Guthrie, of Edinburgh, pleading powerfully on behalf of union, and referring to the beneficial influence which the consummation of such an event would have on the same cause in Great Britain. After discussing the matter of union from various points of view, the following was adopted as a

BASIS OF UNION,

to be submitted for consideration by the various branches of the Presbyterian Church represented in the Convention :

I. An acknowledgment of the Old and New Testament to be the inspired Word of God, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

II. That in the United Church, the Westminster Confession of Faith shall be received and adopted, as containing the System of Doctrine, taught in the Holy Scriptures; it being understood that this Confession is received in its proper historical, that is, the Calvinistic or Reformed sense.

Whilst the Committee recommend the foregoing basis of doctrine, they wish to be understood as recognizing the orthodoxy of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms; of the Heidelberg Catechism; and of the canons of the Synod of Dort.

III. That the United Church shall receive and adopt the Presbyterian form of Church Government.

IV. The Book of Psalms, which is of Divine inspiration, is well adapted to the state of the Church in all ages and circumstances, and should be used in the worship of God. Therefore, we recommend that a new and faithful version of the Psalms be provided as soon as practicable. But inasmuch as various collections of Psalmody are used in the different Churches, a change in this respect shall not be required.

The Convention voted by Churches, and on the adoption of the basis as a whole, the final vote stood: Old School, unanimous. New School, unanimous. United Presbyterian, ten for, and one against. Reformed Presbyterian, five for, and four against. Reformed Dutch, unanimous. Cumberland Presbyterian, declined voting.

The report was declared adopted by the Churches voting unanimously.

Resolutions were also agreed to, to the effect that a committee be appointed to lay the above basis before the highest Judicatories of the various branches of the Church represented that all who now voted for the basis should not thereby be regarded as being committed to advocate its adoption when laid before the branches of the Church to which they respectively belong; but shall be free to act according to the indications of Providence at the time-that by the adoption of the above basis it is not designed to interfere with the pending negotiations for union between two of the larger bodies represented in this Convention-and that as there is so much agreement among the Churches here represented in all essential matters of faith, discipline, and order, it is recommended that friendly and fraternal intercourse be cultivated, by interchange of pulpits, by fellowship with one another in social meetings, and in every other practicable way.

The Convention also adopted resolutions providing for a day of

American Literature.

219

humiliation and prayer, in view of the divisions in the Presbyterian body (first Thursday in May next), and for the holding of District Conferences for the promotion of the union spirit in various cities. An address to the different branches of the Presbyterian Church, urging the importance and necessity of union, was read and approved. After passing the usual votes of thanks, the Convention adjourned, to meet again in November of the coming year, at Xenia, O.

An event during the Convention which has caused a great stir throughout the country was a visit made to it by a number of Low Church Episcopalian clergy who were in Philadelphia, attending one of the meetings of their Church Society for the Diffusion of Evangelical Knowledge. The deputation was headed by Bishops M'Ilvaine, Lee, and Eastburn, and the Rev. Stephen H. Tyng, of New York, was among their number. Several of them addressed the Convention, and advocated the more frequent commingling of Christians of different denominations.

The Bibliotheca Sacra for October 1867.

This number of the Bibliotheca opens with the first of a proposed series of articles by Dr Barrows, late of Andover, on "Revelation and Inspiration." Like many of similar treatises written by our transatlantic divines, it is marked by a thoroughly scientific and elaborate style of treatment. The two terms are well defined and distinguished, and in discussing the false a priori assumptions against revelation with which he commences, he disposes, first, of the pantheistic system, and next of Hume's argument against miracles, which he proves to be essentially pantheistic, with a pertinency and force which we have seldom seen equalled. This is followed by an article by Professor Brown of Gettysburgh, on the "Second Advent and the Creeds of Christendom," the object of which is to shew that all these creeds teach a doctrine opposed to that of modern millenarianism. "There is a special propriety," he remarks, "in examining this subject at the present time. The pulpit resounds with the doctrine of Christ's speedy coming to reign in person on the earth. The press teems with publications-volumes, tracts, and occasional sermons - inculcating the same views. Passing events are seized hold of to illustrate and confirm the oracular utterances of the pulpit and the press; and if individuals' be not shaken in mind, or troubled,' it is from no lack of repeated announcements and warnings." Without entering into the merits of the question, the writer conclusively shews that, weighed on the principle of quod semper, quod ubiqui, quod ab omnibus, the millenarian hypothesis must be found wanting. Passing by the theory of Heat, we come to a very learned and exhaustive paper, on the "Authorship and Canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews," by Professor Thayer of Andover. On the question of the authorship of the epistle, the writer produces such an immense number of authorities and criticisms pro and con, and swings us from one side to another with such frequency, as to produce something like mental vertigo; but at last he lands in the conclusion that though the canonicity of the epistle is

unquestionable, its authorship is uncertain. For our part, after giving all weight to the opposite opinion that seems justly due to it, we still lean strongly to the belief that its author was no other than the apostle Paul. Into this wide question we cannot now enter. We shall only say, that we consider the judgment of Origen and the Alexandrian Church viewed both as familiar with the language, and as living so near to the times of the apostle, as sufficient to outweigh that of the Latin Church; and that if worthy of a place in the canon, we know no other inspired writer, who, humanly speaking, was capable of writing such an epistle than Paul, who, though specially destined to be the apostle of the Gentiles, was also commissioned by Christ to "bear his name before the children of Israel," and who, as appears from his other epistles, did more, felt more, than all the rest of his brethren for his countrymen the Hebrews. It avails little to us," as Mr Paxton Hood has so eloquently put it, "that criticism cannot prove the Epistle to the Hebrews to be his. We know it must be his. We feel Paul in every line. It is all along his grand logic on fire! his accumulating crowd of images! until they all rush together in their fiery pomp and illumination, at the close, in the altogether unparalleled splendour of expression in the eleventh and twelfth chapters."*

XIII.--CRITICAL NOTICES.

The Power of Zeal. By the Rev. DAVID KING, LL.D. With an Appendix. London: James Nisbet & Co., 21 Berners Street. 1867.

In con

It prepossesses one in favour of this little work to find that it was not thrown off in a hurry. "I do not conceal," says its eminent author, "that the preparation of this small volume has cost me labour." sequence of this, it is very pleasant reading, rightly directed "labour" on the part of an author, generally smoothing the reader's pathway in no slight degree. The greater part of the volume, including all but the appendix, will be thoroughly intelligible to minds of even limited culture, while the most fastidious intellect will find nothing in the mode of treating the subject to which it can take exception. We should, therefore, rejoice to hear that the volume was extensively circulated among the ordinary membership of the Christian church, without reference to the denomination to which they may belong, or the degree of culture they may possess. It is not without due deliberation that we say whatever their denomination; for so unsectarian is the spirit of Dr King, and so gentlemanly his language, that no evangelical Christian of any church will find throughout the work a single sentence to grate on his feelings. Underlying this moderation of language is unmistakeable sincerity. The writer speaks gently, because he is fearful of going beyond his convictions; and such an air of reality is in consequence diffused over his whole production, that

* "Lamps, Pitchers, and Trumpets," by E. Paxton Hood.

"The Power of Zeal."

221

we should not fear to put it into the hands of one of those worldlings who are so forward to charge Christians with hypocrisy, and await his verdict as to whether or not the writer was sincere. Dr King evidently writes of Christian zeal, because he feels it, and would wish others to feel it too.

The nature and operation of zeal are treated in a way which would do no discredit to a professed mental philosopher; the Scripture illustrations on the subject are novel and striking; and of the anecdotes from modern life, one-that relating to the late Joseph Lume, M.P.-should be copied into the newspapers, and make the tour of the kingdom.

The appendix, which is designed only for persons of culture, consists of three carefully prepared dissertations: the first on the creation of matter, the second on physical suffering and moral government, and the third on the transmutation of species, as recently revived with modifications, by Darwin. Most writers on religious zeal would simply have ignored these subjects; but it is characteristic of our author that he never turns aside from the difficulties which he finds in his path, but measures their magnitude, and does his best to remove them away. Having therefore perceived, as all observant persons recently have done, that scientific speculations are exerting a deadening influence on Christian zeal, he has given careful attention to these speculations themselves, with the view of ascertaining, so far as possible, what consistency they have attained, and what probability exists of their ultimately taking their place with the ascertained truths of science. When a mere theologian ventures on such an inquiry, he treads on very dangerous ground, and incurs imminent risk of a catastrophe. Dr King, however, whose work on Geology and Religion elicited the commendation of Sir Roderick Murchison, has tastes too manifestly scientific to admit of his committing himself to incautious statements; and to make assurance doubly secure, he submitted this part of his work before its publication to eminently scientific friends, who suggested some slight improvements on it, and gave it their imprimatur, though, with characteristic caution, they forbore to endorse it absolutely. It is consequently of great value. As a specimen of this part of the volume, we would adduce Dr King's four arguments against the hypothesis that matt r has existed from eternity, and in favour of the scriptural doctrine taught in Heb. xi. 3 and other places-of its true and proper creation. The second and third of these arguments we italicise, feeling that they are calculated to exert an effect on religious minds analogous to and quite as decisive as that produced by the reductio ad absurdum in mathematics.

"God made things now seen with no aid from the sensible and perceptible. Simply and absolutely, when they were non-existent, he brought them into existence."

This sublime view of creation was too high for ancient philosophy. The philosophers held generally, if not unanimously, that ex nihilo nihil fit-that out of nothing nothing comes; and therefore, to account for our own corporeal frames and for the world which we inhabit, they alleged the eternity of matter. That this philosophy was less truly philosophical than the Bible will appear, I think, from the following considerations.

1. There is a spirit in man, and omnipotence is needed to bring mind as well as matter out of nonentity. Indeed, Locke considered the creation of mind the greater achievement of the two. He thought "we might be able to aim at some dim and seeming conception how matter might at first be made, and begin to exist by the power of an eternal first Being, but to give beginning and being to a spirit would be found a more inconceivable effect of omnipotent power." The precise sense of these words Locke has nowhere explained. I quote them only as strongly declaring that minds not divine require creation to account for their being. If, then, minds once not existing have come into existence by creation first, why should

the creation of matter be accounted inadmissible? The only retreat from this objection is in denying the existence of mind apart from matter, and in holding that all mental powers and operations are material attributes. This evasion will not account for that which was not beginning to be. But without prosecuting the disquisition, let us take note, that to deny the possibility of a creation is to disown the existence of created minds, and to resolve all we are into sheer materialism.

"2. If there be something apart from God and not produced by him, then for so much we have to make no acknowledgment of him. We must then praise him with reservations and exceptions. Of him, and to him, and through him are all things.' No; matter is independent of him, and out of him has all its being.

"3. If matter was not created, then it has divine attributes. It is underived, self-existent, everlasting, &c. Thus in denying God's creation of matter, we in effect raise up other gods, and every stock or stone becomes a virtual divinity.

"4. The distinction between matter and the modelling of it is not tenable. The hypothesis is that God found matter existing, and gave it properties and adjustments. Did he then find it without qualities? That is not imaginable. Without solidity, extension, &c., it would not be matter, so far as we can form any apprehension of the facts. But all the qualities which matter has are such as to render it available for use. They all make a good foundation to build upon, and are in perfect keeping with the magnificent superstructure witnessed. But how could there be all this goodness, and fitness, and profitableness without God making them such? If there could be so much excellence without him, why not all excellence? Why not dispense with him altogether, and replace him by the twin tenets of materialism and atheism ?"

We feel assured that this well-planned and carefully-executed volume of Dr King's will increase rather than diminish the reputation of its distinguished author, and we trust that it will be found useful for its primary purpose, that of making Christian zeal flame more fiercely where already it exists, and lighting it up in quarters where as yet nothing has appeared but the coldness and the apathy of death. R. H.

The Theory of Ruling Elderships: or, The Position of the Lay Ruler in the Reformed Churches Examined. By PETER COLIN CAMPBELL, D.D., Principal of the University of Aberdeen. William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh and London.

The design of this treatise is to prove that the term presbyter, which we have translated elder in the New Testament, uniformly denotes the pastor or minister of the gospel, and is never applied there, or in the language of primitive antiquity, to what we now call ruling elders. Dr Campbell disclaims all intention of meddling with the constitution or usage of the Church of Scotland, he pleads for the representation of the laity in her counsels as resting on Scriptural authority, and sees no reason for a departure from her present practice. But, he maintains that the theory of ruling eldership, as that is held in popular works, and, indeed, as generally understood in our Presbyterian Churches, is wholly erroneous and without any foundation, either in Scripture, in the writings of the early church, or even in our own ecclesiastical standards. To the settlement of this question, which we deem of no small importance in the present day, Principal Campbell has brought no small amount of critical acumen and ecclesiastical learning. He seems to have read and closely studied all that has been written on the subject in early and later times; and we have no hesitation