hamlets and villages, and happy population, are not hinted at. It is nothing, at first, but a shapeless stone; it becomes nothing, at last, but a huge mountain of stone. It breaks all things in pieces, and grows so large that the earth groans under the intolerable pressure of its weight." "I conceive that this stone is a tremendous atheistical, immoral tyranny which shall shortly arise; which is to war against the God of all law and order, and demolish all the social regulations and laws which it shall find in existence; and which shall continue for some time to press down beneath its weight of rock and stone, all true religion, social order and happiness." p. 15, 16. "It was, I conceive, during the reign of atheism, atrocity and destruction in France, that the huge unshapen stone, hewn out of the mountain without hands, smote the image on the feet, and broke them to pieces. It has not yet, indeed, grown up into a great mountain and filled the whole earth. But supposing, that the whole of Europe were in a situation, similar to that of France during the reign of atheism, would you not say, that the image was broken; and that the stone had grown into a mountain, and filled the whole earth? Now, it is my opinion, that the whole of Europe will be brought into that very state; and I think we can visibly discern the accelerating progress of the catastrophe." p. 33. "The French revolution still comes up to view. Such as it was, will the great European revolution be. The stone which smote the image on the feet, is enlarged into a vast mountain, and fills the whole earth; but still it is a stone, and preserves its character and consistency from the first to the last; enlarging its dimensions, and augmenting its pressure, without any change in its nature." p. 41. "And here again, the French revolution thrusts itself forward on our imaginations. The atheistical horrors of that revolution were noticed already. Yet that revolution was effected only by the little stone; but the witnesses will be slain by the great stone mountain which will fill the earth. And as much as a mountain of stone, exceeds a stone which a man can throw with his hand; so much will the general revolution of Europe exceed in atheism, and cruelty, and havoc, and devastation, and wrath, against God and his Christ, the worst things that ever occurred in France." p. 46. This we call a fanciful interpretation of a prophetic emblem ; directly opposed to its leading feature, as well as to the prophet's exposition. Had the emblem been a an stone cut out with hands, or a vast pile of such stones heaped together without order or design, it might have well stood as the representative of a work to be effected by human hands, full of blood and crimes; a work, not of intelligence and virtue, but of folly, lust and passion. But a stone cut out without hands, can never denote a work of human desolation. This character leads us directly to a divine agency. Take the following passages, which we deem decisive proof of this assertion. "For we know, that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." 2 Cor. v. 1. "In whom ye also are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." Col. ii. 11. "But Christ being come high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building." "For Christ is not entered into the holy places, made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Heb. ix. 11. 24. In all these texts the phrases," without hands,” and “not made with hands," are used to designate a work of God. It is surprising these passages did not occur to the recollection of the learned author. He seems also to have forgotten that Christ is called a stone, a tried stone. Had he recollected this fact, and attended to an agency which Christ ascribes to himself under this metaphor, he would have been convinced that the work of destruction attributed to the stone cut out without hands was not at all incompatible with the official character of Christ and the peaceful nature of his kingdom. "Jesus saith unto them, Did_ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." It by no means follows, from the interpretation given to this emblem, are confident that our interpretation of the symbol is correct; because this is the very interpretation which an inspired prophet has given. The feet and toes of the image exhibited to Nebuchadnezzar in his dream, denoted, according to the prophet's explanation, the kingdoms that were to succeed the fourth kingdom or Roman empire, that had been designated by the legs of iron. Dan. ii. 33, 40. The pro that, for the subversion of the king-phet goes on in the interpretation of doms that have opposed the kingdom of Jesus Christ, his followers must be marshalled under the banners of some victorious captain, and led to the field of blood and slaughter. The King of kings has other instruments at command for the work of destruction, and for the infliction of his dreadful judgments. It is expressly foretold that the ten kingdoms, designated in the book of Revelation, by the ten horns of the beast, "shall hate the whore, and make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh with fire :" and if these kingdoms shall through lust of domination, engage in deadly hostility, and dash each other to pieces, it will still be the work of Christ, who thus employs them as instruments of mutual destruction, to punish their impious and inveterate opposition to his own glorious kingdom. The king of Assyria, in desolating Judea, fulfilled his own ambitious desires; but what was this proud and insolent monarch, but the rod in the hands of Jehovah, to scourge his disobedient and rebellious people? Isaiah x. 5, 6, 7, 12, 15. A stone swelling and increasing till it became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth, is an expressive emblem of the irresistible power of the kingdom of Christ, advancing in its progress through the world, and crushing to atoms every thing that opposes its dominion. But whatever means the Redeemer may be pleased to employ in fulfilling his own prediction, we the dream, to tell the king the fate of these kingdoms: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; but it shall break in pieces, and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." ver. 44. What kingdom is meant? Surely not the atheistic power described by Dr. G.; for, according to his own exposition, that monster will be destroyed. Does not the prophet plainly describe the kingdom of Jesus Christ, who will reign for ever? How exactly does it accord with its emblem! The stone was cut out without hands: this kingdom was set up by the God of heaven. The stone increased to a great mountain, and covering with its base the whole earth, became impregnable : this kingdom shall never be destroyed. Such an immense mass of stone must last for ever: this kingdom shall stand for ever. The stone "smote the image upon his feet, that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces:" verse 34. this kingdom "shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms." verse 44. It will be granted by any one who attentively reads the dream and the interpretation, that the prophet intended to give, and has given, an explanation of the whole dream, and of every emblem exhibited by it to the mind of the king of Babylon. "The image's head of fine gold,-his breast and his arms of silver,-his tant a part in his discourse, he has not exemplified the rule he lays down for other preachers; for if he had attended carefully to that portion of the Bible where the emblem is exhibited and explained, he would not have yielded himself up to the visions of a fanciful imagination, when he might have followed an inspired guide. We presume he does not intend by any thing he has said to confine preachers merely to the reading of the words of the Bible. When a minister delivers a discourse explanatory of any doctrine or precept in the holy scriptures, that discourse may be denominated a Bible-instrument; and he truly preaches Bible-doctrine, or Biblelaw. The preacher of this sermon supposed that while he was speak ing, he was delivering Bible-doctrine, and wielding a Bible-instru belly and his thighs of brass,-his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay;"—are all represented in the prophet's exposition as emblems of so many empires or kingdoms that were to arise in succession, and flourish each its day on the earth. The kingdom described in the 44th verse as set up by the God of heaven, must be represented by the stone cut out without hands, or it has no emblem in the dream; and if it be not the power designated by the stone, then it will also follow that the prophet has left the principal emblem in the dream unexplained. But that this cannot be the fact, is manifest, not only from the exact agreement now pointed out between the stone and this kingdom, but from the prophet's own words, in the 45th verse, where he exhibits the stone in the king's dream as the emblem of that king-ment "to touch the conscience of dom which he had just described in the verse next preceding: "Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain and the interpretation thereof sure." v. 45. We could not but be surprised that the author of this sermon should have so entirely overlooked the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar by the prophet; and the more so, when we saw that in a subsequent part of it he has quoted the very words in which Daniel deciphers the meaning of the stone. verse 44. See p. 52. God's offspring, and Christ's redeemed;" and since its publication he entertains the same opinion, and presumes it will still continue to operate as a Bible-instrument in touching the conscience, not only of God's people, but of God's ministers. So far as it accords with the sacred scriptures we agree with him in opinion. But so far as we have shown it to be at variance with that standard of truth, it is to be regarded merely as a human instrument, forged by a lively imagination, and wielded by a hand blest with a sufficient degree of confidence in its own strength and skill. Nor is this the only place in which we conceive that the author's imagination has run away with his judgment. In representing the use of Confessions of Faith, as tests of orthodoxy, as "degrading to the worth of the Bible and derogatory to the We cordially approve of all that Dr. G. has said, in page 76, of Bible-doctrine, Bible-law, Bible-promises, Bible threatenings, and Bi-glory of its author;" (p. 76) and afble-instruments; and believe with him that it is the duty of ministers to preach the Bible: but we cannot refrain from remarking that unfortunately, in giving an exposition of that emblem which forms so impor firming them to have been the "cause of wrath, and strife, and all evil passions between men," (p. 77) unaccompanied with any qualifying terms, or any exceptions whatever; we believe that he has given an other proof how necessary it is for a preacher endowed with a lively imagination to rein in his fiery steed. We have seen the imagination of the author converting an emblem of the kingdom of light and peace, joy and righteousness, into an Atheistic monster, the emblem of the wild misrule of darkness and passion, impiety and misery: and now that same imagination converts the symbols of unity and peace, symbols which, however sometimes abused, (and what may not be abused) have certainly been productive of good, into religious monsters, the cause of nothing but mischief! Dr. G. publishes a sermon, and he deems it a Bible-instrument: churches carefully prepare "compends of theology," and publish them to the world as their creeds and bonds of union; but in his estimation they are no Bible-instruments! "Can two walk together except they be agreed ?" inquires the prophet: and doubtless, if, as this author intimates, churches may regard economy in the expenditure of money in forming distinct establishments, (p. 86,) can it be doubted that such establishments may be lawfully formed for the sake of peace. Dr. G. would consider himself treated with injustice, if any one were to call this sermon, or his "Fiend of the Reformation," or his "Mediatorial Reign of the Son of God," HIS BIBLE; yet he scruples not to represent the creeds adopted by different sections of the Christian church for the preservation of "unity and purity," as their Bibles! p. 76. quence. It contains many happy expressions, acute observations, clear elucidations, beautiful figures, and fine descriptions. We have read it with pleasure, but not unmingled with feelings of a different kind. It is an able discourse, the production of a powerful mind; but a mind too much under the influence of the imagination, and delighting in round, bold, and unqualified assertions. J. J. J. FOR THE PRESBYTERIAN MAGAZINE. Remarks occasioned by the Union which was agreed on, during their last sessions, in May, between the General Assembly and Associate Reformed Synod. "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell in unity."-Psalm cxxxiii. 1. Nothing has tended more to open the mouths of the profane, and to weaken the general influence of evangelical truth in the world, than those frequent disputings and divisions which have occurred among those who profess themselves to be the disciples and followers of the Son of God. These divisions and contentions, it is true, are the offspring of the corruption which lurks in the human heart, and ought not to be charged to the account of religion-but, those who are irreligious, and, consequently, hostile to the doctrines of the gospel, do not take the trouble to make a proper discrimination between the fruits of corruption and those of religion; but are ever ready, in gratification of their own evil propensities, to attribute all the censurable occurrences, which take place among These remarks have been extended far beyond our intention when we took up the pen. It was not our design to write a review of this ser-Christians, to the influence of the mon. But as we have exposed a material error in its exposition of a prophetic emblem, and shown our disapprobation of another part, we wish to be indulged with an expression of our admiration of its elo principles of that religion which they profess to revere and to cultivate. Thus the opposers of gospel truth do not often peruse the sacred volume to know whether their opposition to such truth be well found ed; but content themselves with that criterion of judgment merely, which is furnished by the conduct of those who pretend to live under the influence of the doctrines of Christianity. Proceeding, there fore, in this manner, they naturally conclude that those principles cannot be very desirable, which seem to have such a powerful tendency to involve those who are professedly under their control, in strifes and contentions. To one entirely ignorant of the spirit and temper of our holy religion, such a conclusion would appear perfectly correct and logical. For nothing appears more reasonable than that the tree should be known by its fruits-and a man's principles by his general conduct. Hence it cannot be denied but that the proceedings of Christians must have a powerful tendency in either gaining friends or producing enemies to the cause of Christ. This being the case, it certainly deeply concerns every sincere follower of Jesus Christ, to consider what influence his conduct may have in either forwarding or retarding the progress of the gospel in the world. He ought to reflect that it is not his own individual feelings, nor what he may consider his own personal honour, which should be the guide of his conduct and the motive of his actions, but the glory of his God, the honour of his Redeemer, and the eternal welfare of immortal souls. Any course of proceeding, therefore, which may have any influence in preventing God's name from becoming excellent in all the earth-any thing which may have a tendency to make Christ and his gospel less honourable among men-and any thing which may operate in making his fellow creatures neglectful of that preparation which is necessary to fit them for a future state, ought certainly to be constantly and carefully avoided by every one who would honestly assume the name of Christian. If, then, wars and fightings, party spirit and division, spring naturally from our lusts, and, consequently, operate in no small degree in opposition to the diffusion of the peaceful doctrines of Christianity among men, ought not the sedulous exertions and endeavours of Christians to be employed, to prevent the occurrence of such serious evils? Trivial circumstances should not be allowed to destroy the peace and harmony of the church of Christ. The members of this church are bound in duty to exercise towards each other much moderation and forbearance. Nothing, therefore, should be permitted to produce schism among Christians, in their church capacity, except doctrines which may be evidently heretical, or practices which are decidedly condemned by the word of God. Should any class of men, therefore, denominating themselves Christians, professedly hold such doctrines, and openly exhibit such practices, with such the sacred scriptures command us to hold no Christian fellowship. But, whilst our duty is thus clearly pointed out to us, we must be careful how we pronounce on the opinions and practices of our fellow men. Much charity and candour ought to be used in this matter. Respect is due to the opinions and practices of others as well as to our own. We must do unto others, therefore, in this case, as we would have others to do unto us. We must consider well whether the opinions, which we oppose as heretical, be really contrary to the word of God, or whether they may contradict merely prejudices, which may have had their origin in the peculiarity of our own early religious education. In the same manner should we be careful to distinguish between those practices which may really be condemned by the word of God, and those which may only differ from our own peculiar habits and modes of life. Thus in deter |