try to persuade the reader that his whole reasoning | on this point was directed against the supposed perfection of certain "stiffened formulas;" against the notion that our theology, as embodied in these, "has attained its fullest and highest possible perfection;" against such an "obstinate" adherence to these as amounts to "raising a barrier against the development of Christian truth, in its fulness and power, in the world." What he was contending for, it seems, dwindles down to "a readiness to acknowledge our own precise opinions imperfect, and to admit any fresh evidence which may be made to bear upon them!" Mr Morell must suppose his readers exceedingly obtuse if he thinks they will be satisfied that his reasoning goes no farther than this. If this paragraph of his letter gives anything like an adequate expression of the substance, scope, and spirit of his reasoning, he has succeeded very ill in conveying his meaning in the book; but, if more than this was conveyed, and designed to be conveyed in the book, we submit whether it be right to gire in his letter so very attenuated a representation of the scope of his book, and then to charge his reviewer with inexcusably misrepresenting his meaning Nothing can be farther from our wish than to fasten. on Mr Morell what he repudiates. Gladly would we believe that he is setting himself up against nothing but the imagined perfection of human formularies, or a bigoted and obstinate refusal to admit our own precise opinions imperfect. But as the public judgment already pretty articulately expressed-is decidedly against such a meagre view of the scope and spirit of his reasoning on this point, so we shall make it clear that it was expressly designed to embrace all doctrinal propositions professedly drawn from and based on the Scriptures, as an authoritative communication of the mind and will of God. It is not that he holds "all logical doctrine to be injurious or worthless"-- to assert that he never went that length is nothing to the purpose, as we never said so-but it is that he makes it all “loose," fluctuating, variable, a thing that never can be absolutely fixed, but ought to be allowed to hang upon us provisionally and temporarily, as the dress which the particular consciousness of the age, or the state of our own consciousness at any particular period, may demand. Nay more, even in this very loose view of a doctrinal theology, it must not be drawn from the Bible as the proper source of its data, but from the human consciousness, only brightened and vivified by the materials and elements which the Bible furnishes. Now for the proof. "It has been generally supposed," says our author, "that the data of all Christian theology are given in the Bible, and that the understanding has to form its system out of them by the ordinary process of induction. This principle of forming a theology, we regard as radically and totally unsound." Let the reader mark here what it is that the author so emphatically reprobates. It is not an obstinate adherence to our own precise opinions or logical formulas, but it is the way of arriving at them; it is not the results actually obtained, but it is the principle on which they are obtained; it is not what we draw from the Bible, but it is the drawing of our Christian theology from the Bible at all, as the proper fountain of religious truth. But his reasons for regarding this Biblical method as radically and totally unsound leave no doubt as to his meaning. "For first," he adds, "we do not (for many reasons which cannot now be stated) hold with the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures a doctrine highly necessary to the above theory; nor do we believe that single

passages are to be trusted when taken away from their organic position in the whole body of inspired truth.” As inspiration seems here to be admitted in one sense, though denied in another, the reader is apt to be misled; supposing that amongst the different theories of inspiration which have been taken up by theologians who hold in common the inspiration of the Bible, and bow to it as their common authority in things divine, Mr Morell is merely expressing his decided preference for one above another. But this would be an entire mistake; for he allows of no inspiration which would' constitute the Bible our ultimate authority in matters of faith. Whatever inspiration may be necessary to the assigning of such a place to the Bible, that Mr Morell wishes his readers to understand he rejects. Men have supposed that the data of all Christian theology are given in the Bible; but this arises from their mistaken notions about inspiration : let them be given up, and people will no longer assign to the Bible the place it has occupied as their oracle of truth. In the same sense we are to understand his remark about "trusting in single passages," rather than in "the whole body of inspired truth." It is not meant to express dislike of a partial, narrow, one-sided induction of Scripture passages, in order to get at the mind of God on any given point; but it is aimed against the method of induction itself—against "that principle of forming a theology" which proceeds by drawing it from the data furnished by the Bible. But now observe his other reason for regarding this method as radically and totally unsound. "Secondly," he says, even suppose that we could rely upon individual passages, yet our theology must mainly depend, not upon the literal induction of the words, but upon the spiritual sense we attach to them, upon the religious intuitions they may serve to express; in a word, upon the whole state of the religious consciousness in the interpreter." That men's interpretations of the Bible will be influenced by the state of their own minds, is an obvious enough truth; but this is not our author's statement. It is, that in consequence of this fact, the Bible is not fitted to be the authoritative standard of reference on religious matters, and ought not to be regarded as our all-discisive oracle. Let it be used for expressing our religious intuitions, or for brightening them, or for impregnating them with its own peculiar and stirring element. This is all proper enough. But to dictate to us a doctrinal theology, or the data of it, is a function which ought not to be assigned to the Bible, nor is it capable of discharging such a function for meu. Even the proposition, "There is a God," may express nothing common to any two men, as a matter of objective truth; and so "there may be an infinite number of theologies in the minds of men who abide by the very same terms."

66

"To construct our theology, then (he adds), by a simple process of induction from the Bible, we regard as equally impracticable and absurd. The Bible is a book of religion, not of theology. It has to be drawn forth" (not from the Bible —that principle of forming a theology, we have seen how totally he condemns-but) "from the deeper and spiritual nature of man, by the action of the understanding upon the divine elements there infused. Accordingly, theology can never be a thing absolutely fixed; it is, or should be, always the reflection or symbol of the Christian consciousness of the age: Intuition is the basis of all unity, logic the ground of all diversity: In nine cases out of ten, the intuitional faculty

on, after commending it for all the depth and acuteness of its remarkable author, says, "Still we should remember that it is based on a system of philosophy, and not on the Bible. Considered as outlines of a philosophic-hermeneutical system, the work is excellent; but we cannot refrain from saying that the philosophy of Germang has ruined its theology. It has equally robbed it of its essence and its simplicity." It was this feature in the theology of Germany, the seminal principle of which is to be traced back to Kant, to which we referred in the passage which Mr Morell characterizes as a combination of weakness, indistinctness, ignorance, &c. When, instead of interpreting the text of Scripture on the ordinary principles which determine the sense of a writer, we hold ourselves at liberty to philosophise upon the text, or to sublime it into an expression of something which it cannot be even pretended that it naturally conveys the facts of Scripture can no more remain in their simplicity than the truths which they are de clared to embody; and the whole Bible is at the mercy of philosophical systems of human origin, and perpetually changing character.

8. We waive all remark on the supercilious air with which Mr Morell here sends us to school to learn the alphabet of Reid's philosophy. He will observe, however, that the nomenclature we employed in (speaking of the "intuitional" and the "logical" faculties, is his own-not ours; and that according to him the functions of the logical faculty extend to the whole province of the understanding. Keeping this carefully in view, the question is not-as Mr Morell would represent it-whether our perceptive faculties bring us into contact with objective existences, but whether there be such a thing as perception at all of any spiritual object—such as GOD-with the exercise of the understanding. We said nothing inconsistent with Reid's doctrine of the relation of perception to the objects perceived: about the directness and trustworthiness of our perceptions we are perfectly agreed. But what we affirmed is,that without the exercise of the understanding-or, as Mr Morell terms it, the logical faculty, as distinguished from the intuitional-the human mind cannot arrive at a perception of God as an objective reality; that the simplest conception of the living God which the mind can form, manifests some exercise of this logical faculty; and that when every thing about it which can be traced to this source is stripped away, there will be found in the sentimental residuum no solid idea at all. It will not follow from this, of course; that the faith of the living God has its root in the logical faculty. Beyond all doubt, it has its root in the intuitional. But our object was to show, that the separation of these faculties in the manner, and for the objects pleaded for by Mr Morell, had nothing to recommend it, and would destroy the solidity of some of our most primary and fundamental beliefs. What this has to do with "our formal Calvinism," we are at a loss to know. Mr Morell, though he has got rid of that, seems to have the ghost of it in his mind, insomuch that when one ventures to dispute the soundness of his views of theology in general, as distinguished from religion, and of the intuitional, as separated from the logical faculties, in religious investigations, immediately he cries out: "formal Calvanism;" "petrified orthodoxy;" "minds so shaped by a long Procrustean education to a given set of propositions, that the * Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 717. Clark, 1843.

matter is lost in the form, and become an airy nonentity." Small effect, however, will such language have on those who have discernment enough to see the real questions at issue, and to whom the foundations of natural and revealed truth are dearer than any Calvinism or human formularies. For such we write, and we rejoice to know they are not few.

(9.) Full well are we aware of the "under-current of infidelity among the people," and the "sheer formalism among the professors of Christianity," of which Mr Morell here speaks. In reply to his question, What are we doing to meet it? we have nothing very flattering to our own self-esteem to tell of. We could tell him, perhaps, of " searchings of heart" on these subjects, and some attempts in a miserably small and inadequate way, to arrest the fearful evils. But one thing we certainly, are not doing. We are not "daubing the wall with untempered mortar;" we are not pulling down more than we build up, making ten breaches for one that we heal. We have not the smallest doubt of Mr Morell's sincerity and ardour in the cause of truth; and knowing how utterly opposed the religious mind of Scotland is to his principles, we can easily understand the "deep sorrow and even melancholy foreboding" with which he views its state. But greatly as we believe it stands in need of renovation, Mr Morell must pardon us for despairing of it on his principles.

(10.) Such a way of remarking on the apprehensions which his already published opinions might reasonably create in every enlightened mind-and have already created-with regard to the promised work on the "Philosophy of Religion," are best passed by in silence. Probably, Mr Morell will be the first to regret it, when he sees it in print; and in this hope, dictated by respect for his character, accomplish ments, and past services, we desire to close our remarks.

This has been to us the most unpleasant work we have undertaken for many a day. Even if there were no other cause of pain, it was impossible not to feel for the delicate position of our respected publisher, from his connection with the volume in question; but the cause of divine truth is dearer to us than aught else, and had we, in noticing these lectures, given an uncertain sound, from any consideration whatever, we could never have forgiven ourselves the unfaithfulness of our course. Trusting that good may yet come out of these inquiries, we commend what we have said to the candid consideration of earnest and enlightened minds, and to the blessing of Him who is light, and in whom is no darkness at all.

COLLEGE TESTS.

THE people of Scotland are anxious to see the Lord Advocate's promised bill for making our colleges more available to the country at large. The following document is very curious, and exhibits the Moderates of former times as exact types of their present successors. They are all conscience about the tests when they have a wretched purpose to serve, whilst at other times they are supremely indifferent. It is high time that justice were done to the community at large, and that a miserable fraction of the community were prevented from exercising a most unjust and capricious power over better men than themselves.

BY AUTHORITY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.

"At the College of Edinburgh, the fifteenth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and five: which day the Senatus Academicus, in a very full meeting, had a letter laid before them by the principal, subscribed by Dr Grieve, and written by authority of the Presbytery of Edinburgh, the tenor of which follows:

"REV. SIR,-As convener of a committee of the Presbytery of Edinburgh, I am directed to acquaint you, in their name, for the information of the Senatus Academicus of the university, that in a meeting of said presbytery, upon Wednesday the 27th day of February last, the following resolution was moved, and adopted:- Whereas for many years past the members of the University of Edinburgh have not been in the use of complying with those acts of the Parliament of Scotland, by which they are expressly required to acknowledge, profess, and subscribe, before this presbytery, the Confession of Faith which was ratified by the said Parliament on the 7th day of June 1690: it is moved, that the presbytery should appoint a committee of their number, to write, in their name, a letter to the Rev. Dr George Baird, principal of the university, intimating the desire and expectation of the presbytery, that the laws on this subject shall be observed and obeyed by the said university, and requesting him to communicate the said letter to that learned body with all convenient speed.' The presbytery, after agreeing to this motion, did accordingly appoint a committee for the purpose therein stated, whose orders I now obey in making this communication. At their desire, I beg leave further to inform you, that the acts of Parliament to which the presbytery more particularly refer are-Act 17th of King William and Queen Mary's first Parliament, session 2d, entitled Act for Visitation of Universities, Colleges, and Schools; and act 6th of the 4th session of Queen Anne's Parliament, which is entitled Act for securing the Protestant Religion, and Presbyterian Church Government; and that the General Assembly have specially enjoined presbyteries to attend to the execution of said acts. Let me only add, that the committee hope you will be so obliging as to take an early opportunity of laying this letter before the university.-I am, with very sincere esteem, Rev. Sir, your most faithful and most obedient ser(Signed) HENRY GREIVE,

vant,

"Edinburgh, March 9, 1805. Addressed The Rev. Dr GEORGE BAIRD,

Principal of the University of Edinburgh.' "The Senatus Academicus having deliberated on this subject, with that respectful consideration which is due to every communication from the reverend presbytery, feel it incumbent on them to submit to that reverend body a few observations on the contents of Dr Grieve's letter, as well as a short statement of their own views relative to the subject to which the presbytery has been pleased to call their attention.

"As the letter of the presbytery cannot be supposed to have a reference to any members of the University, but those of the laity who have the honour to belong to it, the Senatus Academicus feel it, in the first place, incumbent on them, in justice to this class of their colleagues, to assure the presbytery, that they are all fully apprised of the existence of those acts of the Parliament of Scotland which the presbytery has thought proper to point out to their notice. By accepting the offices which they hold in the university, they necessarily understood that their assent to the Confession of Faith of the National Church was as fully implied as their allegiance to the civil government of the country; and they have accordingly been always ready, when called on by the reverend presbytery for the one purpose, or by the civil magistrate for the other, to give that public and formal testimony of their allegiance, which is enjoined by law.

"Of the expediency of that resolution which the presbytery has formed to give effect, in future, to the same statutes, which it has allowed to remain dormant for the long period of half a century, it belongs not to the Senatus Academicus to judge; and they have only to regret that the unlucky coincidence, in point of date, between the letter from the presbytery, and the interposition of an Avisumentum from the ministes of this city in the election of a mathematical professor are likely to convey an idea to the public (notwithstanding the solemn assurances which the Senatus Academicus have received that the coincidence was purely accidental), that the character or principles of some of the present profes

sors are viewed in an unfavourable light by the reverend presbytery; or (what is still more to be dreaded) that it may afford to those who are ill affected to the ecclesiastical Establishment of this country, a pretence of alleging, that so sudden a display of zeal in its support was not altogether without a a mixture of some other motives, which the reverend presbytery is not equally willing to avow.

Another unfortunate coincidence of dates on the present occasion, has given deep concern to the Senatus Academicus. The last instance in which the Confession of Faith was signed by a professor of this university at the time of his admission, was in the year 1758, by Dr Monro, senior; not more than four years before the election of our late principal, Dr Robertson. As it is an acknowledged fact that, during the whole time he was in office, the laws in question ceased to be enforced, the desire and expectation of the presbytery,' as formally intimated to his reverend successor, that these laws shall be observed and obeyed by the university," cannot fail to be interpreted into an insinuation, that this inattention to established forms was owing to a blamable remissness on Dr Robertson's part, in the discharge of his academical duties. This implied censure on his memory the Senatus Academicus humbly conceive to be altogether unmerited, inasmuch as they have always understood that the execution of those laws was intrusted neither to the principal nor to the university, but to the presbytery within whose bounds the university is situate. From the terms indeed in which the letter of the presbytery is expressed, a person unacquainted with the circumstances of the case, might be led to conclude that the requisition, after having been made by the presbytery, had not been complied with or obeyed by certain members of the university; but this idea the Senatus Academicus cannot for a moment suppose it was the intention of the reverend presbytery to convey.

"In submitting these considerations to the reverend presbytery, the Senatus Academicus feel no small degree of satisfaction in having had an opportunity of doing justice to the memory of a man to whom the university owes the highest obligations; who, while he added so much to its celebrity by the splendour of his name, maintained, by the moderation, candour, and dignity of his character, an uninterrupted harmony in all the academical deliberations over which he presided; and made it his study to cultivate, in the intercourse of private life, those habits of mutual cordiality and confidence between the members of the presbytery and those of the university, which he considered as equally advantageous and honourable to both.

"From the manner in which the reverend presbytery have been pleased to express themselves, it does not very clearly appear whether they are disposed at present to enforce the law with respect to future entrants only, or to apply it also to such of the present professors as have not already subscribed the formula. In this uncertainty, the Senatus Academicus take the liberty of submitting to the serious consideration of the reverend presbytery how far, on the former of these suppositions, their present interposition can be vindicated, either in point of equity or of expediency; and whether it may not be understood as implying an unjust suspicion, that it would be regarded as a hardship on some of the present incumbents if that interposition were to have any retrospect.

"In conformity to the foregoing views, the Senatus Academicus have only to add, that the members of the university are perfectly willing to do what the laws of the State and of the Church prescribe, and are ready to attend the reverend presbytery, whenever they shall be required to appear before it for that purpose.

"In the mean time, the Senatus Academicus flatter themselves that it will not be considered as presumptuous on their part, to remind such of the younger members of the presbytery as were formerly their own pupils (and the senior professors have the pleasure to remark, that these form at present a very large proportion of that reverend body), that the interests of religion are most effectually promoted by its happy influence on the character and temper of its ministers; and that an extraordinary profession of zeal for its external forms is never so likely to afford matter of triumph to its enemies, as when a suspicion is allowed to arise in the public mind, that it has been employed in subserviency to the interested views of individuals, or to the purposes of an ecclesiastical party.

"The Senatus Academicus unanimously appoint an extract of this minute to be transmitted by Mr DALZEL to the reverend Presbytery of Edinburgh,

SABBATH ALLIANCE

WE rejoice to see from the report of the Alliance, that branches are multiplying so rapidly over the country. It is of great importance that as numerous a body of adherents in each congregation be obtained as possible. And in order to that, as a pecuniary contribution from each adherent is required, great care ought to be taken to impress on the poorer classes, that the very smallest contribution would be sufficient. We understand, that in the congregations throughout the country, in which the office-beaters are doing their duty to the Sabbath cause, the people are manifesting a most cordial interest in the object, and the utmost readiness and cheerfulness in giving their names as adherents.

We can never sufficiently re-iterate and impress on all concerned, the solemn urgency of the call that, in providence, they are receiving to be up and doing. For besides the fact that old forms of Sabbath desecration are continued day by day, new and more portentous forms of the evil are being introduced. In London, as eye-witnesses testify, the scenes to be witnessed at the Greenwich Railway on Sabbath, render it a hell on earth. In other parts of England, the desecration of the Lord's day, by railway trains and other means, is daily proving that, beyond the former dreadful depths to which the people had sunk in impiety and immorality, there is found a still lower depth to which they are rapidly descending.

In our own land, as all are aware, the Caledonian, North British, and Edinburgh & Northern Railway proprietors have openly proclaimed their defiance of the Sabbath's sacredness, and their determination to make it a day of amusement to our people, and of gain to themselves.

If the better portion of our people do not bestir themselves, they are destined soon and bitterly to find that the evil is after all but begun. If a few more of these flood-gates of evil are opened, the result will be a desolation of our country, which it may require many a day to repair.

The danger of a boundless increase of the evil, and of the tremendous mischiefs, which must of necessity ensue, forms a loud call to all who love the Lord's day to instant, strenuous, united, and persevering exertions, to protect and preserve it. If the evil is left to the unchecked force of the impulse now being given to it, where is it to stop? If we begin to follow in the wake of other nations, we may see already where they will lead us.

In France, infidel France, the people have got quit of an earthly oppressor; but they are forward to proclaim themselves the willing servants of a more terrible than any earthly tyrant. By their impious desecration of the Sabbath in politics, and pleasure, and business, they disown the God of heaven, and avow themselves the subjects of the prince of darkness. And if we believe the word of God, we must believe either that they will be brought to repentance for their atheism, or that they will plunge onward and downward in their fearful course, until they perish amidst God's righteous judgments.

In Ireland-misgoverned, misguided, priest-ridden Ireland-we see the thousands of her unhappy sons

taught and trained to use God's holy day for every purpose except that for which he set it apart; and, at the same time, sinking into greater and greater wretchedness beneath his withering curse.

In England, we see masses of the people already beginning to meet on Sabbath to proclaim their political and social wrongs; and so, at the very outset of their movements, placing themselves beyond the reach of God's protection and blessing.

In Scotland, we are fast becoming familiarised with Sabbath desecrations, at which, formerly, we would have shuddered; and if we remain for a little longer in a state of apathy, the evil will have gathered such head in its progress, as to be able easily to bear down the feeble opposition that may then be offered to it.

The most fearful results may be anticipated, if this evil progresses. In the 17th chapter of Jeremiah, we are expressly told that it was a leading cause of the captivity at Babylon. After their return, it was beginning again to spread rapidly, and to expose them to similar misery, when Nehemiah'arrested and repressed it with a determined hand. We have privileges equal or superior to those of the ancient people; we have also the same God to answer to for the use which we make of them; and if we indulge in Sabbath profanations like to theirs, we shall not, any more than they, escape the righteous judgments of God.

A Sabbath-breaking population will prove a population sinking into every other evil. They will soon learn to absent themselves from the house of God. His word will be unread. All secret and family prayer, and all religious instruction of households, will of necessity cease. When religion thus vanishes, the morality, yea, and the intelligence which religion cherishes, will vanish along with it! Frivolity, dissipation, profligacy, recklessness, turbulence, and insubordination will take the place of former virtues. The land of Bibles and of Christian men will become a land of blasphemy and vice. The blessing of God that has so long rested on our country, will abandon it, and it will stagger to its overthrow under his judgments, or sink, as smitten with his curse. As we would assist in preventing this spiritual and temporal ruin from overtaking our country, we ought to arise for the defence of that holy day, which is the only safeguard of our existing privileges, and the only source of still greater privileges.

Another consideration, fitted to arouse us, is the fact that God is putting his professing people in the land, on their trial, with reference to this holy day. The Sabbath is assailed on every side. The infidel French are trampling it under their feet. Irish priests and Irish politicians, and large masses of their deluded followers are dealing with the Sabbath in Ireland, as it is dealt with in infidel France. English mobs are publicly¶trampling on it also. The criminals that fill our prisons, and that cost this country so much in its vain attempts to keep down the calendar of crime, have, for the most part, to acknowledge that Sabbathbreaking was the commencement of their sad career. Railway proprietors are now openly joining with infidel France, and Irish felons, and English mobs, and British criminals, in trampling down the day of God. And God is waiting on to let it be seen, whether, by our apathy, our connivance, our silence, which will be virtual consent, we join with suchin causing our Sabbaths to cease in the land. We must, therefore, clear ourselves of this wickedness, by not only protesting