of God, or when, to repeat the language of Dr Wardlaw himself, "they give their people confidence- | -enlightened confidence-in yielding obedience to the power with which the Divine Head of the Church has incested them; or, in other words, in going unitedly, intelligently, and heartily along with them (their rulers), in following out the mind and executing the will of the Head." -P. 187. We could not express in more select or more decided terms, the exact part which we assign to the people, in regard to the censures of the Church pronounced by the officers of the Church. And when to this we add, the practical concurrence of the people with the sentence of excommunication, we could desire no better reply to the argument drawn from another passage that has been dragged in, viz., “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many." The punishment, of course, in this case chiefly lay in that exclusion from brotherly intercourse, which would be the result of a practical obedience of the people to the sentence, "With such an one, no, not to eat." And in the simple fact of the obedience thus "yielded to the power with which the Divine Head had invested" their rulers, we may find a sufficient solution of the phrase "inflicted of many," without being driven to adopt the odd notion to which Dr Wardlaw would point, that the offender had to run the gauntlet through the assembled ranks of the whole Church; men, women, and children having each a stroke at him as he passed.

It will be observed that we have argued the point on the hypothesis of our opponents, that Corinth contained only one congregation. Our case becomes doubly strong on the opposite supposition, which can be supported from various proofs, that there were several congregations included in that Church or general assembly of Christians, under the superintendence of a presbytery. Nor have we adverted to other arguments which have been adduced by Presbyterians. We think enough has been said to show that this portion of Scripture at least affords no countenance to the Independent theory of government.

Passing by the few straggling remarks which Dr Wardlaw has made on the seven Churches of Asia, as unworthy of notice, the force of his reasoning depending entirely on the Independent meaning attached to the word Church, we proceed to what he denominates "the palladium of Presbytery," the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. We beg to say, in the outset, that the Doctor is quite mistaken about the palladium. Though this may be the only recorded example of a synodical or representative assembly, it does not follow that there is no other argument for Presbyterial representation. We may state at once that the grand argument for this is founded on the unity of the visible Church. If the Church is one society, it must be the duty of its several parts to act on the principle of association in government as well as in worship. This does not imply that the whole Church should be under the government of one synod or council; but it does imply that the different parts of the Church should, as convenience dictates, be under the government of different synods or councils; which, again, ought to be associated in the bonds of a common constitution, and of fraternal intercourse. This principle runs through the whole New Testament, wherever the Church is spoken of; and it is a principle directly violated by Independency, which, in so far as it agrees with its name, is founded on schism and disunion. If there is any one text

which can be called the palladium of Presbytery, it is that in which our Lord, addressed his apostles, as representing the rulers of his Church, when they showed the first symptoms of an ambitious and unbrotherly spirit in reference to the government of his Church: "ONE IS YOUR MASTER; AND ALL YE ARE BRETHREN." We have no objections to view this as our palladium both against the despotism of Prelacy, on the one side, and against the divisiveness of Independency, on the other. To the one we say, Ministers are not masters, but brethren; to the other, Ministers are all brethren under one Master, and in one family, and, therefore, should associate, consult, and act together as brethren.

But, to come to the point now in dispute, we may state it in very few words. Presbyterians maintain that the assembly of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, recorded in the 15th chapter of Acts, was an assembly of the rulers of the Church met in council, to receive and judge on an appeal; that the apostles, who formed a part of that council, though they were inspired men, sat there not as inspired men, but as elders or rulers of the Church; and that the decree or decision, sanctioned by their combined authority, was promulgated for the obedience of the Churches. Dr Wardlaw, again, avows it as his firm conviction, "that it was a case of appeal to inspired authority, and that it was by such authority the decision was framed and the decree issued." The Doctor's reasonings, though sliced down into a variety of particulars, and spread over a large surface, may be reduced to the two following heads:-First, The point which was appealed for settlement, which he holds to have been one of the first magnitude, being one of doctrine, and of doctrine not of a trivial or unessential character, but affecting the very substance of the gospel-the foundation of the sinner's acceptance and hope-involving the great fundamental question between grace and works;" and, secondly, The inspired character of the apostles, which he maintains to have been necessary to the settlement of this point, and by which it was actually settled. In other words, by magnifying the point in dispute, he endeavours to show that none but inspired men could have decided it, and, consequently, that the council at Jerusalem is now to be regarded in the light of an impossibility-something quite beyond the imitation of the uninspired Church. The whole argument may thus be reduced to a single positionand that position we most distinctly and emphatically deny.

66

That the point which rendered necessary a convecation so venerable as that of the apostles and elders of the Church, must have been one of grave importance, and closely affecting the substance of the gospel, few will question. But how many questions of equal importance, and equally affecting the very substance of the gospel, have arisen in the Church since that time! So closely is divine truth connected, that, perhaps, not a single error has sprung up which might not be shown to affect, directly or indirectly, the substance of the gospel. If, therefore, the importance of the doctrine had been of itself a sufficient reason to demand inspiration to decide it then, would it not follow that the same inspiration is necessary to decide it still? Some three years ago, certain errors sprung up in some Congregational Churches in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, of which Dr Wardlaw is somewhat cognizant. In a pamphlet, which is generally understood to be mainly his own compo

intended for our guidance and imitation. The Doctor does not seem to see that the judgment, being now part of the Word of God, is stamped with the divine approbation. But we have no time and no need to dwell on the exposure of this misconception. He next proceeds to argue, that "if this is conceived to have been a mere uninspired ecclesiastical council, then, by those who think so, the appeal must be regarded as having been made from the superior authority to the inferior-from the divine to the human." And he goes on to talk of the incongruity of supposing that Paul, who was an inspired apostle of Christ," and "not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles," would remit his inspired instructions "for judicial decision upon their authenticity to an uninspired assembly."-P. 268. Why, this is the very difficulty with which our writers charge his own hypothesis, and out of which the Doctor finds it so difficult to escape in a subsequent part of the argument! "If," says Dr Dick, "it had been the wish of the Church at Antioch that the dispute should be terminated by the authority of inspiration, there was no reason for sending to Jerusalem, as Paul was among them, who was not behind the chief of the apostles; and Barnabas, who was endowed with supernatural gifts." "Had the question," says Dr Mason, "been to be determined by special revelation or apostolical authority, ONE INSPIRED MAN, or ONE APOSTLE, would have answered as well as a dozen. The dispute might have been settled on the spot, and by Paul himself. Had there arisen any doubt of his power, or distrust of his integrity, a hundred miracles, if necessary, would instantly have removed the obstacle. In every view, the embassy to Jerusalem would have been a useless parade." This is plain, unembarrassed sense. If the matter was to be decided by inspiration, why appeal from inspiration at all? We can answer this very easily, for we deny that in this case the question was to be decided by inspiration; it was so decided before, and would be so again; but in this instance, it was resolved by the Church, that it should also be decided by a council composed of apostles and elders at Jerusalem. Where was the harm of this? or where its inconsistency with the inspiration of Paul? That apostle frequently referred his doctrine to the judgment of individuals, and the Bereans are commended for searching the Scriptures, and deciding for themselves. Pray, what was to hinder a council of apostles and elders from doing the same thing in a more solemn and formal manner? But how does Dr Wardlaw contrive to answer the question? He finds it necessary here to exert all his polemic skill. "The manifest object of the appeal was," he says, "to ascertain whether the dictates of inspiration in him (Paul) corresponded with the dictates of inspiration in the other apostles; which had been brought into question by the false pretensions of these unauthorized Judaizers!". P. 269. This he repeats afterwards, with still more assurance, maintaining, that "it was the accredited inspiration of the whole college of apostles, which, on the point in question, was by these men affirmed to be in opposition to the accredited inspiration of one;" and that "it became necessary, for the full satisfaction of the brethren's minds, that this question -a question of inspiration against inspiration, and miracle against miracle-should be promptly, authoritatively, finally settled. And it could be settled in no other way than by an appeal to the inspired apostles, whether they taught the doctrine imputed

to them, and to the elders whether they held it.”P. 305.

It

Dr Wardlaw professes in one place to be seriously scandalised at the Presbyterians for the anxiety they show to strip this famous council of its inspired character; not very consistently with the zeal with which we have been charged to secure the authority of inspiration for the council! Much rather would we incur such a charge than be guilty of this miserable shift by which he attempts to evade our argument. In the first place, let it be remembered, that Dr Wardlaw set out by asserting that it was a point of doctrine-an essential and fundamental doctrineon which this council were called to adjudicate. Now it turns out to have been merely a point of fact, namely, whether the rest of the apostles taught the same doctrine that Paul had taught. This is turning round upon us with a vengeance! was clearly a question neither of doctrine nor of fact, but one of practice. But if a mere point of fact, how could it be said "it was a case of such a nature, that no authority other than that of inspiration was competent to settle it." Secondly, Where did the Doctor find that the question was, whether Paul taught the same doctrine with the other apostles ? There is not one syllable in the sacred narrative to bear out this supposition. "There rose up certain of the sect of Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter." What matter?-whether Paul taught the same doctrine with them? or whether he and they agreed? Who denied that? the Pharisees never did the Church never did. No such thing. It was to decide in a council the casuistical question raised by these Pharisees a question encumbered with special difficulties at the time-from which even the minds of some of the apostles had been only lately delivered. But this other question about Paul's inspiration never, we may believe, entered into their minds, as it certainly formed no part of their recorded deliberations. Nor do we believe it ever before entered the head of any Independent disputant. It is the pure invention, and the gratis dictum of Dr Wardlaw himself. And then, thirdly, only think of the native absurdity of the supposition itself—that the apostles and elders came together, in solemn conclave, to examine and decide "whether the dictates of inspiration in Paul corresponded with the dictates of inspiration in the other apostles!"—in other words, to put Paul on his trial as an inspired apostle! The very idea of mooting such a question, and that, too, in a convocation of elders, as well as fellow-apostles, is so derogatory to the inspiration of Paul, and so incongruous in itself, that we know nothing like it, unless some odd resemblance may be found in the late project at Rome of a deliberative council with an infallible head!

Yet this forms the gist of the whole reasoning of Dr Wardlaw against the argument for Presbyterianism from the 15th chapter of Acts, which occupies a whole chapter of his work! Having thus shown its utter untenableness, we may hold ourselves excused from the necessity of entering into the subsidiary considerations which he urges, not one of which, in the absence of this main prop, can stand on its own legs. His remarks on the representation of the Churches, in his second section, it could be easily shown, are founded on misapprehension of the nature of the Church, and on the conceit about the con

stitutional inspiration of the apostles, already exposed.

In the conclusion of his work, Dr Wardlaw meets some Objections usually urged against Congregational Independency." We are sorry that our space does not admit of our adducing a few more formidable ones than even those he has adverted to. It could be easily shown, as we hinted, that Presbyterianism has all the advantages of Independency, without its disadvantages. Our congregations, as we have said, are independent of each other, so far as their own affairs are concerned; they are only dependent on each other when the common interests of the body render them so. Our people are at liberty to judge for themselves, as to the profession of the Church, are consulted in any change of it, and may dissent if they disapprove of it. They have the free choice of their pastors and elders, and free access for redress whenever they consider themselves aggrieved. Our communion may not be so pure as might be, according to our principles; but with less pretence, we consider ourselves not far behind what our Congregational friends are, according to their practice. Possessing thus all the advantages of Congregationalism, we humbly rejoice in our freedom from its disadvantages. Our people are not, at least, at the mercy of a single ruler, in the shape of a pastor, who is as irresponsible as he may be overbearing. Nor are they at the mercy of a cabal in "the Church," which may, at any given moment, hang them up between heaven and earth, helpless and hopeless, without the privilege of appeal. Our ministers are not in danger of being summarily dismissed, either at the bidding of a clique among their people, headed by some obstreperous deacon, or of being tarred and feathered by four of their brethren, meeting in a parlour, and concocting a few inquisitorial questions, which they must answer to the satisfaction of the said inquisitors, on pain of excommunication. They stand their trial in " a lawful assembly," before their peers: "the law is open, and there are deputies, and they may implead one another." We are not left at sea with regard to our "bond of union," nor compelled to seek for our creed, either among anthors connected with the body, whether of tracts, or of volumes," or "in the entire tenor of its accredited periodicals," or even in "the preaching, the prayers, and the hymns of our Churches."* Above all, we maintain the external unity of the Church, and are not obliged, by our very constitution, to squat

"the

* Such, in fact, is the style in which Dr Wardlaw and his three friends in Glasgow lecture their erratic brethren in "The Entire Correspondence," formerly referred to. A list of questions was sent to each of the delinquents, which each answered in writing, not without expressing astonishment at being thus pulled up by a quasi presbytery, and catechised on a creed of which they had never heard. Repeating the constant song of the Independents, they pleaded that "the Bible was their creed;" and one of them possessing a species of quiet humour, responded in the very terms of Scripture, thus:-"1st Question, What do you mean by Divine influence? Answer-Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' John iii. 5-8. 3d Question, If, as you say, God does not withhold from any sinner under the gospel any thing that is essential to his salvation, whence comes it that all are not saved? Answer, 'Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?' John v. 39. &c." Upon this Dr Wardiaw (for it is impossible to mistake his fine rounded hand in the whole correspondence) waxes wroth-asks what he means" by quoting a number of passages of Scripture, as if we had been ignorant of their existence?" -hints that the Bible is nothing to the purpose without a creed, which he may find in their "denominational hymn-books," &c., and closes the correspondence! The whole pamphlet affords a rich commentary on the beauties and advantages of Independent legislation.

down, like the settlers in the back-woods, without any bond of union, or work in sections, without having it in our power to make any joint appearance in behalf of truth or the public interests of religion. And we maintain the order of the Church; whereas, according to the theory of our opponents, all are ruling, and yet all obeying ruling themselves and obeying themselves; so that Independency has been justly termed "the absence of all Church government."

In all we have now advanced, we have respect to the principles of Independency, so far as these differ from our own. We are aware that some Independents, and among the rest Dr Wardlaw, deny this, and deny that, to be essential to the system. He maintains that "all are not rulers," that "Independency does not mean such an independence of the Churches as that each should regard itself as disunited and insulated from the rest," &c. But we must take Independency as it has been known and practised, and not as seen through Dr Wardlaw's optics. And we maintain, that in so far as it admits rulers, and as it is not Independent, it must be regarded as borrowing from Presbytery, and doing so from consciousness of its inefficiency. In point of fact, this is done by the formation of the Congregational Union; which, to the extent that it is efficient for any purpose, is Presbyterianism; and to the extent it fails of being thoroughly Presbyterian, is radically defective. We see no reason why Independents may not now, with the sentiments some of them avow, be merged with Presbyterians. It is certain that, as Independents, they will never succeed in Scotland. Transplanted from England during the Commonwealth, by the soldiers of Cromwell, its ministers to this day borrow their tone from England; and a broad Scotch Independent is a rare bird in the earth, somewhat like a black swan." The present attempt is not likely to augment the ranks of Congregationalism; while the whole aspect of home and continental Protestantism holds out the most encouraging hopes of the revival, in a better form than ever, of that venerable polity for which Scotsmen have fought and bled, and which they will not surrender so easily as Doctors Wardlaw and Davidson seem to imagine.

THE INFANT DISCIPLE.

A PLEA FOR INFANT BAPTISM.

MARK the affection displayed by yonder mother to her child. It is her first-born son. Only see with what intense fondness she gazes on him! with what eager delight she clasps him in her arms, and loads him with her caresses! It is a beautiful sight. These, however, are but the outward signs. The inward emotions of rapturous and yearning affection in a mother's heart, who but a mother can tell? We may admire the stream as it wells out and sparkles in the light of day; but who can measure the depths of the fountain within? What force is in the Scripture metaphor, "Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb!" It is the last, the highest phase of earthly love; nothing can be found like it, till you come to the love of God! And it was He that opened that spring in the maternal bosom, the waters of which rise so high and flow so purely. Wise and merciful provision! for what would have become of us in the helpless years of infancy, had no such tender nurse been provided for us as soon as ushered

And yet the mother's love, beautiful and beneficent as it is, when viewed as a provision of nature, is common to her with the lowest of the animal creation, which are endowed with the same affection towards their offspring. Is nothing more required from woman, and especially from the Christian mother, than to minister, like the beasts that perish, to the bodily sustenance of her child? Was that holy affection so strongly and deeply implanted in her nature merely to run waste in idle dalliance or selfish indulgence? No. Christianity avails itself of this, as of every other principle of our nature, and turns it to practical account. It meets the mother at the very threshold of maternal life, and finding the child in her arms, says to her, as Pharaoh's daughter to the mother of Moses, "Take this child, and nurse it for me."

The influence of a mother over the future character and destiny of her child, whether for good or evil, is incalculable. She has the moulding of its moral frame almost as much under her control as the management of its body; and, during the tender years of childhood, the one is almost as yielding and plastic as the other. In both mind and body there may be tendencies which she cannot wholly eradicate or subdue; but she can use means and follow a system which will go far to correct deficiency, to foster excellence, and to modify excess. The maxim is old as the world, that "as the twig is bent, the tree is inclined." And who can foretell how much of the future welfare or unhappiness of the man depends on the manner in which that influence is employed? Who can say how soon the tendrils of the heart may be taught to bend in the right direction, under the tender hand of maternal discipline? None knows better than the mother herself how soon her beloved babe begins to know her, to comprehend her meaning, and to accede to her wishes. How soon does it become sensible of kind or unkind treatment-conscious of a smile or a frown-susceptible of joy and grief, love and hatred! How soon, especially, do the evil passions begin to betray themselves-infant pride, infant anger, and even infant revenge! And how soon do these emotions, if not repressed in time, burst out in fits, and acquire the strength of habits! It may be affirmed, without the least extravagance, that the child it capable of moral restraint and training as soon as it is born. It is capable of knowing what is done to it, long before it can know what is done for it-capable of good or evil impressions, long before it is capable of doing good or evil actions.

Now, for the right and faithful discharge of this duty, the gospel holds the mother responsible. It converts her matronly cares into Christian duties, and consecrates her to the office of the maternal ministry over her infant offspring. The Church, at this early age of her membership, can only devolve them into her hands, binding her by a solemn vow to the righteous fulfilment of her duties. Even the father must leave the charge greatly in the hands of the mother, chiefly taking heed lest he frustrate her endeavours by injudicious interference. Hers, properly, is the task to "train up her child in the way in which it ought to go." And how powerful are the motives presented to her! "Doth not even nature itself teach" her that it is her duty to advance the best interests of the being whom she has brought into the world, who is part of herself, and who draws

says the gospel? Does it not teach her to regard that being as an immortal creature, destined to eternal weal or woe, inheriting through her the curse and corruption of a fallen nature, and liable, as such, to misery and death? And does it not teach her that the only way of recovery by which that dear child can escape from everlasting ruin, and rise to everlasting happiness, is by the baptism of Christ's blood, by being "washed, and sanctified, and justi fied in the name of our Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God?" How intensely anxious must she be, if she possess the heart of a Christian parent, to compensate, as far as lies in her power, for having brought an immortal being into such fearfully precarious circumstances! How gladly avail herself of every means of grace which God, in his wisdom, has provided; and more especially of baptism, in which "the blood of sprinkling" is sacramentally exhibited, and in which she is invited to dedicate her offspring to the Saviour, obtaining for it the seal of that gracious covenant which provides a remedy for all the evils that have flowed from the penal covenant of works! She will not hesitate in this to follow the example of the Virgin Mary, in her care about the infant Jesus, when she "brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord."

The leading and most plausible objection to infant baptism, is the alleged unfitness of the infant to receive the ordinance. Baptism, it is said, was intended for believers, and it demands previous teaching; for it is written, "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved;" and, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them;" but infants are capable neither of faith nor of instruction. In answer to this objection, it has been often argued with great truth, that in these, as well as in all the general declarations of Scripture regarding the necessity of faith, repentance, and new obedience, in order to salvation, an excep tion must be understood to be made in favour of infants, otherwise they must be excluded from salvation altogether; that infants are capable of the grace of regeneration as well as adults, and may be blessed with union to Christ, though incapable of active communion with him, and therefore competent to receive baptism, which is the seal of union, not of communion. But we are prepared to meet these objectors on their own ground, and allowing that some kind of instruction is necessary in connexion with baptism, we contend that infants are, in their own way, as capable of instruction as adults; that they must be regarded as from the beginning entered into Christ's school, and capable of being taught. The text already cited may be read more agreeably to the original, "Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them" the term being different from that which follows-" teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." We are first to make them disciples, by admitting them through baptism, into the Church; and then to teach them, according to their capacities, the truths of religion. what hinders us from regarding the infant as a disciple, and declaring him such by administering to him that ordinance which enrols him as a member of the Christian institute, and initiates him as a Christian scholar?

And

In these days of infant schools, it will hardly do to deny a position so well authenticated by experience. It is now universally admitted that education, properly speaking, does not consist in