ESSAYS ON CHRYSTIATI unrow.

Tars work originated in a speech of the late Dr. Balmer, of the United Secession Church of Scotland, at the commemoration of the Westminster Assembly on its Bicentenary. A " Friend of Union " was so struck by it, that he conceivedthe idea of instituting "some measure to promote that Christian unity of which the paramount claims had been so admirably stated." At first he thought of a prize essay ; but, independently of the time requisite to examine and adjudicate, a treatise by .one person could not illustrate unity as well as recommend it. The present plan was therefore adopted, by which eight ministers of different denominations un- dertook to write an essay each upon the subject of Christian Union. In the selection and assignment of the topics, or rather the texts of their respective discourses, the eight divines concurred ; " but here their joint responsibility ends." Each author is alone responsible for the views of his essay ; it has not even been read by his collaborateurs.

Of the eight divines who contribute to the volume, no fewer than six are Presbyterians of various denominations, and the remaining two are Independents. As regards nationality, seven are dignitaries of Scottish sects ; Mr. James of Birmingham is the only representative of England. The best known ministers are—Dr. Chalmers, who writes the Introductory Essay ; Dr. Candlish, whose subject is Christian Unity in connexion with the Propagation of the Gospel; and Dr. Wardlaw, who writes upon a rather self-evident theme, a Catholic Spirit, its Consistency with Conscientious- ness. The most largely popular topics are those of Mr. James, who treats of iinfon in relation to the present state of Religious Parties in England, and of Dr. King, who handles the Scottish portion of the same question. The subject of Dr. Gavin Struthers—a Sectarian Spirit, its Prevalence and Insidiousness—is equally temporal, but more general and less inform- ing in its nature. The other themes are spiritual in character—the Scrip- ture Principles of Unity, by the late Dr. Balmer ; and the Unity of the Heavenly Church, by Dr. Symington of Paisley.

In a subject treated by so many authors, and wig' such independence of each other, it is difficult to draw any large and definite conclusions that may not be objected to wholly or in part. One writer may be broad and distinct in his view ; another may appear to entertain a similar opinion, but be less clear in his expression ; a third may not mention the sub- ject at all ; and a fourth may be so very catholic that only a very general deduction can be drawn —which is perhaps the case with Dr. Chalmers. Our statements must therefore be received with the qualifica- tion necessary under such circumstances. We shall state nothing touch- ing the views of Christian Union that we cannot prove from the volume ; but we may not be able to prove from the volume that every writer maintains the opinion in that precise shape, though such is our impression.

The general principle on which it is held that Christian union should be based is rational. We are only entitled to insist upon those essential points of Christianity which are necessary to salvation ; although, when the rule has to be reduced to practice, differences are very likely to arise as to what those essential principles are. But if we are not greatly mistaken, the doctrines of what is called Evangelical Christianity would be insisted on as necessary to salvation, by the authors of the work before us. The test of unity is reasonable,—an interchange of pulpits and a reciprocal partaking of the communion by the members of the churches in unity. But if we rise beyond the few though active denominations that meet by delegation in the Metropolis or principal towns of Great Britain, and cast our eyes over the Christian world, the idea of onion entertained is narrow enough. The Greek and Oriental Churches are scarcely mentioned, or even thought of : " out of sight out of mind." The definitions of what is to be received as Scriptural Chris- tianity would indirectly or directly exclude Roman Catholics : besides which, we meet in more than one writer with such terms as "the Man or Sin," and " Antichrist," which appear to throw an enormous section of the Christian world not only out of community but out of Christianity. Upon the same principles of definition, the High Church division of the Anglican Church would be excluded; though we think professional jealousy ot" the doctrine of the Apostolical succession may here unconsciously bias the judgment, unless in the case of Tractarians. It is, however, curious to see how little attention the Anglican Church really receives. Mr. James or Birmingham enters the most fully into the subject ; for his geographi- cal position has perhaps impressed him with the fact that there are a good many millions of people in England who at least call themselves Christians. Even to the High Church he seems to have no objection, but anticipates refusal from them. For unity with the Evangelical party he has a wish but no hopes. He believes many as individuals would not object to it ; but they " do not think it expedient to join in any scheme of visible association, for reasons which they think they can justify to themselves." Strange to say, the Lutheran Churches are also pretty Much overlooked : that of Sweden is brought forward to be dismissed as dead. America, perhaps from its visits of delegation, receives more con- sideration • but with this exception, the plan of Christian unity before ifs seems limited to the sectarians of Great Britain and the Kirk of Scot- land,.

In literary merit the essays of course vary : though all are distin- guished by considerable ability, scarcely any are possessed of that pecu- liar character which we have often said is requisite to endow a sermon With general attraction ; and several of these productions are sermons in reality. Perhaps Dr. Chalmers is least obnoxious to this remark; lint he seems to have been half afraid of his subject, as if it were too tender to be toothed. In a theological point of view the essays are not striking. They appear to us as deficient in scholarly precision, espe- cially where definition is required. In general points they smack too much of the platform and the pulpit; as if the writers had each been ac- customed to "give a little senate laws." Dr. Chalmers, Dr. King, and James have the least of this narrow and rather dogmatizing tone.

The essays of the last two writers are the most popular in their cha- racter of any in the volume. Part of this is owing to their subject, which, embracing the present condition of religions parties in each country, naturally comprehends information as to the social state and feeling of many religious microcosms. Mr. James has added an histo- rical précis of the various unsuccessful attempts at unity that have been Made by the Protestant Churches of England, or rather by eminent Members of those Churches ; and Dr. King furnishes some historical particulars of several Scottish Churches. Both these writers, too, ex- hibit, we think, a less confined mind; and Mr. James has rather a less dry manner than the Scotch ministers with whom he is associated. The topic of Party Spirit, its Prevalence and Insidiousness, also gives Dr. Gavin Struthers an advantage, by enabling him to depict the influence of religions zeal upon society in Scotland ; which seems persecuting and mischievous to a degree, if there is no exaggeration in his generalities. Passages of power and broad truths may also be found in most of the essays • but perhaps Dr. Wardlaw's is most distinguished by peculiarity of character, which seems to spring from a " vigour beyond the law.' We thought, for example, that the following mode of handling Antichrist was exploded ; because it has been discovered that exaggeration rather injures than benefits a cause. When people find the reality does not tally with the bugaboo they have imagined from descriptions of it, they are apt not to discover the more insidious evils against which they may never have been warned—the moral mischiefs that flow from some of the Romish doctrines, and from discipline having almost the force of doctrine—the intellectual slavery produced by submission to the claims of the Romish priesthood.

DR. WARDLAW ON POPERY.

There has too often prevailed a disposition—and seldom, perhaps, has it been -stronger than in our own times—to class Antichristian errors among the forms of Christianity. But Antichrist cannot be Christ. The very designation implies the contrary. If Evangelical Protestants are right in regarding Popery as the predicted system of Antichristian usurpation, or even as one among the several Forms tinder which Antichrist should appear—as the "mystery of iniquity," of which the elementary principles had begun to " work " even in the days of the .Apostles, and which was by and by to mature into all its hideous deformity as the great antagonist power to Christ's spiritual reign—then surely the farther we Irap ourselves from all contact with it the better. With such a system all amal- gamation must be pollution, and all acknowledgment of it as within the pale of Christianity a contradiction of the Bible. That there are those connected with it Who are better than their system, and who, if they rightly understood its nature, would not be there, is readily granted. Our business is to sound in their ears the solemn warning, Come out of her, my people I " The denunciations in the Divine Word against the system and its wilful abettors are fearful. We must "have no "fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness "—no charity for errors that are subversive of the fundamental principles of thegospel and of the kingdom of our Divine Lord—no sympathy with the sentimental liberality which, by soften- ing the odious features of the monster, almost persuades itself to regard it with

COM MKT

e more strictly religious portions of the book are not adapted to our columns ; and a good deal of the general reasoning, however useful and 'appropriate to its purpose, is of necessity somewhat common to such discussions. We will take a few examples of the volume from essays Which touch upon more general subjects.

SCOTTISH EPISCOPACY. [DR. EMI.]

There is an Episcopal Church in Scotland. It embraces comparatively few of he people, but a krge proportion of the aristocracy; and in consequence of recent events, has been growing in favour with the tipper classes. Its.principal strength,

however, has been always found in the nobility. • • The Scottish Episcopal Church lays claim to great antiquity and regards itself Its the venerable remains of the Once national church established by law. Its Office-bearers were for a long period known by the name of Nonjurors, because adherecttolliellouse of Stuart and reftSed to swear allegiance to }ling Wil

Liam and Queen Mary. As many Episcopalians, especially those holding 'Ace under Government, found a difficulty in attending on the Ministrations of Nth.' tiring clergymen, a distinct class of Episco I churches was formed, _presided over clergymen who had received ordination . .. English or Irish Bishops. After the death of Prince Charles Edward in 1788, the last of the Stuart family who laid claim to the British crown, the Scottish Episcopal Church transferred allegiance to the Hanoverian dynasty; and as all ground for a separate Episcopal persuasion was thus removed, the congregations standing apart have nearly all acceded to the Scottish Episcopalians. There are at the present time six dioceses, each ruled by a Bishop; and upwards of ninety Presbyters having cure of souls. This church has much in common with the Church of England. For upwards of a century no subscription had teen required from her functionaries to any regular creed or confession; but by the act of Parliament passed in then. favour in 1792, they were bound over to subscribe the Thirty-nine Al'' ticks of the English Establishment. On both sides of the Tweed there is a like attachment to the doctrine of Apostolic succession ; and in this province the Episcopalians of Scotland have rather outran their English brethren. The pretensions of Prelacy are here as high as in any region of the globe. They have been sometimes, however, brought into jeopardy in the course of our chequered history: amid the troubles of Scotland the succession-chain was sometimes in danger of being broken. Indeed, the Scottish fathers were at one time so far forgetful of the value of this charm, that, when Episcopacy was fully and avowedly established in 1572, the consecration of Bishops was strangely over- looked. But the wisdom and piety of James VI. corrected this ' ,:ii-i...rity, as well as the sadder innovations which followed it. In 1610, he called up three of the Scottish clergy to London, and had them regularly consecrated by English Bishops, and so qualified to keep up and transmit the successional virtue. About fifty years afterwards, the like expedient was adopted on the restoration of Epis- copacy by Charles II.; and thus the Scottish Episcopal Church can clearly show that it has the succession from England; and the demonstration is entire if Eng- land can show with equal clearness that it has the same from the Apostles.

A WELL-REASONED VIEW AGALXST EXCLUSIVENESS. THE LATE DR. BALMER.]

There is surely something unnatural in refusing to acknowledge as servants of Christ and ministers of his word persons who are evidently accredited by Christ himself And yet, how extensively has this incongruity been exemplified in our own country. Few Evangelical ministers of any denomination (and it is only of them that we now speak) but are glad to consult the excellent commentary of

thew Henry when preparing for their weekly expositions of Scripture; and few of them but would recommend in the highest terms Dr. Doddridge s invaluable trea- tise on " The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul." But suppose that Henry or Doddridge bad appeared in Scotland a few years ago, how would they have been treated? Five years ago, Henry would with difficulty have been al- lowed to deliver one of his inimitable expositions, or Doddridge one of his beauti- ful and tender sermons, in a pulpit belonging to the Established Church—many as were the excellent ministers it then contained. And fifty years ago, each of these admirable individuals would probably have experienced sunder treatment in both branches of the United Secession. Is there not something not only sinful and absurd but monstrous and shocking in such exclusiveness and intolerance? Can that, we are ready to ask, be a church of Christ which refuses to " receive " the most honoured of Christ's servants? How was it that conduct so unchristian was not universally execrated as an intolerable disgrace to the Christian name? Is it not lamentable to think, that, though there were ministers in these churches who felt that this part of their ecclesiastical system was indefensible, and who wished for greater freedom, there were many who hardly felt the pressure of their fetters, and not a few who gloried in the yoke of bondage as a badge of superior strictness and sanctity?