with the exception at most of three or four, and that in the middle district there is as large a proportion of sympathizers with Dr. Chalmers and his friends as there is in Australia Felix."

I must solicit your indulgence for a little longer, and request room for a remark or two respecting the bearing of the events which have taken place in Scotland, on the Colonial Presbyterian Church.

It seems to be the opinion of some, that, since the Evangelical or High party have separated from the Scottish Establishment, because they regard as sinful the intrusion of ministers on reclaiming congregations, and will not submit to the dictation of the Civil Courts in things spiritual, - therefore those in this colony, who entertain the same sentiments, must, to be consistent, relinquish the advantages they enjoy under Sir Richard Bourke's Church Act.

That there are no grounds for such a notion, I shall now endeavour to show in a few words: -

1. In the first place, it is to be remembered that the Presbyterian Church here is not established, if by an establishment be understood an institution invested with exclusive privileges.

She is endowed, i.e., her ministers receive salaries from the State on certain conditions, and aid is given towards the building of churches, supplementary to subscriptions previously raised by the parties interested. These are all the advantages she derives from the State, and these are enjoyed in common with her, not only by the Episcopal Church, but to the fullest extent by the Roman Catholics and Wesleyans, and they may be enjoyed by any and every Christian sect that chooses to apply for them. In strict logical accuracy, the advantages we enjoy, are derived not from the circumstance that we are an off-shoot from one of the establishments of the empire, but from our connexion with a certain portion of the colonial population who have in the first instance raised a certain amount of funds.

This circumstance, however, is of less importance than the one next to be mentioned.

2. The Colonial Presbyterian Church is perfectly free from all the grievances, which so long depressed, and have at last rent asunder the Church of Scotland.

We are exempt from patronage, that giant curse to the Church and land of our fathers. Our pastors have been all called by the people. In our present circumstances, and whilst we have to send to a distance for our ministers, there can be few elections in the usual sense of the term; but in no instance that I am aware of, has the pastoral relation been held as formed without an actual call from the Christian people. If anything of a different kind was even attempted, it was previous to the arrival of most of the present members of the Synod of Australia, in the colony, and under a regime that has long passed away, and may well be forgotten.

We therefore can have no non-intrusion question. We need no Veto Act. Our spiritual independence has hitherto been uninvaded, and is, I believe, fully secured by the common law and by colonial enactment. The Government, whilst it endows, or partially endows, all sects, leaves each to manage its own internal affairs in its own way.

3. The Colonial Presbyterian Church possesses within herself supreme and final jurisdiction.

The Colonial Church Courts are the only judges of Colonial Church affairs; and the Synod of Australia is the Court of last resort for the Presbyterian Church in New South Wales.

This is a fact not so generally known, nor so well understood, as it ought to be: it results, however, from one of the fundamental principles of our ecclesiastical system; and it has been fully declared by the Church here, and fully acknowledged by the Church of Scotland years ago.

The fundamental principle to which I have referred is this - that all ministers are ecclesiastically equal, from which it follows that no one Presbyterian minister can have authority over another, except as member of a body, (say a Presbytery or a Synod,) of which that other is also a member; so that all jurisdiction is mutual and reciprocal. Hence in all ordinary cases, - indeed in all cases where full effect is given to the principles of Presbytery, a minister is subject only to a body of which he is a member, or a body in which he is represented, in the election of whose members he has borne a part. The Church Courts in Scotland (some few anomalous cases excepted) exercise jurisdiction only over their own members, or over those represented in them. The General Assembly is a representative body, and its authority extends only over the ministers in Scotland, and those in India; and so fully is the principle I have mentioned, kept in view, that 'the Church in India' enjoys a special representation in the Assembly.

There is a Presbyterian Church in Ireland, another in England, another in Canada, to say nothing of other British possessions; these all hold the same tenets, recognise the same standard, follow the same forms of worship, and the same general rules of administration (modified, of course, by circumstances) as the Church of Scotland; but, as they were never represented in the Assembly, they never acknowledge its authority. All the Colonial Churches, viewed as organised bodies, are in a similar position; - unrepresented in the Assembly, and therefore exempt from subjection to it. This has been fully ascertained to be the fact of the case, in correspondence between the Church here and the parent body. A separation from the Scottish Establishment on the part of certain members, therefore, imposes no obligation on those holding similar views here, to separate from the colonial Establishment, if establishment it can be called. Our friends in the mother country have renounced an authority to which we, as colonial ministers, are not subject, on account of grievances from which we are freed.

I wish to be understood as speaking only for myself; but, for myself I may say, that as long as we enjoy our present advantages, - as long as the right of a Christian people to elect their own pastor is upheld, and given effect to, so far as circumstances admit, - as long as purely spiritual questions are left to the management of spiritual officers, as they are in every sect in the colony, and as long as the supreme and final jurisdiction of the Synod of Australia remains uninvaded, I can retain my present position, and continue to receive my salary with a safe conscience."

I am, Sir, Your obedient servant,

JAMES FORBES.

Darebin Creek, 23rd October, 1843.