were written, although with enough of zeal, yet with great ability, he published, in 1774, his celebrated "Display of the Secession Testimony," a work of great labour, and deservedly regarded as one of high value, as exhibiting a connected view of the facts of Secession history, and containing a noble defence of Secession principles. In 1786, he also published his "Sacred Contemplations," in three parts, containing a view, 1st, Of the Covenant of Works; 2d, Of the Covenant of Grace; and, 3d, Of the Absolute Dependence of all Things on God; intended as a Summary of that Gospel which he preached."

66

After a life of great labour, both in active exertion and in close application to study, he died in Edinburgh on the 18th of June 1788, in the seventy-fifth year of his age, and the forty-eighth of his ministry, and was buried in Grayfriars' church-yard. He was twice married,—in the first instance, to Mrs Hannah Erskine, daughter of Colonel Erskine of Balgonie, and afterwards to Mrs Emily M'George, daughter of Mr M'George of Cocklic, in the shire of Kirkcudbright.

In forming an estimate of the character of Adam Gib, and an appreciating judgment of the value of his labours, it will be necessary for us to keep in view the times in which he lived. With a rare combination of great qualities, seldom to be found united in one individual, there can be no doubt that, while he exerted, by reason of these, much influence over others, and over passing events, his own mind, his temper, his prevailing habits of thought and of action, were all, to a considerable extent, moulded and affected by the spirit of the times in which he appeared. Taking him all in all, however, in the broad and welldefined traits of his character, as these come out in the facts of his history, he was no ordinary man. For clearness and vigour of intellect, for manly resolution and courage, and for unbending integrity of principle, on all matters connected with religion, he stood, as his writings and his deeds testify, even among men of great parts in his own day, as pre-eminently distinguished. The strong points of his character lying in his public life, his religion, according to the developments of it which come before us, appears less marked by the gentleness of John, than by "the spirit and power of Elijah." Like the prophet, he was "jealous for the Lord of hosts,” and, like him, he seems also to have imagined at times that he was "left alone," as the depository of his oracles, and "the witness for his truth." Believing, like those of his day, in general, that the distinguishing duty of the Church on earth, in its public capacity was "to bear testimony to the truth of God," he would hold no compromise with what he deemed to be error, either in principle or in practice. "We have no warrant from the word of God to tolerate sin," was his common maxim, when seeking to carry out this doctrine. It would have been well if, in acting on this principle, Gib, and our other forefathers who lived in his day, had not pushed it to extremes, by forgetting sometimes to associate with it a sense of human weakness, and the charity of the gospel, in connexion with which it ought to have been exercised. Evils had then been avoided which fatally occurred. The Church would then have felt it to be her duty not only to preserve the truth, but to spread the truth far and wide throughout the earth,-not only to bear witness to the doctrines of the gospel,-but also to bear witness to its living and lovely

spirit and power: not only, in a word, to contend "for the faith once delivered to the saints," but to do this "in love," that love "which beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things." Thus preserving the "unity of the spirit in the bond of peace," the Church would have appeared as one body" and as one spirit" animating that body, and, through the medium of this oneness, a "testimony" would have been given in favour of the gospel, by means of which, in every age, it is appointed that "the world may know that the Father hath sent the Son as the Saviour." While sharing, however, in these and similar defects, common to the times in which he lived,-while his zeal may not at all times have been regulated by the meekness of "the wisdom that cometh from above," or the natural impetuosity of his temper always restrained by the milder charities and sympathies of the gospel, there was much, nevertheless, in the character of Gib that was great, and noble, and generous, and excellent, fitted to call forth regard; and, in his dauntless energy, his untiring assiduity, and his devotedness of public spirit to the cause of God, there was also much to admire. How affecting to think that he, with other distinguished men of his time, who were instrumental in handing down to us so rich a legacy of privileges, are now silently slumbering in the dust! "Our fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they live for ever?" "They laboured, and we are entered into their labours." Ours be the duty to appreciate and improve the precious privileges they have transmitted,-to maintain with sted fastness the testimony they took up, and to carry forward the work which they so auspiciously began! "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth; yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours, and their works do follow them."

T.

CHURCH GOVERNMENT.-No. I.

THE subject we prescribe to ourselves is profoundly interesting. It relates to that kingdom which is not of this world-whose subjects are saints, and whose sovereign is "the glorious Lord"-a kingdom quite distinct from, and incomparably superior to, every mere earthly or political association, and which, while contemplating especially and directly religious ends, is, nevertheless, destined to recast the whole fabric of society, and to restore to our rebellious world that authority which, though it may not supersede all secular rule or dominion, will ensure quietness and peace to the ends of the earth. Thus, the subject is not only profoundly interesting, it is also of the highest practical importance. It is of greater moment that the affairs of Christ's house should be wisely regulated, than that any nation of the earth should enjoy the benefit of approved political institutions. When the church is misgoverned, the evils that follow cannot be told. Christianity degenerates into an object of scorn, or is converted into an engine of oppression. Christ is dishonoured, and the world retained in undisturbed subjection to the wicked one.

"I

How then ought it to be governed? Before attempting an answer to this question, it is necessary to remark that some have denied that Christ has appointed a specific form of government for his church. Of these, certain have maintained that it belongs to the civil magistrate to determine the form of government the church shall possess. The head of this party was Erastus, a physician at Hiedelberg, who wrote on the subject in 1568-hence comes the word erastian, so common in these days, and which is meant to designate any improper interference on the part of the civil ruler with ecclesiastical affairs. A few of this school sat in the famous Westminster Assembly of Divines. It were a waste of time to enter into a minute statement of their views; and much more, a waste of time to attempt their refutation. A pretty full account of them will be found in Hetherington's History of the Assembly, and a very thorough exposure in Gillespie's "Aaron's Rod Blossoming." What follows may suffice as a specimen of their tenets :— could never yet see," said Coleman, in his sermon before parliament, "how two co-ordinate governments, exempt from superiority and inferiority, can be in one state; and in scripture no such thing is found that I know of. I see what raised prelacy and papacy to such a height, and what their practices were, being so raised. Give us doctrine; take you the government. Give me leave to make this request, in the name of the ministry, give us two things and we shall do well-give us learning and give us a competency." It may seem strange that men with the Bible in their hand, should have held and avowed sentiments like these, but it ought not to be forgotten, that the despotism of the prelatic hierarchy under which England had been groaning, tended to generate in the bosoms of the lovers of freedom an instinctive dread of ecclesiastical power. Such men trembled lest, by conceding the establishment of presbytery on the ground of divine right, they might eventually fall under a yoke as grievous as that they had just shaken off. Their own theory, however, has absurdity, if not impiety, stamped on the very face of it. It confounds civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction-it divests christianity of its character and glory as a spiritual institute, and paves the way for the most abject civil and religious thraldom.

Others, again, contend that Christ has left it to his own people to adopt the form of government which they may deem best in the circumstances. All that we say at present in answer to this is, that it seems in the last degree improbable. No society can exist without government, nor prosper without government of a right sort, and we cannot imagine that the Saviour would leave the church "which he purchased with his own blood," destitute of what is essential not only to its well being, but to its very existence. We can no more conceive of the all-wise and merciful Redeemer leaving his people in this sinful and troublous state to regulate themselves according to their own wisdom and the circumstances of the times, than we can conceive of a good pilot abandoning the ship, the instant it is launched, to the management of those whom it has been freighted to convey to a far distant shore, and placing them, without chart or compass, at the mercy of whatever tides may rage, and whatever winds may blow. The importance of good government can hardly be over-estimated. Dugald Stewart is perfectly correct when he remarks, that in the political sys

tem, as well as in the animal body, where the general constitution is sound and healthy, there is a sort of vis medicatrix, which is sufficient for the cure of partial disorders, and in the one case as well as in the other the errors of human art are frequently corrected and concealed by the wisdom of nature. The same may be affirmed still more emphatically of the church-hence the efforts at reformation which it has put forth from time to time, and its preservation till now in spite of all that human mismanagement has done for its overthrow. But all this just leads us the more to desiderate a government which will not only not succeed in producing irreparable mischief in any instance, but will avail to the production to the highest possible amount of good-that will evoke and discipline every energy, and maintain the whole body in a healthful and flourishing condition; and, when admitting the desirableness of this, and marking the deep anxiety uniformly manifested by those who have been esteemed fathers of their country, in regard to the establishment of good laws and wholesome institutions, we feel ourselves forced to conclude that, the great Head of the Church, full of love to his people, and infinitely wise, to devise measures for their peace and prosperity, must have devised and propounded such measures, and thus have acted, as every kind father seeks to do towards his family, and every paternal monarch towards his subjects. In the first chapter of the first book of his "Reason of Church Government urged against Prelacy," Milton discusses the point with uncommon force of argument and richness of diction. We forbear quotation, but earnestly recommend to our readers the careful perusal of the whole treatise; and as an inducement to this, we call their attention to what William Howitt says in reference to the author, “that he is a man of whom he who knows him only as the poet, knows not the half; and whose Five Tracts concerning the Government of the Church,' had they been read as widely and as often as they ought, would long ago have spared the labour of these latter days-writings unmatched for the extent of their learning, the soundness and vigour of their reasoning, and the inspired splendour of their eloquence."

The question comes now fairly before us- -Has Christ instituted a specific form of government for his church, and, if so, what is it? That we may arrive at a satisfactory settlement of this question, we must habitually bear in mind these two things:

:

First, It is the will and appointment of Christ in regard to this matter, and that alone, which we are concerned to know. We object to all theorising on the subject. An adherent of the see of Rome may labour to demonstrate that nothing is so desirable as a supreme pontiff, -a congregationalist, that nothing is so fitting as that the whole body of the people should have an equal share in the administration of affairs, -while a prelatist and a presbyterian may each contend, on similar grounds, for what he esteems "a more excellent way;" but the sole point to be determined, in the first instance, is, whether Christ has given forth an expression of His mind on the subject. If he has, then the system he has ordained is what all are bound implicitly to adopt ; and it will be found divinely fitted to answer all the ends of its institution. Divesting ourselves, then, as far as possible, of prejudice, let us apply ourselves to discover what the will of the Lord is. Let nothing

divert us from this object of pursuit. Let us not suffer ourselves to be imposed upon for a moment by declarations to the effect that such a system, or parts of a system, have wrought well, or are of ancient date. "The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king." Let his authority be produced, and let whatever does not stand this test, however useful it may be deemed, or ornamental, or venerable, be removed out of the way.

Secondly, The mind of Christ is to be learned only from the scriptures. The scriptures are a record of his will, and they are complete. Being inspired, they contain an infallible record of his mind, so far as he has been pleased to reveal it, and they constitute the only revelation he has seen it meet to vouchsafe. The scriptures are thus an authoritative, and the sole authoritative, declaration of the will of the Head of the Church. As Mr Locke beautifully observes, "They have God for their author, salvation for their end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for their matter." They occupy, consequently, a different place from all other compositions. They stand alone-incomparable-divine. They are the fountain, and the works of all sound theologians of every age are only as so many buckets filled from this source; they are the sun, and whatever lights shine in the firmament of the church, are but the reflection, more or less pure and vivid, of its beams.

The Bible, then, is the book of books. "Nec viget quicquam simile, aut secundum." It is melancholy, however, to observe that an attempt is being made to elevate the writings of "the Fathers" to the same level, if not to a higher rank. "Scripture," say the Tracts for the Times, "is, according to Anglican principles, evidently not the rule of faith. The gospel doctrine or message is but indirectly and covertly recorded in scripture under the surface." "Catholic tradition," according to Newman, in his Lecture on Romanism, "is a divine informant on religious matters it is the unwritten word. These two, the Bible and Catholic tradition, form together a united rule of faith." "We require," says Palmer, in his Aids to Reflection, "the teaching of the whole of Catholic tradition." "Here, then, gentlemen," exclaims the eloquent D'Aubigné, are two authorities set up side by side,-the Bible and tradition. We do not hesitate what to do.-To the law and to the testimony. We subscribe with the prophet, that if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish, and they shall be driven to darkness."

The authority of the Fathers received a severe shock at the era of the reformation. "Then was the sacred Bible sought out of the dusty corners, where profane falsehood and neglect had thrown it;" but even still the reformed thought it for their credit to have the Fathers on their side, nor was it until Jean Daillé, minister of the gospel in the reformed church of Paris, published his "Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers," in 1631, that they ceased to be regarded by Protestants as arbiters in the controversies in which they were engaged. Since then they have at times, perhaps, been rather underrated. Douglas, in his "Errors regarding Religion," speaks very contemptuously of them. Nothing can be more vague than their conclusions, nor more weak than their arguments, nor more variable than the tendency of their writings. *** When appealed to as authorities, they lend themselves