heart, have miserably failed in effecting the object at which they have professed to aim-that of making men better than they found them.

Two characteristics of our rationalistic Broad-churchmen-their hostile disparagement of the grand distinctive truths of the gospel and their contemptuous intolerance towards those who value and cleave to these truths-come very offensively out in another sermon in Mr. Service's book, entitled "Is Christ divided?" Here such questions as those upon which Romanists and Protestants, Unitarians and Trinitarians, Arminians and those opposed to Arminian error, Ritualists and Puritans, and in general men of the most opposite sentiments, have differed and still differ, are represented as superficial and trifling, not worth contending about; while the points on which they have agreed, and do agree, are represented as alone essential and important to be maintained. And what are these all-important subjects on which such much-lauded agreement exists? Why, just points of common morality, such as the duty of speaking the truth, of dealing honestly, of showing charity as if there were any thing wonderful about men agreeing on such matters as these! And yet agreement as to the principles of ordinary morality is held up by this writer-as was done also very lately by Dean Stanley at St. Andrews-as something quite remarkable, worthy of admiring contemplation and imitation; while all difference and controversy on questions of the most vital moment, if God's Word is a revelation of truth at all-questions relating to the way of the sinner's acceptance with God, and kindred subjects-are spoken of as simply the manifestations of fanaticism and the putting of unmeaning ecclesiastical shibboleths in the place of the great things of God's law.

It is beyond expression mournful and saddening to meet with such miserable, perverse travesties of divine things, and deceitful handling of the Word of God, as this book contains. To us it appears as if its author had deliberately set himself to oppose, and pervert, and turn to ridicule those things which are most surely believed among us on the authority of God's inspired Word, and which have in every age been, and can alone be, the life and joy of believing souls. Yet, he and others of the same school are hailed and lauded as the men of progress, the great enlighteners of the age, and are not only allowed unmolested, but encouraged by the reception given to their productions, to carry out to a still greater length their dishonest and deadly work of undermining, to the imperilling of precious souls and the dishonour of divine truth, the faith they have promised and are paid to preach. We read of a man's foes being they of his own house, and it is sadly true of the Church of Scotland that her worst foes are to be

found among her own children, eating her own bread. Should the day of her downfall as an Establishment come

a day which many desire to see, and are working might and main to bring about-we are persuaded she will have to attribute her overthrow more to the Broad-churchism she is suicidally fostering in her own bosom than to the efforts of her enemies without. Were she only to deal courageously, and purge out from her midst this fatal leaven of rationalism, and lift up a faithful testimony in behalf of all that once made our National Church a praise in the land, she would disarm those who seek her overthrow of one of their most potent weapons, the God of truth would be with her to preserve her from the assault of her foes, and to her might the rallying of Scotland's leal-hearted children yet be.

We had purposed to refer to some further exhibitions of Broadchurchism in the Free and United Presbyterian Churches, as well as in the Established Church, particularly to the excessively virulent attack now being made at all hands upon the Confession of Faith, in which we are witnessing such pitiable displays of ignorance, rancorous hostility to truth, and craving for notoriety-but for the present we must forbear. On every side we have increasingly painful evidence that the spirit of a destructive infidelity is abroad, and working frightful havoc. That the Spirit of the Lord may, in his own good time and way, lift up a standard against this and all other foes of His cause and of man's dearest interests, ought to be more and more the importunate cry of all who know the truth and whom the truth has made free.

THE RELIGIOUS TENDENCIES OF THE AGE.

II.

THE prevailing tendency of the present age, to dissociate Christian Life from Religious Doctrine, its utter inconsistency with the dictates of sound reason and of revelation, and the ruinous consequences to which its practical application would inevitably lead, were considered in a former paper. In further pursuing the subject, we cannot attempt to mention and illustrate in minute detail all the current tendencies of the times in which we live. This would be a tedious and profitless task. But, were we asked to state in a few words the prominent, outstanding tendency in the religious world, we could not better meet the demand than by replying, "A morbid restlessness for change." To this prevalent and apparently dominant sign of the

times, and some of the phases of its manifestation, we purpose confining our attention in the present paper. A kind of mania seems to be raging throughout the Churches in the direction now indicated. The old landmarks of faith are not now sufficient. Something new to gratify the thirst for what is called by the name of progress must be found, but when found, the satisfaction thereby attained is but shortlived. This must give place in its turn to make room for some other supposed improvement, and so the progressive movement advances, leaving at every stage, the progressionists more dissatisfied than before. "They are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." For the sake of concentration of thought and expression, we now call special attention to these two phases in which the growing restlessness of the times manifests itself: The rejection of what is old in doctrine or worship because it is old, and the increasing opposition to Creeds and Confessions.

I. The rejection of what is old in Doctrine or Worship, because it is old. We frankly admit that the mere fact of the fathers of the early Christian Church having acted on certain principles, or adopted certain practices in worship, is not of itself a sufficient ground for requiring professing Christians of our day to believe as they believed and to do as they did. We are well aware, that those who strive to be conscientious and faithful in contending for the faith which was once delivered to the saints, are branded with the name of bigot, or fanatic, as if they were chargeable with the very thing we have been condemning, following with a blind devotedness the example of their fathers on no higher ground than that of antiquity. Such is the toleration of the liberal men of our time, to those who cannot see their way to be as liberal as they. Whatever men of so-called advanced opinions may say, however, every intelligent advocate or adherent of the old constitutional principles and practice of the Church are so not because their remote ancestors were the same, or because the principles to which they adhere happen to be embodied in the Standards of the Church, but because they are based upon the word of God, and as such were practically brought to bear upon the whole position and administration of the Church in the best and brightest period of her history. But it is to be noted further, that while we regard it as unwarrantable, inasmuch as it is subversive of the right of private judgment, to walk in, or impose upon others the obligation to walk in, the old paths, simply because they are the old paths, while we would look upon this as nothing short of bigotry, by parity of reasoning we hold that it is no less unwarrantable, inasmuch as not less subversive of the right of private judgment, to set aside as worthless whatever our fathers taught and practised, simply because they did

So.

In a word, if what they believed and taught and practised has no claim upon our assent except in so far as their faith, teaching, and practice are Scriptural; then on the other hand, we are not at liberty to contemn or set aside what they believed and practised, except in so far as unwarranted by Scripture teaching.

Much safer, we aver, it would be for the Church and the land to err on the one side, if error it could be called, than on the other; or to put it in another form, to follow in the paths in which a godly ancestry with one consent walked, even with a blind devotion, than make the stray convictions of individual men, however gifted, or the voice of the people, our guide. Following the latter course, our condition would very much resemble the conduct of Israel in the time of the Judges, in regard to which time it is said, "In those days there was no king in Israel, every one did that which was right in his own eyes." And is not this an apt description of our own times? That it is so, the ordinary discussions on the popular side of a question in Church Courts amply prove. How seldom do we find a particular principle set aside or made an open question, a particular custom in the Church discontinued, or innovation introduced, because the Word of God sanctions the procedure in these cases. When are changes of this kind introduced by the prefatory announcement, Thus saith the Lord?" Never. And should the acknowledged Church Standards in so many words condemn changes such as these, as they not frequently do, Standards though they be they are unceremoniously ignored as altogether unsuited to guide the Church in her administration in these enlightened times, while the current sentiment, as the undisputed plea for their introduction, is-"It is more in harmony with the spirit of the age and more adapted to the popular taste." With a plea so specious and palatable as this, the complete revolutionizing of the Church will be an easy task. And who that with any degree of care and reflection takes a survey of the Church as a whole, can fail to see that the revolutionary movement has already made and is making rapid progress, of which the following out of many examples furnish ample proof.

The obligations resting upon these lands, from the National Covenant of Scotland and Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms, have long since been set aside by the nation and by all the larger sections of the Presbyterian Church. And why? Not because these deeds are unscriptural in their matter or design, or on the ground of conclusive evidence to the effect that they are not now binding upon these lands, but on that of slipshod general statements such as these, "They have served their day. They were well enough adapted to the conviction of our fore-fathers, but the age has outgrown them."

This is tantamount to saying that moral obligation may be rendered null by the lapse of time whether such obligation be fulfilled or not, and on this ground the Bible itself may be set aside, and in particular, the obligations arising from the moral law. In the so-called march of progress, attempts are even made in this direction. The doctrine of Christ's Headship over the nations, particularly that branch of it bearing upon the national recognition and support of religion, became a subject of keen controversy in the Associate Synod of the Secession Church, towards the close of last century and the beginning of the present, issuing in the importation of Voluntary, or what were then called New Light, Views into the Secession Testimony, and in the consequent formation of the Constitutional Presbytery with the express design of testifying in a judicial form in defence of the old, constitutional ground. The dangerous Voluntary leaven has ever since grown and spread, and the result is, that not only the United Presbyterian Church, which may be said to be the parent of it, but with them the Free Church, into which there has recently merged the quondam Reformed Presbyterian Church distinguished by the name of "Covenanters," unite in ignoring the obligation resting upon nations in their national capacity to recognize, defend, and support Christ's body, the Church. And why? Not because it is unscriptural. The most rabid Voluntaries never attempt to prove this, conscious no doubt of their inability to find even one Scripture Text in support of their pet theory. To get rid of the pointed and invincible arguments contained in the Old Testament, the doctrine we contend for is classed in the category of Jewish peculiarities, and thus fit only to be swept away. (They have no difficulty however in availing themselves of Jewish peculiarities in favour of the introduction of instrumental music into the worship of God). And that the ignoring of the national rocognition of the Church is no mere theory with them, appears from the strenuous efforts they are putting forth to have it put into practice. Like a coterie of political agitators, the Church-appointed Disestablishment-exponents are at present flying through the country, and where they can get an audience, proclaiming vociferously against the existing connection of the nation with religion, and demanding their severance. This is supplementary to the fierce politico-religious discussions on the same subject, that are carried on in all the United and Free Presbyteries of the land. But why do they in company with the heathen thus rage? why do they imagine a vain thing? Like the kings of the earth and the rulers, they may set themselves and take counsel together against the Lord, and against his Anointed, saying, 'Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from

64

K