principle, as clearly as he sees the doctrine of the atonement there," (p. 14;) and yet he unites with the rest in emitting a creed which treats this Congregationalism as a thing either not revealed in the New Testament, or as of no moment-for it omits it altogether, and yet this creed is 66 a basis of truth for Christians throughout the world." The creed of the Eight Articles asserts the "authority and perpetuity of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper:" it settles, or seems to settle, many controverted points, and yet the Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel informs us, "that every member of the society is to be allowed his full Christian liberty of profession and action on all controverted points, especially those of Establishments, of Church discipline, and of the Sacraments, &c.," (p. 25.) And not only so, but "each member would be understood to profess that he will abstain from introducing any of these topics into the meetings of the society to disturb its harmony"-that is the very topics, some of which are embraced in the creed of the Eight Articles. "This address, we are told, made a very powerful impression on the minds of all present." We dont wonder.

Again, the Evangelical Alliance is to unite "the best men, the choicest men of the Church of Christ, the eagle minds, the living minds, swept away before a torrent of light and love"-(We much wish the members of the Conference had shewn a less exalted opinion of themselves,) p. 25—and yet "it is never once to be asked, as to any influence the inquiry may have on our mutual love, what Church we belong to, or whether we belong to any Church at all?" (p. 41.)

The most ludicrous exhibition however-and were it not painful it would be perfectly ludicrous-was that of the Rev. T. M'Crie. This gentleman commenced with professing himself "a Covenanter, who held the moral obligation of the Solemn League." "He maintained that that much abused League had substantially the same ends in view with this Evangelical Alliance!" (hear.) We dont wonder that such a statement excited attention: but we do wonder, and we much regret, that for their own sake, some member of the Conference did not inform Mr. M'Crie, that the object of the Alliance was the opposite of that of the Solemn League, by which he considers himself to be bound. For the Solemn Leaguers were sworn to seek uniformity; while the Conference brands the seeking of uniformity, as a mark of narrow bigotry, and itself "visionary and hopeless," (p. 27.) And though Mr. M'Crie jocosely assures the gentlemen around him, "that he did not consider himself bound to extirpate them, under the notion of malignants and Sectaries," yet, he should have informed them, that they are the successors and representatives of those whom his Covenant brands as Malignants and Sectaries, and of whom, if the Covenant binds him in the sense in which it bound those who made and first subscribed it—he is in conscience obliged to endeavour the extirpation. As this gentlemen and others appear to have forgotten the terms of that Covenant they ever talk of, it may be not amiss to refresh their memories. "With hands lifted up to the Most High God, we do swear that we shall endeavour to bring the Churches of God, in the three kingdoms, to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, form of Church Government, di

rectory for worship and catechising." "That we shall, in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy,” (not Laudism but Episcopacy, as they distinctly explain,) "that is, Church Government by Archbishops, Bishops, their chancellors, &c., and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy," &c. "We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery of all Malignants, (that is Episcopalians,) or such as make any faction or parties among the people contrary to this League," (that is, the Sectaries, Independents, Baptists, &c.,)" that they may be brought to public trial and receive condign punishment," &c. And yet "that League sought only the extirpation of Popery and Laudism!" and "had substantially the same ends in view with this Evangelical Alliance!!" This gentleman concluded with expressing a hope that they would all become Covenanters: Whereat, we must do them the justice to say, the other members heartily laughed: and that was perhaps, after all, the best way of treating such absurdities.

Viewing the speeches on the whole, in connection with the Basis of Union, and as illustrative of it, we must confess we are greatly disappointed. While they command our cordial sympathy in their lamentation over the evils of schism, and in their high estimation of the advantages of union, their authors appear to us to be totally in the dark as to the remedy of the one, and the attainment of the other. Their position probably is felt to be embarrassing; and we think it likely that if more advantageously placed, some of them would see further, and possibly they would also speak more freely. It is not easy, neither is it altogether decent, for those who are Sectarians in principle and practice, in the various churches with which they are connected, to throw off that character at once, and to act on an opposite set of principles in connection with another body, which, though not called a church, is a church in many of its elements. So that we agree very much with that Reverend Gentleman, who thought, that if the Conference was much obliged to those members who had spoken, it was yet more obliged to those who had held their peace.

As to the insult which the Church of Scotland is supposed to have received, in none of her ministers having been invited at the proper time to attend the Conference, we think she has been fortunate in escaping for the present. And while (speaking for ourselves only) we are gratified by the courteous manner in which Dr. Hill replied to the circular which at last was sent him, and by the zeal of those friends in the Conference, who asked an explanation of so striking and apparently so studied an insult-we can heartily forgive the insult, if such it was; and we can very easily find a satisfactory explanation of the mystery.

On the whole, we cannot help thinking that the excellent persons, as we heartily admit they were for the most part, who assembled at Liverpool, were but ill prepared for the task they undertook; and we apprehend that the effect of their meeting is the very opposite of that they ascribe to it-to shew the very great difficulties which, in the present state of men's minds, lie in the way of Christian Union.

Catechism on the Principles and Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland. Issued by authority of the Publication Committee of the General Assembly.-Edinburgh: Johnstone. 1845.

"Long-looked for-come at last!"-nothing less than a professedly authorised exhibition of the principles, and even of the Constitution of the so-called Free Church of Scotland; drawn up, as appears from a prefatory note, by honest Andrew Gray of Perth; sanctioned by the Free Assembly's Publication Committee;" and, (that every thing might be in appropriate keeping,) adorned on the title-page with a pilfered wood-cut-our own old familiar "Burning Bush"-and a stolen motto to match :-" Nec tamen consumebatur.”

66

Whatever may be the beauties or the blemishes of this little book, yet if it be indeed all that it pretends to be, the publication must be regarded as a "great fact;" and certainly it has not appeared a moment too soon, unless perhaps for the credit and character of the compiler. He and his employers have been dealing long enough in negatives; let them now, were it only for novelty's sake, favour us with a clear, comprehensive, coherent, consistent set of positive principles-principles not only apparently practical, but really practicable in connection with those Establishment views which still lie, say they, at the foundation of their system. They have lectured the country, usque ad nauseam, upon what they conceive a National Church should not be; it is high time for them to demonstrate what it should be; aye, and what, when in actual operation, it might, could, and would be in this free Protestant land. They have been labouring, happily with more assiduity than success, to undermine their neighbour's house; the Christian public are curious and expectant to know how they mean to perfect and perpetuate their own.

Here is an upstart sect, which all other persuasions* denounce with one

In proof of the above allegation, we need only refer to the avowed organs of every denomination in Scotland. Take but the following home-thrusts from a pamphlet published the other day by an Independent, in reply to one of the trashiest farragos of nonsense that ever issued even from a Free Church press, by a Free Church Minister in Forfarshire. The title of the pamphlet is "a Letter to the Rev. Robert Inglis, shewing a Difference between the Spirit and Laws of Christ, and the Spirit and Laws of the Free Church, in answer to his tract, "Where lies the difference?" By a Lover of Scripture truth.-Montrose, 1845. "It is by far too much the sin of Christians, that they compare themselves by themselves, and by the wicked world around them, while they neglect or lightly esteem that rule by which alone they can be rightly judged. The Gospel of Jesus teaches a spirit of humility and meekness-compare this with the vain and boastful spirit that Free Churchmen often display. Your own tract furnishes an instance of this. You glorify your Church by a great number of high-sounding worldly names, and godly persons. You tell us that your Church is the Church of Scotland. She may be so, and yet, in many respects, possess no claim to be called the Church of Christ. You say she is the Free Church, and this also she may be in some respects, and yet not enjoy that freedom with which Christ maketh all his people free. She may be a protesting and witnessing Church, and yet not protest and witness for the whole truth of God, nor against the corrupted systems of men. These names display pride, not principle; sound, but not sense; the spirit of the world, but not the Spirit of Christ. Is not the putting forward of these pompous names calculated to lead the minds of the ignorant and unstable from the cross of Christ? To worship the Church of their fathers rather than the God of their fathers? Many in the Free Church can talk a great deal in praise of their Church, who appear to experience no more of vital godliness than those who never heard of a Saviour. Truly, Sir, if your fathers bought the principles for

consent as the most arrogant and vain-glorious-the most uncharitable and intolerant that schism ever spawned-a sect which accosts the passers by of other creeds with the Pharasaic salutation: "Come not near us, for we are the men, and with us wisdom will die;"— '-a sect which, like old David Deans, does nothing but "testify" against what it calls" national defections, right-hand extremes, and left-hand fallings off" now assailing the "infidelity" of the Voluntaries, and now the "Erastianism" of the Establishment-a sect which exalts itself above all who have come before it as the purest and most perfect church that Scotland or Christendom ever saw; and yet, with all those high-sounding pretensions, that self-complacent boasting and supercilious contempt of others, it is a mournfully instructive fact, that this beau ideal of a church has never given to the world any systematic, or even definite and intelligible account of the peculiar, distinctive principles which raise it above former Presbyterian churches, nor of that peerless and hitherto undiscovered Constitution, by which its clergy and people are to be governed.

But will not this defect be now supplied by" Gray's Constitutional Catechism?" That the leaders intend and expect it to be regarded in a vague and convenient sense, as an accredited standard among their followers, is probable enough. It is not the first tub they have thrown out to the whale, nor the first sop they have given to Cerberus; and for the time, though it be only what Mr. Gray terms "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare," it will serve its purpose. But even did more authority attach to the production than it can well be said to possess, (for the Free Assembly may, at any time, disavow it, and there are already rumours of its being withdrawn,) still as an exhibition of the platform of the Free Church, as "the Church of Scotland," the name in which she glories however falsely, this tract is utterly worthless. Out of one hundred and sixteen pages, only about a dozen at the close are devoted to the subjects of government and discipline, and nothing is taught on these heads which was not held by all Presbyterian Dissenters long before the Free Church was ever heard of. The staple of the Catechism is a wretched crambe recocta a jumbled hash of the false and foul things that have been said of the present Establishment; and its more correct title would be,—“ Railing Made Easy; or Abuse of the Established Church reduced to Question and Answer, for the use of the Rising Generation; being a Humble Attempt to perpetuate Strife, and transmit Party Spirit and Sectarian Bigotry to Children yet unborn."

The truth is, that the leaders of this movement, after rudely severing their people from the Church of the Constitution," have no new platform to offer in its stead; or, if they have, they dare not produce it for fear of the consequences. Like all Revolutionists, they find it much easier to destroy than to build—“ to pluck up that which is planted,” than to plant with the certain hope of success: for as the French poet Destouches sings:

"La critique est aisée, mais l'Art est difficile."

which you contend, they are little worth. But I observe another difference between the spirit of Christ and the spirit of Free Churchmen. How unlike the Spirit of Christ is your loud and boastful talk about suffering poverty and persecution. Why talk of martyrdom in connection with a Church, against which a gibbet has never been raised, nor a faggot kindled? and of persecution, which has never amounted to bonds and imprisonments? In short, Sir, Christ and his Apostles suffered much and talked little about it: you suffer little or nothing, and talk a great deal." We scarcely think that Mr. Inglis' pamphlet was worthy of serious refutation by a Churchman. It has, however, received a very clear and effective answer, by one who takes the anonyme of " Vindex"-supposed to be a respectable clergyman in the Mearns. It is published in Montrose, and we beg cordially to recommend it.

We are entitled to ask what system these would-be Destructives of our Church intend to adopt that shall prove conservative of their own. Making every allowance for the crotchety humour, and exaggerated tone of Sorley's late pamphlet, it speaks volumes as to their Perilous Prospects.' The frequent exclusion of the public from their Church Courts-the constant attempts to repress free discussion-the hanging up or cushioning all matters that might create division-the many jealousies, heart-burnings, and dissensions that are known to exist in their congregations in all parts of the country, and the many more that are most industriously concealedthe complaints " not loud but deep," of the despotism of the "Committees of Public Safety and General Security"-the latent heresies of the younger clergy, and the groaning, through oppressive exactions of the whole body of the people-what are these but the portentous throes and heavings of a volcano that must one day burst? They are indications, not to be mistaken, that the union which has subsisted for only two short years, is, in many respects, but as a rope of sand, and that any attempt at a public and general Testimony, positive as well as negative, would prove like the explosion of a bomb-shell, scattering many of their churches to the winds. The first Secession hung together for about seven years. How long will the discordant elements of the second coalesce? Already "the stricter sort" among them have discovered that there are "godless" ministers in the Free Church, as well as among the “Moderates," and they anticipate another disruption, (for so are they pleased to term it,) as an event by no means undesirable, and perhaps not far distant.

The Mirabeaus and Dantons of the party find that their difficulties in legislation, as in finance, are only commencing. Like all their precursors in the work of agitation, they have evoked a giant-spirit which they cannot lay; they have created a power which they are impotent to direct, far less to control or subdue. The fierce democracy may be wielded by some of them for a little longer, but he whose name has been their greatest tower of strength has resigned the task in despair. A struggle for the mastery between the clergy and the people is hastening on apace, and it needs not a prophet's eye to foretell on which side the victory will remain. Dr. Cunningham may thunder about the potestas dogmatica, and Dr. Candlish split hairs about the potestas diacritica and the potestas diatactica ; but it will be seen that the potestas demotica-the power of those who pay -will ultimately prevail, if not in beautiful theory, yet in stern practice. In the meanwhile, as the strength of the Doctors is "to sit still," so their policy is to preserve silence as to the rights of man, and especially as to the rights of woman, as well as to every other question of ecclesiastical polity which might endanger their own rule, or alarm and provoke the aroused jealousy of the people. But in reply to the oft-repeated question of friends and foes: "Where is your Church's Constitution?"-they have at length been shamed to put forth this paltry substitute of a Catechism; and in order to combine as usual a desperate effort at proselytism with every measure they adopt, they here, under pretence of providing "milk for babes," have taken care to furnish strong meat, or, at least, highly-seasoned food, for readers of every age. Let any impartial man peruse this production, and then let him be asked, "What are the principles of the Free Church?" And his answer must be, "Little else than hatred and hostility to the Scottish Establishment."

That the "Publication Committee" contemplated in this Catechism nothing but a fresh attack on the Established Church, is evident from their selection of the writer. Mr. Andrew Gray, is, to use one of Dickens' American phrases, "one of the most remarkable men of our country." With his private character we have nothing to do. In this Catechism he is very