expressed himself happy to find that he had mistaken Mr. Johnston, and that there remained no difference whatever between them. So that you see, Sir, my learned friend has no foundation for his surmises respecting division in the Committee of Examination; and, of course, this part of his speech falls wholly to the ground, with the exception of its eloquence. Mr. Montgomery, however, argues that there must be division of religious opinions among Christians, because there is variety in the human countenance, and beauty is said to consist in variety. I believe the definition of beauty to which my friend refers, is, that it consists in uniformity amidst variety; and I assert, that whilst there are various shades of difference in the expression and complexion of the countenances which we see around us, there is a striking uniformity in the number and character of the human features, by which the countenauce of man is distinguished from all the inferior, and probably from all superior creatures. Now I adopt my learned friend's simile, and I allege that there can be no real religious communion, when, at the same time that there are shades of variety of opinion in minor matters, there is not a uniformity in the just foundation of religion. I do not say that Arians deny the Lord that bought them, because they do not deny what they believe him to be; but I say, that they deny what I believe to be the Lord that bought sinners when they deny the essential Deity of the Son of God. I do not say that they cannot be saved, for it is not my prerogative; but I say, that I cannot see how I could be saved did I hold their views. I will not call them Infidels, but they are unbelievers in what I believe the foundation of all religious truth. My learned friend would represent the difference between Trinitarians and Arians as only like the varieties in the human countenance. I wish I could agree with him in this but, in my opinion, the difference between them is an important and fundamental difference. They do not, in my mind, worship the same God, trust in the same Saviour, or look for sanctification to the same Holy Spirit. The Evangelist, John i. 18, states, that "no man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" -whatever the God of the Scriptures is, that is the God worshiped by the Orthodox. Having ascertained by their reason what is God's word, they surrender, upon the sublime subject of the nature

of him whom "no man hath seen at any time," to that word their understandings, and believe that the one God exists-Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The God of the Arian, on the contrary, is the production of his own reason. He is a "monad," a 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 Ariaus' Saviour is a superior, created intelligence; the Saviour of the Orthodox is, "God over all, blessed for ever." 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 temp tation. 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 subor dinate spirit; in that of the orthodox, whosoever "lies unto the Holy Ghost, lies unto God," Acts v. 3. The differ ence, therefore, between the Ariau and orthodox is truly a fundamental differ ence; 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 im portant 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 Euglish 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 to teach 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, be cause 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 in connexion 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. Montgomery, "I think they should all let their opinions be known.") Mr. S. -I am glad to hear it. It shews that even Mr. Montgomery can be farther informed. At Strabane, last year, he opposed the measure of the members of 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,

Mr.

superlatively wise; yet now he is wiser; he is the Greek superlative made 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 shew 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. 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 other's 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, cach 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," says he, " and you think mine poison; I will therefore make an agreement with you; poison you my people, and I will poison yours." I must 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. I 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. 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 potatoe, 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 doc trines, 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 they 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 with 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." though, 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 truc, because some dignitaries of the Church and learned men have uttered absurdi.. ties in fruitless attempts to explain it. But as well might it be argued that the material world has no existence, because Bishop Berkeley has published many absurdities concerning it. The subject is too high for human thought, and the Scriptures have not attempted to explain it. It is, therefore, useless, if not im

Al

pious, 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 judgment of the Apostle, 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, 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, therefore, 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 religious, 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."

Mr. COOKE said, that, as the assembly appeared to have made up their minds on this subject, he would willingly con

sent 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, in favour of which, as stated in our number for August, there was a majority of 82.

By the Times of September 13th, it appears, that a "tolerably numerous meeting of ministers and laity" belonging to the Synod, was recently held in Belfast for the purpose of determining what course should be pursued in consequence of the adoption of the overtures. After a discussion, in which Rev. Messrs. Montgomery, Porter, Blakeley, Nelson, &c., took part, a Committee was appointed to draw up a Remonstrance to the Synod, subject to the revision and approbation of a general meeting, to be held in Belfast about the middle of October.

LITERARY NOTICES.

Sermons for Family Use.

A VOLUME of Sermons for Family Use is preparing for publication, intended to aid and recommend the observance of domestic worship and the cultivation of piety in connexion with the intercourses of private life. The volume will consist of unpublished and original discourses, contributed by living miuisters, among whom may be named the following: Rev. C. Wellbeloved, York; Rev. W. Turner, Newcastle; Rev. J. Tayler, Nottingham; Rev. J. Kentish, Birmingham; Rev. J. G. Robberds, and Rev. J. J. Tayler, Manchester; Rev. W. J. Fox, London; and Rev. Robert Wallace, Chesterfield. In order that the work may be accessible to the poor as well as to the rich, it will contain as much matter for as small a charge as may be compatible with its good execution and the indemnification of the publisher. It is intended to publish the volume by subscription, and ministers are respectfully requested to receive the names of such members of their respective congregations as may be desirous of procuring it; and to forward them, with as little delay as possible, to the Editor, Rev. J. R. Beard, Manchester.

Mrs. Belzoni is about to publish, by subscription, a series of lithographic copies from the painted sculptures of the Egyptian tomb discovered by her celebrated and unfortunate husband. It will consist of at least 80 plates, and be published in about 12 or 14 numbers, at 25s. each, by Churchill, Leicester Square.

A new Review, to be published quarterly, is said to be forthcoming, edited by the Rev. Blanco White.

Another volume, in quarto, of Lingard's History of England, beginning with the Commonwealth, will be published in November.

In the press and will shortly be published, an Historical Romance, chiefly illustrative of the public events and domestic manners of the Fifteenth Century, entitled, The Last of the Plantage

nets.

Also, in one volume post octavo, Literary Remains of the late Heury Neele, Esq., consisting of Lectures on English Poetry, Tales, and Miscellaneous Pieces, in Prose and Verse, never before published.

At the close of the present year, in 2 vols. 8vo., Essays on the Principles of Morality, and on the Private and Political Rights and Obligations of Mankind. By the late Jonathan Dymond, Author of “An Inquiry into the Accordancy of War with the Principles of Christianity," &c.

The work is divided into three Essays. In the first of these the author has endeavoured to investigate and lay down the true Principles of Morality; in which term is included, first, the Ultimate Standard of Right aud Wrong; and, secondly, Subordinate Rules for the direction of our conduct in life. In the second Essay these principles are applied in determining some of our more pro. minent personal and relative duties. In the third, the writer has attempted to apply sound and pure moral principles to questions of Government, of Legislation, of the Administration of Justice, of Religious Establishments, &c.

Thus the general object of the work is, first, to ascertain and to establish the authority of the true Standard of Right and Wrong, and then to bring various private and political questions to that standard as a test: to offer to the public a work of Moral and Political Philosophy founded primarily on the morality of the Gospel.

It was the belief of the author of these Essays that the treatises on moral philosophy already existing, do not exhibit the principles and enforce the obligations of morality in all their perfection and purity. His desire, therefore, was to supply this deficiency, to exhibit a true and authoritative standard of rectitude, and to estimate, by an appeal to that standard, the moral character of human actions.

The Rev. George Oliver is preparing

for the press a 66 History of Initiation," forming a second volume to his "Signs and Symbols of Freemasonry, illustrated in Twelve Lectures."

The Annuals.

Mr.

These beautiful volumes have now attained a degree of importance in our li terature which we could hardly have anticipated from their origin. In Germany, the public had long been familiar with annual literary anthologies, to which the most celebrated authors of that country were not merely "prevailed upon," but were anxious to contribute. Ackerman, whose "Forget Me Not" has the merit of being the parent of the imitative race in this country, was fortunate in the attempt, as a bookselling speculation, but as nothing farther. The "Forget Me Not," however, sold, and other booksellers entered the field. Messrs. Hurst and Robinson came forward with the "Graces," and Mr. Lupton Relfe with "Friendship's Offering.” So far we had made some improvement upon the common pocket-books, which eked out their claim to the price of eighteen-pence or half-a-crown, by the su peraddition of a few wretched prints and a few wretched verses. In the following year, a considerable improvement was manifested in all three, particularly in the "Forget Me Not," and a verbal alteration appeared in the title of one, which, from the "Graces," became the "Literary Souvenir." The "Amulet" followed, which affected to be a Christian miscellany; but the Editor, probably conceiving religion to be inconsistent with gentility or good taste, turned out as very a heathen as any of his predecessors. Last year, the "Keepsake," for all its simple title, being ambitious, we presume, of "filling a greater space in the public eye" than its neighbours, appeared in a very imposing manner, both as to size and price. The " Bijou" and the "Winter's Wreath" were

next.

This year a new Annual, called the "Anniversary," edited by Allan Cunningham, will be added to the list, as a rival to the "Keepsake ;" and the "Gem," formerly the "Pledge of Friendship," by Mr. Thomas Hood, will contain the last puns of that facetious gentleman. Any statement that might be made with regard to the merits of the forthcoming volumes would be justly regarded either as impudent puffs or malicious slanders. As yet, we can receive our information only through such impartial persons as editors and publishers;