tainty and completeness of the result. We are much pleased with this part of the book. The author seems to be aware of the delicacy of the ground on which he is treading, and therefore proceeds with caution. There is nothing overstrained-nothing incongruous; no attempts to explain those mysterious processes with the human heart, over which Scripture throws an impenetrable veil. There is here a studious adherence to the language of Scripture; the only way, we conceive, of avoiding error on the one hand, or, on the other, of giving to truth a clear and intelligible exposition. There are appended to the " Allegory" a few poems on religious topics. Of these our limits will permit us to give no specimen, nor to say more than that they are worthy of the author of the Allegory. On the whole, then, we have to express our most favourable opinion of the little volume before us. The author, whoever he or she may be, is evidently a person of an elegant and cultivated mind, and has thought with correctness and feeling on the dearest hopes of man. Whether this be a first attempt we know not, but the same pen which produced this is evidently equal to something greater; and the author ought to be aware that his powers should not lie in abeyance; and that there is no theme on which he can descant more appropriately than the remedy for the disease of the human heart. Bunyan is now no more; and we have little hope, we confess, to see any one in the present day come forward clothed in the mantle that graced that masterspirit of the olden time. But in that very field, where he laboured so successfully, there may be some neglected spots; and if from these fruit shall be produced to the Lord of the vineyard, the humblest labourer shall not have laboured in vain. 1824. THIS volume was put into our hands just as we were about to furnish the printer with copy of Religious Intelligence, and we immediately read it with the view of being able to give our opinion of its me. rits in the present Number. Our perusal has satisfied us that it is a work of great excellence. It is full of important facts and able argumentation, and bears upon the subject of pluralities in general, and of Dr. M'Farlane's plurality in particular, in such a manner as in our apprehension to set both questions completely at rest. We recommend. it earnestly to all our readers, whether they are on the one side or on the other. Those who are hostile to union of offices will find their principles at once enlightened and confirmed by its discussions; and those who are favourable to such a union will see reason, abundant reason, to adopt very different views on this topic from those which they have hitherto entertained. We really cannot express how much we feel indebted to Mr. Burns for his able, temperate, and conclusive performance. It does much credit both to his understanding and his feelings, to his diligence in research, and to his power of applying his information to the cause for which he contends. And we are certain that it must prove highly useful to all who take an interest in the question of pluralities in our church, and whose minds are not totally blinded by selfishness or ambition. It is impossible for us to offer any analysis of this valuable publication. We have neither time nor space. But we shall give the contents, and then an extract as a specimen of the mode in which the author conducts his treatise. The extract is of considerable moment. It refers to the design and import of the Act of Assembly, 1817, which some of Dr. McFarlane's supporters take as the strong-hold of his case. We regret that our author should have found it necessary to say so much on a point so clear and easily settled; but there are people whose obtuseness of intellect, or whose strength of prejudice, can only be overcome by a lengthened disquisition. And we are happy to think that the Act, 1817, cannot now be pleaded with even the least appearance of truth, as favourable to the proposed union of the manifold duties of the Principal of Glasgow University, with the still more numerous, more laborious, and more sacred duties of the parochial charge of St. Mungo's. "Contents:-Introduction;-the nature and extent of pastoral obligation; sentiments of the Christian church on pastoral duty, and on the union of offices in ministers of religion;-sentiments of the Church of Scotland relative to pluralities of offices in ministers ;-sentiments of the Church of Scotland relative to the general nature of the pastoral office;-laws of the church against non-residence and pluralities; on the union of academical charges with the pastoral office; civil regulations; on the design and import of the act 1817;-on the judicial power of presbyteries over presentees; on the question relative to the principality of the college of Glasgow-on the duties of a minister of Glasgow;-on the duties of the principality of the college - of Glasgow ;-on the nature and extent of the power of the visitors over the University ;-additional considerations;-objections answer ed ;-reasons of complaint in the case of Professor Hill, 1780;-reaons of dissent in the case of Professor Ferrie, 1813;-resolution of the presbytery of Glasgow in the case of Principal M'Farlane, July 1823.” "On the design and import of the Act 1817.-The whole of this mass of evidence, derived from the public standards, the express statutes, and the accredited practice of the Church, and of civil courts, has been inet by a simple appeal to one law, which is supposed to supersede all others, and to constitute, in fact, the only statute by which our sentiments and decisions ought to be regulated. This is the famous Act passed by the Assembly 1817, into a standing law, in consequence of its having received the previous sanction of a majority of the Presbyteries of the Church. By this law it is enacted and ordained, " That, if a Professor in an University be hereafter presented to a parochial charge, which is not situated in the city that is the seat of that University, or in the suburbs thereof, he shall, within nine months after his being admitted to the charge, resign his professorship;' and that, if the minister of a parish which is not situated in the city that is the seat of an University, or the suburbs thereof, be hereafter presented or elected to a professorship in any University, he shall, at the first ordinary meeting of presbytery, which shall take place after the lapse of six months from the date of his induction unto the professorship, resign unto the hands of the presbytery his pastoral charge.' From the terms of this enactment, it has been inferred, that, in every other case, except the *Assembly Acts, 1817, No. VI. one supposed, that is to say, in every instance in which the professorship and the parochial charge are situated within the limits of the same city, or the suburbs thereof, the church is necessarily bound to sustain the plurality. It will be readily allowed, by the adherents of both sides of the argument, that the law, as it now stands, does not contain an absolute exclusion of minis ters from professorships or of professors from parochial charges in every case; but the question is, Does it contain an absolute injunction to admit in every case, excepting only the instance expressly noticed in the act? In other words, is an union of offices to be uniformly and imperatively sanctioned by the church in every case where non-residence is not necessarily occasioned? Has the church denuded herself entirely of all right and power of judging in regard to the compatibility of certain offices with the due discharge of pastoral duty, and must she sanction, in all cases, an union of offices, excepting only where such offices affect, or are supposed to affect, the local residence of the individual concerned? Are all the enactments of the church relative to the extent of pastoral obligation, the secular engagements of ministers, and the evils likely to result from pluralities of offices held by the same individuals, to be at once swept away? And is the church now and henceforth to take her stand on this insulated statute, in which all others have been supposed to be merged?" "Let it be remembered, that the injunction supposed to be contained in this act, 1817, must be held to be imperative, in the most absolute and unrestricted sense of the term. The moment you give to the church the power of sitting in judgment on any one supposeable case that may occur, that moment you give up the argument. The exclusion of all unions of offices in the case noticed in the law is absolute and unre stricted; and our opponents in this question must, to be consistent, and to make their argument worth any thing, hold, that the admission in all other instances is equally absolute and unrestricted. This, indeed, is what they rigidly contend for; and hence we find them setting entirely aside all reference to the specialties of cases that may oc cur, and all inquiries as to the com patibility or incompatibility of particular offices-and taking their ground exclusively on the supposed terms of a rigid and unaccommodating law. Indeed it is a very remarkable fact, that in the case which has given rise to the whole of this controversy, the minority did concur with the majority most completely in denouncing the projected union as an evil of no small magnitude, while they considered themselves as imperiously bound to sanction that evil, however gross, on the single ground of the supposed intention of the act 1817.* "What then is the bearing of the argument, when generalized in. its principle? Why, it is evidently this, that the church is imperiously forced to sanction an union of offices, however incompatible on other grounds, provided only their geographical situation, or their locality, be the same. For example, if the minister of the Barony parish, with "The presbytery resolve to proceed in Dr. McFarlane's settlement with all convenient speed, according to the rules of the church; at the same time they express their decided disapprobation of such union of offices in the person of any individual, and that it shall not be considered as a precedent to authorise any such practice in future."-Motion made by the Minority of the Presbytery of Glasgow, on the 2d July, 1823. Report, p. 74. a population of 50,000 souls, has interest to obtain himself appointed to the chair of Greek, or Moral Philosophy, or Logic, in the college of Glasgow; or, if the ministers of St. Cuthbert's, Edinburgh, with a population of the same amount, should attain to a similar honour, there is no power in the church to put a negative on such unseemly unions. Again, if the professors of Humanity and Greek in the college of Glasgow, occupied as they are with hundreds of pupils, many hours each day, and engaged in pursuits not altogether congenial with the ordinary engagements of a pastoror if the professors of Scots Law, or of Natural Philosophy, or of Anatomy, or of Chemistry, or of Midwifery, or of Materia Medica, whose laborious employments do not partake of that character which will make them readily coalesce with the usual pursuits of clergymen, should nevertheless imagine that they are perfectly competent to do all the duty that is required of a minister in Glasgow; and, through the kindness of the crown or of the magistracy, shall accept of a presentation to any one of the churches of the city or suburbs, and shall apply to the presbytery for induction, could the presbytery refuse to admit ? On the argument of our opponents, they could not, and dare not. The law is imperative. The question of compatibility and of competency for the offices, is taken out of their hands, and so long as the presentee is otherways qualified, and has his residence within the parish, induction must forthwith take place. Now, I would ask, is this consistent with any common sense view that can be taken either of the constitutional principles of the church establishment, or of the designs for which churches and universities were founded? Or, is there any presbytery in the church who would, avowedly at least, carry the argument this length? Or, would any ecclesiastical court in Scotland tamely and unresistingly give up a right, which was held as incontrovertible by all parties in the Assembly of 1815; the right, namely, of the church courts to prevent all such unions of professorships with pastoral charges, as are deemed incompatible with the discharge, of pastoral duty.' It will be said, indeed, that these cases are special, and that presbyteries would bring them, by simple reference, under the cognizance of the supreme court. And is not this to cut the sinews of the whole argument? Is not this the very thing we are contending for, that each case must be judged of by its specialties? Has not every case of possible occurrence its specialties? Had not the case of Principal Ferme, in 1600, its specialties?' and upon these, did not the Assembly of that year decide? Had not the case of Professor Rutherford, in 1638, its 'specialties?' and upon these did not the Assembly decide? Had not the case of Professor Hill, in 1780, its specialties?' and were not these the grounds of the decision in his favour? And has not the case which has given rise to all this discussion its specialties' too, and of these, is the church not competent to judge? It will not do to say that we are supposing an extreme case, and a case that may never occur. very possibility of the occurrence is all that is necessary for our argument; and we know, that in the course of years, things which once appeared altogether unlikely to occur, have really and literally happened. At one period of the church, would it not have been looked on as very unlikely, that a parochial minister, with a competent stipend Acts of Assembly, 1815, Dr. Hill's motion. The and charge, should hold a professorship having cure,' at the distance of fourteen miles from his residence? and not less unlikely, that a theological professor, in a college whose statutes imperatively require residence within its walls, should have held a parochial charge at the distance of six or seven miles from his appointed abode? And yet such phenomena have been; and phenomena equally remarkable may be. That in such cases as those supposed, the presbytery of the bounds may submit the matter by simple reference to the General Assembly, is true. They have the power and liberty to do so: but they are assuredly not bound to do so. As the radical court, it becomes them to judge, in the first instance, of every case that comes before them; and, as being best acquainted with the local and other specialties of the cases, it is their duty to declare and act on their judicial sentiments. Indeed the necessity of reference to the supreme court is altogether taken out of the way, seeing it is not likely that a matter which involves the temporal interests of individuals so deeply, will be allowed to settle itself upon the decision of the inferior court. And, after all, if the statute be as is supposed, vested with all the unaccommodating attributes of a standing law' of the church, will not the highest court, as well as the lowest, be bound by its provisions, however unpleasant to their taste? The supposition of a power in any one of the courts, to review the matter, and to judge of it, proves undeniably that there is no standing law' in the case, as it belongs to the nature of a standing law, that it is imperatively binding equally on kirk-sessions, presbyteries, synods, and General Assemblies. "Moreover, if the act in question necessarily authorizes the extensive application which it is pro VOL. XXIII. NO. IV. posed to make of it, a most invidious and unreasonable distinction will be created between offices substantially the same in character, while they sustain only a nominal difference. For instance, on the implications of this statute, no church court can interfere to prevent the professor of humanity from being one of the ministers of Glasgow; but the teachers of humanity in the high school, cannot be parochial ministers without the consent of the church. A clergyman may be prevented from becoming a regular practitioner in law, or in physic; but he cannot be prevented from becoming a professor of the one or of the other. Any office, however secular, and however laborious, may be held by a minister, provided only it goes under the name of a professorship; while other offices, not more secular, and not more laborious, cannot, if the church chooses to prevent it. The laws against secular engagements in the persons of ministers, remain whole and entire ; and every presbytery is required to put them in force; but let a man once creep within the walls of an university, and he may henceforth be as secular, as negligent of his pastoral duty, as mercenary as he pleases, with impunity. You cannot touch him by the arm of ecclesiastical law-the law protects him; and you have only to submit, with the best grace, to what you know to be unavoidable. "Before we tamely consent to invest this celebrated statute with such tremendous powers, and to sacrifice at its shrine all that is valuable and endeared in the judicative powers of the church, let us seriously inquire; on what grounds is such an extensive compass of application given to it? What reasons have we for thinking that the church, in passing that act, designed to invest it with this imperative and exclusive character? Now, there are 2 N |