Sidor som bilder

most hearts, of God's forbearance, condescension, and impartiality? That mercy which so promptly welcomed back the erring follower, and so generously prayed even for his murderers, is it not an impressive lesson on the fathomless mercy and free forgiveness of our God and Father? And that benevolence which prompted him to incessant exertion; which supported him through unparalleled suffering; which was alike the soul of his discourses, his actions, his miracles; which shone through his life and his death; whose splendours were around his brow when he expired on the cross, and when he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; what is it but a glorious revelation of the glorious truth, that God is love?

(To be Continued.)

The Detector.–No. 10.

“ If there's a hole in a' your coats,

I rede you tent it,
A chiel's amang you takin' notes,

And, mind, he'll prent it.”--Burns. “Oh, an' you talk of conscience, I must have mine eye upon you.'

Shakspeare. Almost all corporate bodies are fearful of change. Be they ecclesiastical or civil, improvement-which they call innovation is their aversion. Individuals there may be amongst them, wbo have a knowledge of better things, and whose wish it is that better things should prevail

. Yet even these consent, in their corporate capacitystrange infatuation! to sacrifice their knowledge and their feelings, to the upholding of their “ Order.” It matters not to them, whether the spirit of the age, or the spirit of Christianity be arrayed against their sayings and doings. Church and State, Diana of the Ephesians, or any other idol for the time being, must be preserved, and the rebel or the heretic must be put down. Of all corporations, too, the ecclesiastical is the worst, the most alien to liberty, the greatest bar to reformation. Originally at war with reason, and founded upon a perversion of Christianity, is it to be wondered at, it should in all ages be the ready tool of despotism—branding by excommunication, or more potent weapons, according as the age would bear the imposition, every appearance of freedom? Is not the history of all church courts, the history of tyranny-ty

ranny of mind at all times—tyranny of body too, when they dared? As angels' visits, few and far between, bave been the exceptions. The University of Cambridge has shown by its recent conduct that it is not one of those exceptions. The Church of Scotland, at present, breaks not through the rule. What with the Campbell heresy, and the MʻLean heresy, and the Paisley and Woolwich heresy, her hands are tolerably full just now. And, truth to say, she seems disposed to carry matters with as high a band, and to be as determined in her adherence to the stern and gloomy tenets of her standards, as even Knox or Calvin could have wished.

The London Presbytery in connection with the Church of Scotland, bas lately been dealing with the doctrinal delinquences of Mr. Scott, preacher at Woolwich. Having been originally licensed by the Presbytery of Paisley, to them he made his appeal. On the 3d of May, the matter was taken into consideration by this body. It was stated by Mr. Scott, that although he differed in some points from the Confession of Faith, yet that it was far from bis wish to separate from the Church of Scotland. He desired still to continue a preacher of her communion, but he could not accept ordination at the hands of the ministers of that Church, for three reasons:

lst, He believed that the Scriptures made a full declaration of the love of God to all men-that God was willing that all should be saved, and come to a knowledge of the truth-and that Christ gave himself a ransom for all; but in the Confession of Faith, he found that the benefits of the death of Christ, were designed only for the elect.

2d, Regarding the Sabbath and the Lord's day, they were exhibited in the Confession of Faith as the same day -he believed them to be two distinct days, the one a Jewish institution, and the other a Christian.

3d, Upon receiving ordination, it was understood, that by the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery, a minister received the gift of the Holy Ghost, and all the gifts implied in that character; but although he admitted such gifts might belong to the Church, he did not believe they could be conferred by any Presbytery.

Such were Mr. Scott's grounds of difference with the Confession of Faith; and the Presbytery met to decide, whether, with “these partial grounds of difference,” as Mr. Scott styled them, he might still retain bis connec

tion with the Church of Scotland. On the decision of this matter, most important subjects were involved. It was not merely whether the Church should retain or exclude an individual member, but whether the Confession should be held infallible or buman-whether the Confession or the Bible is to be the guide in Religion-whether frail and fallible creatures are to bold themselves forth as the depositories of God's spirit, and therefore incapable of thinking or committing wrong-whether, in fine, the Church of Scotland is a Protestant or a Popish Church.

That a Christian minister should, in the present day, be impeached for believing, on creation's testimony and Scripture proof, that “God is love," and that “the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world,” would be passing strange, did not the nature of the impeaching and condemning tribunal-a tribunal which is at once accuser, jury, judge, and executioner-explain the mystery. It is a contest between Calvinism and Christianity; and the court being Calvinists, the cause was prejudged-condemned before band. Acknowledgment of differing from the Confession, was here enough. Discussion would have been deemed an impertinence. The declaration made by Mr. Scott, that be held not the Confession of Faith to be the yea and amen to a Christian, " was tantamount to a resignation of his license.” So said Dr. Burns of Paisley; and the vote of the conclave confirmed the reverend Presbyter's assertion! Calvinism and its Confession were triumphant-albeit, in their triumph, Christianity was put to open shame.

Convenient certainly is this mode of disposing of controversy. It saves a world of trouble. Who would pass weary days and sleepless nights in searching after truth who would expose themselves to suspicion and obloquy, to domestic estrangement and the world's frown, if a Presbytery do in verity possess the keys of the kingdom of heaven"_if their law be gospel, and their fiat stamped with infallibity? Dissenters, free inquirers, avaunt! The Presbytery is the only portal to truth

and heaven. Haply, indeed, a wandering thought might strike, that if the thunders and the inspiration of heaven be given to mortals in these degenerate days, their possessors would more likely be found in Rome than at Paisley; and that in dignity and splendour, and that majesty and magnificence which becomes infallibility, the college of cardinals is not


to be named in the same generation with its humble Protestant imitator. That wandering thought, indeed, might be checked by proper discipline; for in this clime, to doubt the superiority of the Confession to the Mass Book, would be heresy rank and unpardonable.

Though the decision of the Presbytery approved the proceedings of the London court, and struck Mr. Scott's náme from off the roll of the Scottish Church, yet was it not a unanimous decision. One voice was heard for liberality and tolerance. The individual contended, that it was not understood that all the ministers of the Church, in every jot and tittle, agreed with the Confession of Faith. He felt assured, that many did in some points differ. And those rather were the honest members of the Church, who, at the risk of losing their livings, openly avowed their convictions. He considered it was unjustifiable in any one to subject bis judgments of the truth of Scripture, to the interpretation of the Confession of Faith, which was a mere human document. Mr. Brewster was the person who uttered these words of truth and sober

Is Saul also among the Prophets? It is a proof that the teachings of a late excellent individual were not altogether vain. Had he added to those teachings the illustration of his example, doubtless they would have proved more extensively and lastingly useful.

The audience Mr. Brewster addressed, were impervious to argument. In the fulness of their infallibility, they scouted the idea, that any minister could doubt one “jot and tittle” of the Confession of Faith! The statement, that there were those who did “in some points differ," was received with shouts of “ order, order.” Differ from the Confession of Faith! Impossible. “A mere human document!" Away with the profane supposition. No worshipper at Mecca's shrine, no adorer of “the image which fell down from Jupiter," was ever more jealous of his beloved mystery, than were those who decried. Mr. Brewster, and condemned Mr. Scott. In their view, the Assembly of Divines at Westminster is on a par with Evangelists and Apostles. Nay, if the Record contradict the Confession, the Confession is to be upheld in preference to the Word of God!

Say they nay, to this assertion? Let them reconcile their conduct, then, with that denial. Can they prove that God's benevolence embraces not the many, but is restricted to the few? Can they prove that Christ did not “ taste death for every man”--that he did not give himself “ a ransom for all, to be testified in due time"? Can they prove the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord's day to be one and the same? As easily as they can, that three are one, and one is three; but not more clearly. Can they prove their possession of the Holy Ghost-their power to remit and retain sins—their authority of “ absolution” and “the keys”? Let them give the test of possession—let them work the confirming miracle. But if none of these things can they do, then is it not a fact, that in condemning Mr. Scott for speaking truth, they have violated reason and Scripture; and in adhering to the Confession of Faith in opposition to the Bible, have paid their homage to “a mere human document" and its frail and fallible compilers, instead of bowing with reverence and gratitude to “the living God, who is the saviour of all men”? And wha can be the

ion of these rigid adherents to the doctrines and discipline of the Scottish Church? Would they contend that the Church of Scotland is perfect, that by no possibility can she be improved? For what are all these strivings to interdict inquiry and banish heresy? Is it to establish a strict and entire uniformity of faith in the land? A vainer imagination never entered the human mind. When they can rival the philosophers of Laputa in extracting sunbeams from cucumbers, they may hope to effect their scheme. Can they not discern the signs of the times? The voice of the Baptist, “ Reform ye,


ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at band," is not a sound heard only in the wilderness of bygone ages. It has its echo now in village and city, in lowly valley and on the lofty mountain, from individuals and from multitudes. Its voice of migbt, no presbytery, no synod, no assembly, can silence.

Time was when the friends of that liberty wherewith Christ has made his disciples free, looked with hope to the Church of Scotland, as a Church likely to conform to the spirit of Christianity. When the Rev. Andrew Ross had been minister of the parish of Inch nearly twelve years, he wished to withdraw his subscription to the Confession of Faith, and still to retain his situation. His parishioners, by whom he was esteemed and beloved, fully entering into and approving his wishes, presented a peti

« FöregåendeFortsätt »