but of all his children; insinuating that they had perished, as he now suffered, by the immediate interposition of an avenging God against their transgressions, and, in their sudden destruction, had got no more than their desert; thus, even had it been true, cruelly lacerating the tenderest feelings of the wounded heart; and, like Eliphaz, before him, he intimates the duty, the necessity, and the benefit, of a return, by penitence and supplication, to God. Chap. viii. ZOPHAR upbraids him, in no measured terms, with empty verbosity and folly, as well as with arrogance, impiety, and falsehood, for having at all presumed on self-vindication; he proceeds on the full assumption of his guilt, as confidently as if it had been substantiated by the best authenticated facts; and, in his turn, following the other two, admonishes him to wisdom and to penitence. All the three, with a constant reference, too obvious to be for a moment mistaken, to the case of Job himself, expatiate unceasingly on certain common-places of what they conceive to be truth,-the divine judg ments against the ungodly, the invariable uniformity of their infliction, and the inevitable and fearful destruction of all hypocritical pretenders to religion. Chap. xi. The controversy warms, and kindles, and flames as it proceeds. Increasing vehemence of crimination produces a correspondingly increasing vehemence of self-defence and asseveration of innocence. The afflicted patriarch, tormented in body and still more tortured in mind, is driven, by the exasperation of his feelings, to speak both of himself and of God in terms of unguarded and unqualified ge nerality, such as the extreme of provocation might extenuate, but could not justify. In proportion as his friends confidently affirmed the uniformity of the divine judgments on the wicked, and kindness of providential dealing with the good, he strenuously, and without limitation, asserts the contrary, in language at times which appears, or even more than appears, to involve reflection on the righteousness and the reasonableness of the divine procedure. In the progress of the discussion, there comes before us some of the most exquisite touches of human nature; a most interesting development of the passions, and, especially, a striking and instructive exemplification of their influence on the mind in controversy. Every thing like precision and definition, explanation of terms, and modification of statements, is forgotten; all is general, sweeping, universal; all confident, all absolute, all indignant; and assertions, when once made, are maintained throughout, with a high-minded disdain of all reduction and extenuation, and with a growing stiffness and pertinacity of adherence. Such, generally speaking, has controversy been in every age and in every place. In this spirit it goes on to the close; when Job brings it to a conclusion, with a beautiful and most touching contrast between his former and his present condition,-what he had been in the spring. tide of his prosperity, and what he now was in the low and dreary ebb of his adversity, with a renewed and more detailed assertion of his integrity in all the duties of life, both towards God and towards men, and with a solemn appeal, with deliberate and fearful imprecations against himself if he spoke any thing but truth to the omni science and the justice of Jehovah. This silences his opponents, by rendering all further reasoning hopeless: "So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes." Chap. xxxii. 1. Intermingled, however, with all Job's vehement self-vindication, his sarcastic taunts and bitter reproaches of his injudicious and cruel friends, his unwarrantable, and at times most reckless and presumptuous complaints of God himself,--there present themselves, at intervals, the most interesting indications of the spirit of genuine piety remaining in his bosom, in deep and fervent, but troubled and distracted operation, evidences that his words were indeed the words, not of his sober mind, but of one rendered wild and desperate, on the one hand, by a bodily distemper that inflamed his whole physical system, and made his spirit the prey of a nervous and feverish irritability, and, on the other hand, by provocation of the bitterest and most insupportable description, to a heart possessing, along with conscious integrity, generosity of feeling and acuteness of sensibility. There are occasional relapses into a calmer and more composed frame, when his language is more in accordance with the condition of a sinful creature and with the character of a believer in Jehovah's presence, and providence, and word, and promises, and of an heir of immortality. There are bursts of melting and overwhelming tenderness gushing from the very inmost depths of the troubled soul, sufficient to soften hearts of stone. And there are bursts, too, of devotion,-of lowly and lofty devotion, of holy aspiration after God, and after a promised and expected Redeemer, of spirituality of desire, of "longing after immortality," such as ought more than to have satisfied his friends that "the root of the matter was in him," and to have warmed their hearts with the glow of returning confidence and affection to the desolate and afflicted saint. But the tenacity of the hold which their false principle had taken of their minds, the closeness with which habit had inwoven it with the entire texture of their system of providential administration,-had the unhappy effect of converting every thing of the kind, in their estimation, into the effusions of hypocrisy and self-delusion, so that what should have softened only indurated, and what should have sweetened embittered them. When the controversy closes between Job and his three friends, ELIHU, a new character, who had been a silent and attentive listener,-comes forward, fired with indignation at both parties, an indignation of which the grounds are stated-Chap. xxxii. 2, 3. "Against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job." The charge against the patriarch is heavy, and, on grounds which may be gathered from what has already been stated, not without foundation. The vehemence of his irritated spirit had hurried him to the utterance of what went far to an impeachment of the divine equity. The charge against his friends has a broader and firmer foundation. They "condemned Job," whilst to his protestations of his innocence" they found no answer;" their accusations having N. S. VOL. IV. 3 N nothing to substantiate them but suspicion and hypothesis; the hy pothesis itself ill sustained, and the suspicions, having nothing else whatever to rest upon, correspondingly frivolous. There was no one thing of which they could convict him, no one fact to bear up a single charge. Destitute of every thing of this kind, and having exhausted, in passionate and occasionally eloquent reiteration, the few commonplaces of their argument-(for in their reasoning there is no great variety, though their respective illustrations of the same topics are sufficiently diversified and characteristic)-they are all three, and the case is far from uncommon in controversy,-silenced, but not convinced, or, if secretly convinced, unwilling to own it. ness. Elihu, after a somewhat pompous introduction, addresses himself first to Job, and then to his friends. He charges Job on grounds entirely different from those on which Eliphas, and Bildad, and Zophar had insisted. He says nothing of secret unknown wickedHe confines himself to his conduct and language in the present case. He presses upon him their extreme impropriety; their inconsistency with that humble consciousness of sin and guilt which all ought to feel and to acknowledge, and with that reverence for God which becomes his dependent creatures. He alleges, that, in the intemperance of his self-justification, he had furnished "answers for wicked men," and given more than countenance to their conclusion, that there is no good to be got from serving God. He quotes Job's words, and with no little warmth and energy of rebuke, exposes their wicked nature, and their mischievous tendency. His indignant warmth, indeed, almost leads him into the very fault which he so sharply blames in the three friends. He overstrains the patriarch's expressions; representing him as maintaining the cause and interests of rebellion; as asserting the preferableness of impiety to the fear of God, the one as a surer way to prosperity than the other; as "chusing iniquity rather than affliction;" as "adding rebellion to his sin, clapping his hands in the pride of triumph," and "multiplying his words against God." He expatiates on the absolute independence, majesty, and supremacy of Jehovah; the infatuation of contending with or attempting to resist him; and the duty, propriety and safety of submitting to him implicitly in all his doings. He asserts the righteousness, wisdom and mercy of all his ways; and his regard to the righteous, especially under poverty and oppression, as manifesting itself in frequent and visible interpositions in their behalf. He further enforces submission on the ground that God, the self-sufficient and independent, can neither be profited by the goodness nor injured by the wickedness of his creatures,—and that all the damage from opposition to him must be their own; as well as by descriptions, full of force and sublimity, of the uncontrollable sovereignty, the unsearchable greatness, the irresistible power, unerring wisdom, incorruptible justice, and unbounded goodness of the Most High. ON THE CHOICE OF PASTORS BY THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS. (To the Editor.) SIR,-An esteemed friend of mine has put into my hands a pamphlet, entitled "Some Arguments against National Religious Establishments Considered:" by Rowland Gardiner Alston, Esq. The author appears sincerely devoted to the Church of England, and his remarks are devoid of much of that acrimony with which, unhappily, this momentous controversy (not destined soon to terminate) is generally conducted. Without here pretending to a formal review of Mr. Alston's work, I content myself with putting down a few remarks on one or two points, more especially connected with church history. In pages 4 and 5, Mr. Alston says as follows: "I can find no trace whatever, in any history of the primitive church, and still less in the Bible, of the different communities of Christians assuming the choice of their pastors. They were then, as now, appointed and ordained by the church, that is, by its rulers; and though it is true, that individuals now possess the power of nomination to benefices, yet none but the church itself can create a pastor, and the patrons are restrained by the necessity of nominating those only who have been invested with the priestly character by the spiritual rulers of our church, whose province it is to admit no one unless properly qualified to perform his sacred duties."* The opinions upon this subject which prevail with the evangelical clergy and laity of the Church of Scotland at the present moment are diametrically opposed to those notions which are generally advocated by the evangelical clergy and laymen of the Church of England. We have now before us a series of clever Tracts "On the Intrusion of Ministers on reclaiming Congregations," from the pens of Dr. Chalmers, Rev. Messrs. Candlish, Brown, Guthrie, Cunningham, and A. Dunlop, Esq. which, though treating to a great extent of the laws and usages of the Kirk of Scotland, yet base their argument for liberty on the nature of things, the authority of Scripture, and the early usages of the primitive church. As it will not be in our power to review these Tracts, having already devoted many pages to the Scottish question, we transcribe the following passages, which we regard as an appropriate supplement to the valuable paper of our learned correspondent. "Is it," asks the Rev. Charles J. Brown, "the clear and indefeasible right of a Christian man, to judge for himself under what ministry he shall sitby what ministrations of the Gospel his soul is edified and blessed-to whose pastoral instructions and care he shall commit himself? Is it his sacred duty, as well as right, to look to his eternal welfare in this matter, to look to it for himself, as he must answer for himself at the great day; to take heed what he hears,' as well as 'how he hears;' to take the Gospel on trust at no man's hands; not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits whether they be of God?'* It follows at once, from these plain principles of Scripture and common sense, that no minister may be thrust upon a congregation contrary to the will of the people. If it be lawful to intrude a pastor upon the people, it must be the duty of the people to receive and hear him. The intrusion cannot be upon the mere pews of the house. The right, if 1-John iv. 1. As Mr. Alston has so summarily dismissed this subject, and has led his readers to suppose that things were always in the church as they now are, or nearly so, I would beg leave to throw together there be any, must be a right of forcing a minister on a christian people,compelling a congregation to accept a particular man to be their pastor whether they will or no; to dispense the Word and Sacraments among them, with or without their consent; to visit their sick and dying beds; to give them counsel in difficulty, and consolation in trial; hold converse with them of their conflicts and temptations and fears, the plague of their hearts,' the welfare of their fami lies, the way generally in which they ought to go. It were difficult to conceive any thing more monstrous than this. If the people are not bound to hear, how can the minister have a right to speak? If they are not obliged to accept his ministrations, how can these be thrust upon them? If no teacher can take upon him to answer for the people at the day of judgment, but every man must give account of himself to God,'-what can be conceived more irrational, arbitrary, and cruel, than the attempt to force a minister upon a congregation contrary to their deliberate voice and will? "Be it observed, (and the iniquity of the thing thus comes more palpably out,) that intrusion can only be attempted after all. Physical force may thrust a minister upon the area and walls and pews of a church. Upon the people, without their own consent obtained in some way or other, no power on earth can thrust him. Tyranny, favoured by unhappy circumstances, may, indeed, often compel them to yield a reluctant consent. In country districts, for instance, where there is only one church within their reach, it may happen, in cases of intrusion, that rather than want a ministry altogether, many will in course of time attend the church, and allow the functionary to preach to them. But allow him they must, or he can never be their minister in point of fact, whatever the law may please to style him. In such a state of matters,-consent being so indispensable from the very nature of the pastoral relation, that without it the relation practically can never exist at all,-is it to be borne, that advantage shall be taken of the people's circumstances, to extort and wring from them a consent, which otherwise they not only would not be bound to give, but would be bound to withhold, on the ground of their honest convictions? Was it ever imagined that a congregation in any of our large towns, are bound to continue under a minister thrust upon them against their will? No one disputes their duty, as well as right, to leave his ministrations, if they find them useless and unedifying to their souls. But surely the mere circumstance of a Christian's living in the country, makes no difference either to his rights or his duties. It may shut him up to the painful alternative just referred to. But it can no way touch the principles of this question. It never can affect the essential iniquity of thrusting a minister upon a congregation contrary to their deliberate mind and will. the "Take the case of a physician. Nobody has yet imagined the idea, either of a Government Board, or a Medical Faculty, thrusting physicians upon families of the people. And yet, not only are the interests of the soul unspeak ably more precious than those of the body, but the due care of them by a minister, depends far more on the affection and good will subsisting between him and his charge. A doctor's prescription may profit his patient, however obnoxious he may be personally, just as we sometimes see mothers cure their selfwilled children, with drugs forced down their throats. But the soul is a much less mechanical subject; and small indeed is the profit. likely to arise from obtruded pastoral admonitions,-from the services of a minister forced down the throat of a reluctant congregation. When deacons were about to be chosen in the early Christian Church, the apostles would not force upon the people, even those who were to take charge of their contributions for the poor. Look ye out among you,' said they, 'seven men of honest report, full of the Holy |