against the authority of the word of God. The General Assembly is entitled to the obedience of the ministers of the church only in the Lord. That no minister in the church of Scotland is ordained to administer the ordinances of religion to individuals of such a character as the appellant confessedly is, has, we humbly apprehend, been already established; and if so, we say, without the fear of contradiction, that the command, which has just been laid on the minister of Bracadale, is a gross invasion of the undoubted privileges of the ministers of the church -a command which it is not in the power of the Assembly to enforce, however omnipotent she may fancy herself to be, without subverting the very constitution of the church. Conscience is a sacred principle-it is a fearful thing to interfere with its decisions; and if a minister be required to do what the statutes of the church do not demand, and what is revolting to his conscience-his Christian liberty is at an end-he is degraded into a slave. We may be told, indeed, that he is at liberty to leave the church; and a happy thing it is, that in this land of freedom no man can be prevented from taking such a step; but suppose he does not wish to leave the church, we ask, if it be in the power of any man, or any set of men, to depose him from his charge? and we decidedly say no, because in reference to the only case complained of, his discipline is supported by the law of the church. We have heard, indeed, that a late eminent leader of the ruling party in the church used to triumph in brow-beating those men whose consciences were ten der, and in driving them to ac tions whereby their peace of mind was shipwrecked, and we fear that the very decision whereof we now

VOL. XXIII. NO. IX.

speak, proves that this is still the policy of moderation. A miserable boast it is, and the most unwise policy that ever was devised by human ignorance. For who but men of enlightened and tender conscience, whose peace of mind is more valued than temporal comfort-who but such men are the sinews of our establishment? they are removed, you leave indeed a dead mass of matter to receive, like a piece of mechanism, the absolute direction of its every movement, from the will of certain master-spirits in the metropolis, and there may be no interruption of the peace of the church under such a management; but this peace, alas! is but the stillness of death, and the spirit having fled there remains but the wreck of a church behind. But to proceed to take up the question on still more solemn ground, we observe that it is equally manifest

II. That by the decision of the General Assembly, the spiritual interests of the people of Scotland have sustained a manifest and most material injury. In illustration of this point, we have to observe, that supposing it possible that a real Christian could not satisfy a cler. gyman of his knowledge of the or dinance, it is unspeakably better that he should, for a time, be debarred from it, than that it should be conferred on an unbeliever. Such a proposition cannot fail, we apprehend, to meet the cordial ap probation of all who understand the nature of the ordinance. And surely it is at this day unnecessary that we offer any refutation of the Popish idea, that baptism is essen tial to, and necessarily secures the salvation of a child, an idea which, however absurd, when thus formally expressed, retains, we fear, a more extensive influence over the minds of the people in all ranks in Scotland, than many are willing to

4 N

believe. The Rev. Gentleman by whom the reference was brought up alluded to this idea (exploded as he, we fear, rather unwarrantably termed it) in terms of merited reprobation; but we confess that we are at some loss to perceive the consistency between the opinion which he expressed on this point, and the course which, with his approbation, the Presbytery of Sky had adopted. For, to return to the 'observation with which we set out; baptism being, as is taught in the standards of the church, to the child of an unbelieving parent, a mere meaningless ceremony, and to such a parent himself incalculably worse than meaningless-it is unspeakably more pernicious to administer such an ordinance to an unbeliever, than to withhold it from a believer. From this it plainly follows that the administration of such an ordinance, where there is good reason to doubt the qualifications of an applicant, is an act of criminal unfaithfulness to the souls of men. There is no way of evading this inference but by maintaining that the mere external ceremony of baptism, even where not understood, and where of consequence, no saving faith is exercised, confers some advantage-a doctrine, of which we shall merely say, that it is the most ruinous delusion by which the souls of immortal creatures were ever beguiled; and that, were it maintained by any minister of the church of Scotland, it would justly subject him to deposition. For, what is implied in the ordinance of baptism, but that the believing parent devotes his child just as he devotes every thing that he has to God; and if, as is manifest, such a dedication can be made only by a true believer, is it not obvious that the participation of such an ordinance, by an unbelieving man, is an act of daring and blasphemous mockery -and that the administration of

such an ordinance, by any minister of the Gospel, to an individual who understands not its import, or whose outward conduct belies his profession of Christianity, is a solemn and a fearful profanation of the holy office of the ministry? It is then, we apprehend, obvious that a minister ought to be well assured of the qualifications of all to whom he dispenses so solemn an ordinance

and that, while he has reasons to doubt, he ought to delay. Delay does no harm; while, on the other hand, the mischief, to the individual himself, and to the community at large, resulting from a rash administration of an ordinance so solemn, is incalculable. And now, we have to recal the attention of our readers to the statement of the case, made at the bar of the Assembly. It was stated by Mr. Souter, that the ignorance of Alexander Campbell was not very gross, and that his conduct was not very vicious. That is to say, that the Presbytery were in uncertainty as to his qualifications, and thought it right to give him the benefit of this uncertainty. Mr. M'Leod, on the contrary, supposing that he was in the same state of doubt on the subject, (though we rather think that Mr. M.Leod's mind was pretty well made up as to the character of the applicant,) judged it safe, for the present, to withhold the ordinance. We have merely to put the question to any man of candour, "supposing the preceding remarks to be true, (and they will not, we think, be disputed,) whether was the Presbytery or Mr. M'Leod in the right?"

We maintain, that if words have meaning, such a statement as was made by Mr. Souter at the bar of the Assembly, implies that Mr. Souter himself was very doubtful whether the law of the church entitled his client to such a privilege; and we hesitate not to say, that if

it was with these doubts in his mind that he dared to espouse such a cause, he has virtually done what is equivalent to dispensing this solemn ordinance, to one whose character and conduct are, to his know ledge, and by his confession, rather below than above the common level of morality in the land. But to pass from Mr. Souter and the Assembly, we have already seen that the statement made at the bar, in regard to the character of Alexander Campbell, if true, as we are bound to believe it is, (perhaps only a part of the truth,) proves that, according to the laws of the church, this appellant ought to be refused the privilege of baptism; and yet the Assembly, on the ground of this statement, as the most favourable that the case would sustain, find that Mr. M'Leod has done wrong in withholding the ordinance; that is to say, the Assembly consisting of ministers, who, by their professed and subscribed principles, must be held as believing that there is the greatest guilt or peril incurred by a maladministration of this holy ordinance; yet find, that a man, of whose Christianity all that can be said, is that he is not grossly vicious, is entitled to partake of it. We have only to ask if such a decision do not display, we had almost said absolute recklessness, of the spiritual interests of the people of the land? We do not indeed say that all the ulterior effects of such a decision, however obvious to us, were in the contemplation of those by whom the decision was pronounced. It may be that our church rulers meditated nothing farther by it than merely to lay an arrest on the zeal of a wild man ; but we are persuaded that its tendency will be to cherish a notion in regard to these ordinances, that is most ruinous to the souls of men; nor can we well

very

conceive how the chief men of the party could be altogether unaware of this tendency. For is it not a known fact, that by multitudes who, under the moderate discipline that is now so generally prevalent, have obtained easy access to the sacraments, it is practically thought that the mere observance of these outward forms constitutes that righte ousness by which they are to be justified on the day of final reckoning; and that they are thus bereft of a privilege, when access to these forms is denied to them? This, we are persuaded, is the secret of a great proportion, if not the whole of those appeals from the judgment of a clergyman, to which, as in the present instance, such attention is always paid by our venerable Assembly. The existence of this feeling is perhaps one of the earliest practical lessons which a minister learns in his intercourse with his people; and to the close of life, is many a faithful ambassador of Christ weighed down under a sense of the resistance which this feeling offers to his ministrations. But we cannot calculate the mighty accession of strength which this feeling must receive from one such decision as that now under review. The effect which a firm Christian discipline, persevered in among a people for a course of years, has in weakening such a feeling, is unspeakably more than counteracted by this one deliverance of the Assembly. But in speaking of the probable consequences of this decision, it may be proper briefly to advert to an argument adduced by Mr. Souter in favour of the deci sion, which he urged. To us it appears a very extraordinary argu ment. He stated that he feared that the effect of strict discipline would be the increase of Dissenters. In reply to this argument we have to observe, that, granting for a mo

ment the truth of the statement, it is unspeakably better that the ranks of Dissenterism should yearly be replenished by seceders from our church, than that they should be detained at the unhallowed expense of lowering beneath the commands of Scripture, and the standards of the church, the terms of church communion. Thousands of our people may yearly become Dissenters, without one of them being deluded on any one point that concerns the salvation of his soul. But we hesitate not to say, that the doctrine which is virtually taught by this decision of the General Assembly, cannot go abroad among our people without deceiving them, on that which is the very turning point of their acceptance with God. For if the most solemn ordinances of our church are to be dispensed to all whose conduct does not very grossly outrage the decencies of common life, and if knowledge of the nature of these ordinances be dispensed with, the ordinance of baptism ceases to be the ordinance instituted by our Lord, and is degraded into an unmeaning ceremony, or, what is still worse, is turned into a refuge of lies. But the fallacy of the argument may be demonstrated by a very simple fact. There are, in point of fact, no Dissenters in Scotland, (Episcopalians excepted,) whose terms of church communion are less strict than those prescribed in our Confession of Faith. If indeed we are to draw any fence at all around these ordinances, (and the necessity of this is admitted by moderate men themselves,) we cannot conceive how a wider door could be opened for admission to them than is done by our statutes, which require only knowledge of the nature of the ordinances, and good moral character, as the qualifications for admission to them.

Mr. McLeod never asked from Alexander Campbell, or any other man, any qualification higher than these-and the proof, that it was for the want of these very low and general qualifications, that Alexander Campbell was refused the ordinance of baptism, is to be found in the fact, that Mr. Souter, himself, when pleading his cause at the bar of the assembly, could not say that these qualifications were his. If, therefore, Mr. M'Leod's refusal to his parishioners of the ordinance of baptism, have the effect of increasing the number of Dissenters, as Mr. Souter insinuated, it must be a class of Dissenters, among whom knowledge scarcely raised above the level of grossest ignorance-and conduct, whose highest testimonial is, that it is not grossly vicious, will entitle an individual to a participation in the solemn ordinances of religion; and we only ask Mr. Souter to point out any class of Dissenters, among whom, if they act up to their statutes, such a character could find refuge. We say, that it were a reflection on any class of professing Christians, who pretend to draw any fence around the ordinances at all, to say, that there is; and we therefore, unhesitatingly say, that the suspicion, however plausible, that this would be the effect of Mr. M'Leod's discipline, was a mere bugbear, conjured up to help a bad cause, and that had the decision of the Assembly been in Mr. M'Leod's favour, not one parishioner of Bracadale would have been thereby lost to the Established Church of Scotland. And this is not mere theory, as Mr. Souter's argument at best was; we have access from good authority to know, that in the parish of Bracadale, such has the effect of this steady adherence to the laws of the Church been, that a general inquiry into the nature of these so

lemn ordinances is spreading among the people, and that Mr. M'Leod's ministry is attended more regularly, and with much greater attention. From this fact, we are surely warranted to infer, that, had Mr. McLeod been allowed to prosecute unmolested this work of fidelity and love, the happiest effects might have been anticipated. But exemption from unwarrantable in terference, was too great a privilege to be granted him. We call on the men who have interfered with him, to contemplate the mischief which they have wrought; for what will be the effect on the minds of those people, when they hear that the General Assembly, the supreme ecclesiastical court in the kingdom, guided, as they (alas! in their ignorance) fancy it is, in all its decisions by the word of God, has declared that their minister has raised unwarrantably high the standard of Christian character, and has been too strict in his admission to ordinances ;-what we ask, must, humanly speaking, be the effect of all this, but that those who are still unimpressed, will be steeled more against conviction than ever, and that those who are beginning to inquire after salvation, will relapse into their original indifference and unconcern? We cannot indeed conceive any thing more fitted than such a decision, to perpetuate the reign of spiritual darkness; and though such an effect should be prevented by him who has the hearts of all men in his hands, yet the natural tendency of such a decision is to quiet all anxieties about the state of the soul, and to keep men resting in this miserable refuge that they have been baptized, and that they have taken the sacrament, so that they continue to live in spiritual insensibility, and, it may be, in insensibility to die. Such being the natural tendency of this deci

sion of the Assembly, we maintain, that the guilt of these obvious and momentous consequences of such a decision, rests on the head of those men who dared to pronounce it; and the weight of this guilt, we fear, must be estimated by the fact, that the account to be given of these melancholy results, is none other than this," that a faithful ambassador of Christ would have aroused them from their spiritual slumber, when by his ecclesiastical superiors, an arrest was laid on his fidelity and zeal."

To the individual, himself, in whose cause this decision was pronounced, and on whom, in pronouncing it, we doubt not our ecclesiastical rulers thought they were conferring a deed of kindness, we tremble to think of its consequences. Is it seriously believed by Dr. Mearns or any other of the party, that a man, whose religious char acter claimed no higher a testimonial than it received at the bar of the Assembly, were possessed of knowledge of the nature and ends of the ordinances? It were an insult to their understandings to suppose that they did; yet they required that he be admitted to an ordinance which he understands not, which is therefore a solemn mockery of heaven; and the most probable effect of which, will be his continuance in a spiritual delusion, which Mr. M'Leod's scriptural discipline might, under the agency of the Spirit, have dispelled; nor can we tell what influence this very decision may exert over his destinies for ever.

We have thus endeavoured seriously, and with candour, to review a decision of the General Assembly, which appears to us one of the most unaccountable in its nature, and melancholy in its results, that has ever been pronounced by our supreme ecclesiastical judicatory. We are not conscious of having in