Page images

The God of the Arian, on the contrary, is the production of his own reason! He is a "monada unit, a phrase which seems to me to imply, that Arians have circumscribed the Deity in their minds that they have separated him on every side from all other things, and are able to -comprehend the manner of his existence! The Saviour, also, of the Arian, is different from the Saviour on whom the Orthodox depend. The Arians' Saviour is a superior, created intelligence; the Saviour of the Orthodox is,God over all, blessed for ever." I believe, that my Redeemer is every where present; that he is in my going out and coming in, lying down and rising up; that he is acquainted with all my ways, and surrounds me with his eternal arms. I have comfort and confidence in his salvation, because he is a present help, ready to succour me in the hour of temptation. The Arian believes, that the Saviour is at the right hand of their "monad." They pray through him, but they will not pray to him; they honour him as the highest of created beings, but they deny him omniscience and omnipresence, and do not consider him worthy to receive divine worship. The same difference exists between the Arian and Trinitarian views, respecting the Holy Ghost. In the mind of the Arian, he is a subordinate spirit; in that of the Orthodox, whosoever "lies unto the Holy Ghost, lies unto God," Acts v. 3. The difference, therefore, between the Arian and Orthodox, is truly a fundamental difference; it respects the object of worship-the Saviour, through whom worship is offered up, and the Spirit by which we are enabled to worship acceptably. Where men are agreed upon these important points, all other shades or varieties of opinion, I consider, with my friend, like the varieties of the human countenance. Christians belong to the same family when they agree on these points, although there may be shades of variety in the complexion of their less important opinions; but where they differ upon these, the difference is like that between the inhabitants of different portions of the globe-it points them out as almost of distinct and different species. In my mind, therefore, there can be no real religious communion between Arians and Trinitarians: they may pray for each other, but they cannot be said to join together in prayer. Mr. Montgomery thinks it unjust to deprive an Arian Minister of the emolument arising from his office, because he has a family. I will put to him a question on this subject. Suppose that, in his capacity of Head Master of the English School, in the Institution, he employs a writing-master, whom, upon trial, he finds totally incapable of teaching writing, will he continue him in office because he has a wife and children? Or, suppose the man was at one time an elegant writer, but, by some accident, loses all the fingers of his hand, and is rendered incapable of forming a letter, the man and his friends may plead his large family, and utter helplessness, if he be turned off; but the parents of the children, and Mr. Montgomery, will speak only of his incapacity: and is the salvation of souls of less value than that of teaching writing? The Orthodox believe, that the salvation of souls is endangered by an Arian ministry; and when the Orthodox discover that it has committed the care of souls to an Arian Minister, there is surely no injustice in doing in the Church what Mr. Montgomery would do in his school-dismiss what they believe to be the incompetent member. My learned friend charges the Overtures with injustice, because they will prevent his and other Arian congregations from obtaining, in case of vacancy, a member of their own religious views; and he alleges, that should they get one from a distance, they would be deprived of the Regium Donum. I am again unwilling to charge him with disingenuousness, but certainly, he could not be ignorant that the Bounty is granted to the Synod of Ulster and Presbytery of Antrim, and that were his, or any other congregation, to withdraw from the Synod, and connect themselves with the Antrim Presbytery, the Bounty would flow to them through as direct a channel

as when în connection with the Synod. Government have the one Agent of the Bounty for both bodies, and the change would never be by them observed. He thinks it wrong, that young men should be called upon to express their religious views. ("No, no," from Mr. Montgom ery, "I think they should all let their opinions be known.") Mr. S.I am glad to hear it. It shows that even Mr. Montgomery can be farther informed. At Strabane, last year, he opposed the measure of the members of the Synod, stating publicly and openly their views, with all his might. He fought every inch of ground, and was only overcome by a majority. He was then wise, superlatively wise, yet now he is wiser; he is the Greek superlative mode more than superlative. If it be not wrong to call upon young men to express their religious opinions, it is easy to justify the Overtures, if they are intended solely to show to young men, during the early period of their education, on what principles they will be admitted members of the Synod of Ulster. They will see in these Overtures, the religious opinion of the Synod; and if theirs be different, they will be prevented from wasting their time, and enabled to direct their attention to some other pursuit.


Mr. Montgomery says, that religion is a concern between a man and his God. I admit it most fully; but, as I have already stated, there is a difference between private judging and public teaching. The Synod do not propose to interpose between any Arian and his God; to his own master they leave him to stand or fall; but they feel called upon to interpose between him and their people, and prevent him from leading them, as they think, astray. My eloquent friend has made a most extraordinary proposal. He says, that he believes what an orthodox Minister (suppose Mr. Carlile) preaches to be poison, and that Mr. Carlile believes what he preaches to be poison, and he proposes that they should exchange and circulate each others' poison. I have read of two French hair-dressers who magnanimously challenged each other into the field to decide some quarrel in mortal conflict; but when they met, and beheld the instruments of death, each was seized with such a tremor, that the humane seconds, who were Irishmen, said it was impossible that they should perform their parts in person. They therefore kindly agreed to do the work for them, and each proposed to shoot his friend's opponent! Now, the chivalry of my eloquent friend, is something like the conduct of these Irish seconds. "I think your doctrine poison," he, "and you think mine poison; I will theref make an agreement with you poison you my people, and I will poison yours!" inform my learned friend, however, that the cases are not equal. In the Orthodox system is included all that Arians believe to be essential to salvation, and something more; but in the Arian system, what the Orthodox consider of the greatest value is wanting. The Arian in the exchange would get all he wished, and could easily lay the overplus aside; but the Orthodox would get nothing that he thought of any value. Í would not, therefore, make the exchange proposed. I would give Mr. Montgomery's people what I believe to be wholesome spiritual bread, but I would not circulate among my people what I believe to be poison. (Hear, hear, from Messrs. Porter and Morell.) Mr. S.-Yes, you may call hear, hear, and you may make any use of it you please, but I repeat it, I would not willingly be instrumental in giving what I believe to be poison to any human being, nor do I think that my learned friend could consistently do it. Indeed, I have a much better opinion of him, than to think he would propose it, did he believe that the doctrines of Orthodoxy were spiritual poison. He is too conscientious and benevolent to become a spiritual assassin; and did he believe of Orthodox doctrines, as the Orthodox do of the Arian system, he would be the last man in the world to propose circulating them among his people. In all kinds of food, whether animal or vegetable, there is a portion that is poison.


[ocr errors]

Taken as a whole, it is nutricious; but decompose it, and you will get a part of it totally unfit for the support of animal life. Even the commonest, the peculiar vegetable of our country, the potato, if deprived of its farina, becomes useless, if not deleterious. Now, in the judgment of the Orthodox, their own system is the entire, the wholesome vegetable, but when deprived of its peculiar doctrines, it becomes like the useless residue; and Orthodox Ministers could not, therefore, in consequence, feed God's people with what they consider husks, in place of the sweeter food of the Word.

My learned friend charges the Orthodox with claiming to themselves infallibility; but I deny the charge. We only exercise our right of private judgment. It appears to us, on full and candid examination, that such is the nature of the Gospel of Christ, and we know of no authority that Arians have to interfere with our right of private judgment. We doom them to neither temporal nor eternal penalties. They may establish congregations where they can, assemble with whom they choose, and teach what they please, to those who believe in their doctrines; but we cannot join with them, nor circulate their works. My learned friend says, that in adopting a creed, we identify ourselves with the Romish Church. This also I deny. The Romish creed makes additions to the Word of God-ours only states what we believe that Word to contain. The Romish creed supersedes the Word of God-ours leads us to it; and the Romish creed asserts its infallibility, and curses all who will not believe it-ours says, all human compositions are fallible and imperfect, and is proposed as a guide only to those who think it agreeable to the Divine Word. My learned friend has laid great weight upon the learned, the noble, and the rich, so many of whom belong to his communion; and he seems to assume that the Orthodox cannot be the true faith, because it is generally acceptable to the illiterate and the poor! Here, again, I differ widely from him. I do not deny, that men of learning, intelligence, and wealth, may be rich in faith; but I deny that there is a presumption in their favour. The Apostles of our Lord were illiterate and poor. When John the Baptist sent to inquire of our Lord, if he were the Christ, he gave, among other signs of his being the Messiah, that the poor had the gospel preached unto them. In 1 Cor. i. 21. we are told, that after the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased him, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe; and in verse 26, he says, "Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty, and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought the things that are.' Although, therefore, Mr. Montgomery says he would consult a Locke or a Newton, and although he seems to think, that, in their intelligence and learning, there would be a presumption of their having arrived at the truth, I consider it safer to follow the inspired Apostle, and seek truth only from the Spirit of God, believing that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither knoweth them, because they are spiritually discerned. It has been argued by some of our opponents, that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be true, because some dignitaries of the Church, and learned men, have uttered absurdities in fruitless attempts to explain it. But as well might it be argued, that the material world has no existence, because Bishop Berkley has published many absurdities concerning it! The subject is too high for human thought, and the Scriptures have not attempted to explain [reveal] it. It is, therefore, useless, if not impious, for us to make the attempt.

The last topic in my learned friend's speech, which I shall mention, is, that "simple error," by which, I presume, he means, error which is


believed to be truth, is no crime. This, it seems, is Mr. Montgomery's opinion; but it is not that of the Apostle Paul! In the 10th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, he says of the Jews, "For I bear them record, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." It is manifest, therefore, that the Jews were, in the fudgment of the Apos tle, in error. Their zeal "was not according to knowledge." It is also manifest, that it was simple or honest error, for it was "a zeal of God;" and yet it was so far from being harmless, that the Apostle again declares, [had in the preceding chapter declared,] that he could wish himself accursed from Christ," (that is, separated from the public ministry of the word,) on their account, if that might be the means of introducing them to the knowledge of Jesus.

I trust, Sir, that you and this house will see, that these Overtures are liable to none of those objections charged upon them by my eloquent friend

that they are not calculated to abridge our religion, much less our civil liberties! They do not interfere between a man and his God! They leave every man at liberty to choose for himself to be fully persuaded in his own mind: only, they provide, that those who join the communion of the Synod, should be persons of the same religion with its present members, that in order to their walking together, all may be agreed!-In conclusion, I lament that any unhandsome epithets should have passed from the one to the other side of the house. In this respect, I freely acknowledge, that the greater portion of blame has been on the Orthodox side. We ought to hold the truth, nothing doubting, and be ready to give an answer to any one that asketh a reason of the hope that is in us; but we should do it in meekness and fear. Mr. S. then stated, that there were several topics, chiefly referring to Mr. Montgomery's speech of last year, of which he had taken down notes, but he omitted them on account of the lateness of the hour, and because he knew they would be taken up by some others of his friends.

It was now past three o'clock, and, whilst a number of speakers presented themselves to the house, there were loud and continued cries of "roll, roll."

[ocr errors]

Mr. Cooke said, that, as the assembly appeared to have made up their minds on this subject, he would willingly consent to suppress his speech, if other gentlemen would do the same.

There was some confusion for a few minutes, when "roll, roll," was loudly repeated. The roll was then called on the Amendment, when

40 Ministers voted "Not Pass."
17 Elders


[ocr errors]

99 Ministers voted "Pass."
40 Elders



139 Pass.

57 Not Pass.

Majority for the Amendment, 82.

A number of Ministers and Elders then entered on the Minutes of the Synod, the following Protest:

"We, the undersigned Ministers and Elders, protest against the decision of Synod, in this case, for the following, amongst other reasons;

"1. Because, the Overture contains several statements respecting the opinions and characters of the Ministers of the Church, which we consider to be unfounded and injurious.

"2. Because, subjecting our Students and Licentiates to the control of an ever-varying Committee of Synod, who may be under the influence of personal feelings, or local connections, appears to be imposing subscription to human interpretations of the Word of God, in a form more objectionable than has ever been attempted in any other Church.

"3. Because, human Tests and Confessions have, in all ages, tended to encourage hypocrisy-to restrict the right of private judgment-to lessen the authority of Scripture--and to prevent that free inquiry and

[ocr errors]

discussion, which are essential to the extension of religious knowledge, and of which truth need not be afraid.

"4. Because, all attempts to produce a uniformity of belief, have hith erto entirely failed, and, from the nature of man, must continue to fail; whilst they have created unrighteous divisions among Christians-thrown a shield over the time-server-and exposed the conscientious to injuries and persecutions, as the case of the two thousand Ministers ejected by the Act of conformity, under Charles II. incontestibly proves.

"5. Because, as Presbyterian Protestants, we will never surrender the fundamental principle of the Reformation, which forbids us to call any man, or body of men, Lord or Master,' considering one only is our master, even Christ, and that all we are brethren.

"6. Because, we believe that the Sacred Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are the only infallible rule of faith and practice; and, as we are determined to submit to no other standard ourselves, but to hold fast the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,' so we shall never be accessory to subjecting the opinions of others to any human interfer ence, save such explanations as may take place between Pastors and People.

7. Because, if any Creed, or Test of religious belief, contain nothing but what is to be found in the Bible, is superfluous; and if it contain any thing contrary to the Bible, it is pernicious-calculated to mislead the understanding to prevent the progress of truth-and to perpetuate error.

"8. Because the Overture, just passed, must eventually trench upon the most valuable rights of the People, in the free election of their Ministers; inasmuch as their choice must be restricted to persons professing to hold the opinions approved by your Committee, although such opinions should not be agreeable to the views of sacred truth, entertained by the Congregation.

9. Because, although some of us believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, we consider it improper to impose the belief of that, or any other controverted doctrine, upon others, as a necessary condition of Christian communion; and we are, therefore, determined to embrace the earliest opportunity of pressing the repeal, or a sufficient modification of the Overture. 10. Because we regard it as exceedingly preposterous, to require Students to profess this belief in some of the most obtuse and difficult points of Theology, even before they have entered the Theological Class.

"11. Because we consider this proceeding as a direct breach of faith with those Students and Licentiates, who have entered our Church, under our previous Regulations.

12. Because, whilst in the recent repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in England, we have a gratifying proof of the increasing liberality of the Country and the Legislature, we consider it reproachful to any Protestant, and more especially to any Presbyterian Church, to impose any restrictions upon liberty of conscience, and freedom of inquiry, in matters of faith."

66 (Signed by 23 Ministers and 17 Elders.)”

THE Sixteenth Anniversary of the Kent and Sussex Association, was held at Tenterden, on Wednesday, 25th June. The introductory services were taken by the Rev. E. Talbot of Tenterden, and the Rev. W. Stevens of Maidstone. The Rev. G. Harris of Glasgow, delivered, in his usually eloquent and impressive manner, a very interesting and forcible discourse, from the words of Philip, John xiv. 8. "Show us the Father. After the service, - Brent, Esq. of Canterbury, was called to the Chair; and in their Report of proceedings, the Committee made reference to a project, which has engaged their attention for some time past, and which, under the management of the present Commitee, will, in all probability, be brought into full operation. They hope, before



« PreviousContinue »