beaten-track, we shall be among the last to blame him, for he has done not a little to confirm our faith in the soundness of Presbyterian government.

The simultaneous appearance of these two treatises, coming from authors who are held in high repute in the denomination to which they belong, and directed mainly against the polity which we have the honour to uphold, has a rather formidable appearance; but besides what we have already hinted, we have no doubt that this attempt to revive the old controversy will only have the effect of eliciting new defences; and we are not without hopes that the result will be a clearer and more satisfactory exhibition than ever of the scriptural claims of the Presbyterian polity. Already some well written reviews of Dr. Wardlaw's work have appeared in the pages of some of our contemporaries. In taking up the two works in conjunction, we propose to use them rather as text-books for illustrating the controversy, than as the subjects of regular examination; though, in the course of our observations, we may find ample scope for the scalpel of the reviewer, of which we shall not hesitate to avail ourselves.

truth is, Independents find the Church under the old dispensation to be very ticklish ground; it is entirely at variance with all that a Church ought to be; and the essential identity of the Church under the Old and New Testaments, which have been demonstrated by Presbyterians, by the most irrefragable evidence,* is too hard a nut for them; and, therefore, in the quietest way possible, they would drop the Old Testament altogether.

Another curious feature in these controvertists, is their unwillingness to admit that the apostles spoke or acted, on any occasion, except under the influence of inspiration. A supposition so palpably absurd, and contradicted by so many proofs to the contrary, could hardly have occurred to any mind, unless to serve a special purpose. And it so happens, that it serves to help them occasionally out of a difficulty. Thus, in order to dispose of the formidable passage in Acts xv., referring to the council of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, Dr. Wardlaw strains every nerve to prove that this could not be a case in point, because it was a council of inspired persons. It is not easy for uninitiated persons to conceive the need of a "council" at all, where all the members were inspired; but the Doctor has discovered, that "the object of the appeal was to ascertain whether the dictates of inspiration in him (that is, Paul) corresponded with the dictates of inspiration in the other apostles!" We do not dwell on this unintelligible statement: nor need we stay to point out the strange fallacy, in his reasoning that, "if the decision in question was not given by inspired authority, it could not be imperatively binding;" as if the fact of the decision being recorded, with evident approbation, in the Word of God, were not sufficient to render it obligatory on all Christians! But we request attention to the follow

CHRIST. You will not question his inspiration. Is it, then, to be imagined, that the inspired instructions of one who had the mind of Christ,' and who was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles,' were remitted for review, and for judicial decision upon their authenticity, to an uninspired assembly?" (Pp. 266-269.) Our readers do not need to be reminded that Paul himself submitted his doctrine to the review of the Bereans, and that John exhorted all Christians to try the spirits; nor can they fail to see how, even on the supposition that Paul had delivered

There are some peculiarities which mark the Independent controvertist so invariably, as to justify us in suspecting, that under these the causes of no small measure of the misapprehension under which he labours must lie concealed. Among these, the more prominent is the entire renunciation of the Old Testament Scripture, in forming a judgment on the constitution of the Church. So far as this matter is concerned, the Old Testament is with them a dead letter. They speak, in terms far from ambiguous or equivocal, as if the Church of God only began to exist in the days of the apostles; and though they refrain from saying it in so many words, it is quite plain that they consider, that if there was any Church before that period at all, it may have been the Churching:-" Paul WAS AN INSPIRED APOSTLE OF JESUS of Moses, but it was not the Church of Christ. Nothing is more remarkable in Dr. Wardlaw, than the coolness with which, without any attempt to justify it, he sets aside the authority of so large a portion of the Word of God. His title-page bears on it, "Congregational Independency, the Church Polity of the New Testament," by which he means, not of the New Testament Church, which would be quite proper, but of the New Testament Scriptures. "I have said, there is sufficiency of proof in the New Testament alone." Even this would be admissible, were it meant merely to assert the authority of the New Testament" inspired instructions," our argument is strengthened in preference to tradition or human authority; but the assertion amounts to a disclaimer of the Old Testament, as an authority in this matter altogether. And yet, in apparent unconsciousness of any such design, he says, "My motto is, and I shall keep myself sternly to it-THE BIBLE, THE BIBLE ALONE." (P. 3.) We are aware that Dr. Wardlaw may plead that the constitution of the New Testament Church must be founded on New Testament authority: a poor quibble, at the best, founded on using the same term in different senses; but this will not atone for the studied, the systematic, the tacit, and the more offensive, because tacit, slight that is cast on the Old Testament Scripture; for while we are all willing to bring our systems to the test of the New Testament, we hold the Old Testament to be an authority, even upon points of New Testament duty and privilege. On the subject of Christian baptism, for example, we quote its authority, and Dr. Wardlaw can make use of it himself when it suits his purpose. But the

by the fact that a council of the Church was called, under divine direction, to decide upon them; for how much more needful are councils when inspiration has ceased! But we refer to the language of Dr. Wardlaw, merely to point out a strange feature which we have observed in all our controversies with the Independents, viz., their propensity to hold that the apostles were so inspired, that they could never open their mouths without announcing infallible truth, as if inspiration had been an inherent quality of their minds! We wonder what Dr. Wardlaw would make of the contention between Paul and Barnabas, or between the same apostle and Peter, when he "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

But the most extraordinary hallucination which besets the minds of our Independents, relates to the use of the word CHURCH. We all know the magic • We would strongly recommend to Dr. Wardlaw's perusal a treatise lately republished, but which he never appears to have consulted-"Whytock's Short Vindication of Presbytery, with Twelve Essays on the Church." Edinburgh, Kennedy, 1843.

|

were set over them in the Lord. It may be true, that among other proofs of this, the application of the word church in the singular number to such a numerous body of Christians (another aggregate term of the same import) as that in Jerusalem, which we cannot suppose to have congregated in one room, demonstrates the unity to which we have referred; though we would not say that it was intended to teach us a lesson on Church government.

ings were churches, and holds that it was only when they met together in one place, which he says they did habitually, that they were entitled to be called a church. "It is not, in fact," he says, "a point of great importance, whether the believers in a city or town meet together for worship and the observance of ordinances, provided they have the same teachers and governors in 'common." (P. 119.) It matters extremely little, so far as the argument for Presbytery is conBut how frail and flimsy must that system be, which cerned, whether you suppose the teachers and goverdepends on its being established, beyond all doubt, nors of the congregations in a city, fixed in particular that the Christians of Jerusalem and Ephesus never charges, or teaching and governing in common. If met as a church--that is, never met at all, or held an in this we have departed from primitive practice, the assembly, except within the boundaries of four walls! Congregationalists are as much to blame as we. But Some Independents have actually been willing to it is some concession, at least, to allow that there rest the whole controversy on the meaning of these may have been Christian congregations, or "little words, “in one place." If they cannot get the thou- bands" of worshippers, or whatever else they may be sands and myriads of Christians in Jerusalem and called, all of whom were governed in common by the Ephesus squeezed into one room, huddled under one pastors. After making this concession, which the roof, the cause of Congregationalism is done. Dr. truth seems to have extorted, it is somewhat superWardlaw has accordingly set himself, with might and fluous for him to insist on the church signifying a main, to this desperate enterprise of compression. meeting of the whole in one place. Nor can we well After heaving a sigh of regret at attempting to "re- understand why he blames as for converting the exstrain the flow of pleasure with which every Christian ception into the rule. "Because the people of God must contemplate the widening success of the gospel," in Jerusalem and Ephesus were compelled by cirhe first of all tries to crowd the "many thousands" cumstances, or urged by the pressure of a conveniinto one place. When we exclaim at the impossi- ence, almost amounting to a necessity, to meet somebility of this, and hint the danger of suffocation or times in small companies, Presbyterians have made something worse,--Cannot help that, says the Doctor, it a part of their system to erect such separate conin they must go! "We have the fact on inspired gregations, and to furnish each with a separate pastor." record, that the multitude of the disciples' met We have only time at present to reply, that when he together; we have in opposition to this, the affirma- has succeeded in finding a room sufficiently capacious tion of our Presbyterian brethren, that their so for holding our city congregations in one body; and meeting was impossible. Our brethren say they could after he has made the experiment on some Independnot; the inspired historian says they did. Here, then, ent congregations, in order to show its safety and is a balance of difficulties." We beg, by the way, practicability, we shall be quite willing to follow his to rectify the balance, by observing, that what we example; that we shall promise never, to call our say is just what Dr. Wardlaw is obliged to say after-"little bands" by the name of churches, but reserve wards, viz., that if there were so many thousands, that appellation for the great meeting of " the multithey could not each and all meet in one place. There tude come together into one place;" that, if the may have been, however, a public meeting of the pastors assemble to consult about governing the Christians in one place, though, as at public meetings whole in common, we shall not call it an assembly, or we do not expect the whole inhabitants to be present, church, or presbytery, but anything he pleases; and it may not have included the whole Christian popu- that if all the pastors of the several churches in lation of Jerusalem. But Dr. Wardlaw, finding no Scotland, for example, should assemble for the same room for such a crowd, even in the temple, sets him- purpose, we shall not talk of the Church of Scotland, self next to diminish the number; there may not but may think of following the example of the French have been so many thousands in Jerusalem after all; Protestants, who called their assembly "The Synod they may include the surrounding neighbourhood; of the Reformed Churches in France." and, finally, having exhausted his strength and giving up the matter in despair, he falls back on the whole multitude meeting "in one place," exclaiming, "Surely it cannot be necessary to my believing this, that I should be able to tell with certainty where and how, to ascertain the place, and prove its suitableness and convenience!" (Pp. 54-58.) It is truly painful to observe all this vain expenditure of ingenuity, more especially when it is remembered that this phrase "in one place," on which so much is made to rest, signifies nothing more than "together," is often so translated in other passages, and refers simply to mutual association.

But we leave Dr. Wardlaw to argue this point with his friend Dr. Davidson. That writer, unfortunately, has cut the sinews of Dr. Wardlaw's argument, by admitting, that after all, the Christians in Jerusalem may have met occasionally for worship in separate places. It is true, that, in common with all Independents, Dr. Davidson is spell-bound by the word church. He will not allow that these separate meet

(To be continued.)

Notes on New Books.

Strictures on Certain Views propounded by Mr. Emerson; being an Address delivered to the Scotch Young Men's Society, by the Rev. ALEX. MUNRO.

WE have elsewhere alluded to Mr. Emerson, so highly eulogized by the organ of the Church Establishment, and whose refined infidelity has just been distilled into the ears of some of our Edinburgh so-called philosophers. We do not know for what reason such men are allowed to lecture in the Hall of the United Presbyterian Church. It must be purely from inadvertence, for our friends can, of course, have no sympathy with such dangerous principles. It is unfortunate, however, and if they do let out their hall for general purposes

(a plan on the propriety of which we give no opinion), they ought surely to discriminate amongst the objects to which it shall be devoted. Meantime we are anxious to call the at

tention of our readers to a very able “ Address" published by the Rev. Mr. Munro of Manchester, in regard to the real principles and motives of this scoffing American. Emerson

and thinking which the wise and good have long, and for just reasons, discarded? But let us lift the disguise of the definition a little farther, and see what Mr. Emerson's sceptic actually is. He presents to us a class with whom, as we shall show, he professes not merely sympathy, but also identity. To make their distinctive qualities as intelli

teristic specimen-an embodied representive. Montaigne he exhibits, at full length, as the beau ideal of the genus sceptic. He is the paradigma of the definition; yea more, he is, in the lecturer's estimation, the very paragon of writers and of men. Mr. Emerson gives an account of the origin and growth of his own almost transcendental regard for this author. Nay, so thoroughly is he at one with him, that, as he tells us, on first reading his works, he felt as if he himself had written them in some previous state of existence.' He approves, he lauds, he cordially commends the author and the writings to his young listeners.

is a Boston man, and a disciple of our own Carlyle, who gible or palpable as possibly he can, he gives us a characcarries his peculiar views to their legitimate consequences, and endeavours to cut up every thing "most surely believed amongst us" by the roots. And yet all this is done in the usual quiet, and cowardly way of men who know that a Christian community would rise up in arms against them, if their true object were openly and manfully avowed. They wrap up their meaning in dark phrases, through which their scepticism leers and peeps only at intervals, or they strongly commend to their hearers the characters and works of noted infidels of former times and of other lands, so that the unwary young are made to stumble into the pit before they are aware; or they endeavour to fix in the minds of their hearers abstract principles, without pointing out in the first instance their future dangerous applications. All this has been effectively exposed in Mr. Munro's able and eloquent lecture, which we strongly recommend to the perusal of such of our readers as may desire to know the tactics of the modern enemies of truth. Meantime we give the following

extract :

"This, it will be perceived, is the programme of the latest infidelity among us. ExTTY,' says Mr. Emerson, means, to consider: a sceptic, not in the sense of a scoffer,' &c. Here, if I am not mistaken, is another piece of literary wile. Who does not know that in every language there are words which have a primary or secondary meaning that has never followed them into their fixed use? And who does not know, that the worst sects have always given themselves the finest names? But men of sense have taken care to judge the name by the sect, and not the sect by the name. In the present instance, it is well known that the term sceptic scarcely ever in the most ancient, and never in modern times, marked out the considerate disciples of earnest inquiry; but the rejecters of settled truths-the obstructors, not the constructors, of salutary doctrine. At the very earliest dawn, or rather dusk, of their existence-in the days of Democritus and Pyrrho, their founders-they had other names besides: Aporetici, from aropu, to doubt; Ephectici, from x, to hinder, obstruct, or hold back names borne by the body, along with the term sceptics, but, etymologically, more characteristic of their tenets. Down to the days of Empiricus, in whom the ancient school expired, they were staunch to their miserable vocation of extending their negatives and doubts far beyond the legitimate province of doubt-asserting strenuously the utter futility of all inquiry, and denying the possibility of any certainty, in physics and morals, as well as religion. The system, though chased into its grave by the growing light of truth, in the reign of Antonine, has yet revived, or rather been dug up, in modern days. It possesses still the same essential qualities. Whatever slender differences may be noticeable among its recent, as well as its earlier abettors, its identity cannot for a moment be disputed. In all periods, it has comprised the Stratos, the Timons, the Spinosas, the Bolingbrokes, the Humes, and the Owens-as opposed to the Platos, the Ciceros, the Boyles, the Lockes, and the Chalmerses.

"Is, then, 'considerer'-this comely definition of an illfavoured word-intended, like an alias to a name, to propitiate the reception into British society, of a sort of thinkers

66 Well, but who and what was Montaigne, this prince of 'considerers?' That he was a man who possessed certain gifts of ingenious and agreeable garrulity; that he led an easy and unembarrassed life; that he had a free way of speaking about himself, and a courteous way of speaking to others, there is no ground to doubt. But that he is a pattern or a writer, to commend either to age or to youth, is questionable in the extreme. Is the gentleman aware of the well verified judgment of the Port-Royal scholars on Montaigne? Or does he think that these can be lightly set aside? Are the names of Arnauld, Nicole, Sacy, Le Maitre, Fontaine, and Pascal so unknown in literature, as to be undeserving of attention, in estimating his character? Pascal, a man of noble family, who elucidated and completed the discoveries in natural philosophy, on the suggesting of which the fame of Torricelli mainly rests-Pascal, whose talents shone with equal lustre in the most abstruse parts of mathematics, and in the sublimest forms of eloquence, of morals, and piety-was himself a host. He it was who wrote that part of the logic of the Port-Royalists which delineates the character of Montaigne. Having, from a variety of passages, described him as entertaining his readers with a display of his humours, his inclinations, his phantasies, his diseases, his virtues, and his vices; having stated that Montaigne does so, through a defect of judgment, as well as from an inordinate self-love and vanity; having quoted his own excuse for his weakness and wickedness, namely, that he was so formed and so circumstanced, as to be unable to do otherwise; that it was needless to repent; that if he was to live again, he would live as he had done; that he neither mourned the past, nor feared the future; that without thought or care, he holds himself ready to plunge into death as into a depth which engulfs all at once -death which is but a quarter of an hour's suffering, without consequences, without disagreeables, and which deserves no particular directions;-having exhibited these statements from Montaigne's own works, Pascal exclaims, as well he may, "Paroles horribles!-Horrible words, indeed; indicating an utter extinction of every sentiment of religion."

"The strictures, too, on Montaigne, by Malbranche, are unaccountably left out of view-a writer of the first eminence, who, though like our own Brinckly, he had some idle notions on intellectual ideality, yet, like him also, was firmminded, pure-hearted, and sincere in everything that relates to morality and religion. He condemns Montaigne; and this the more, because that, not assuming to be a reasoner, he attempts to divert and please by strengthening the passions, as well as by dangerous sentiments.

"But there are others whose testimony cannot be fairly overlooked. Dr. Brown, a member of the Scottish Bar,

and a writer of research and probity, tells us that, notwith- | Earl of Warwick. The first part of this work consists of a standing of expressions used by Montaigne, indicating an entire extinction of the religious principle, 'he yet had mass celebrated in his chamber in his last moments, and expired during the elevation of the host.' Here, then, you have one or two things to conclude respecting this man-either, that to his scepticism he added hypocrisy; or that, through life rejecting all faith, he was at death given over to all credulity.