could have been exhibited in human conduct; and that men who had honorably and successfully laboured to break the yoke of bondage imposed upon them by others, should, voluntarily and boastfully, have subjected themselves to a worse enthralment. Liberty up to a certain extent that is to the length and breadth of their own creed-they coveted and claimed; but, of "the perfect liberty wherewith Christ has made us free," they appear not to have entertained the least conception. They admitted that the church of Rome had erred-that the church of England had erred-and they rejoiced that free enquiry had led to the exposure of those errors, and resulted in the establishment of the purer system of Presbyterianism: but they never dreamed, that any remnant of error could still find a resting place amongst themselves. True, indeed, they had adopted the Westminster Confession, which declares that "all churches have erred and may err;" but, it is quite evident, that, like their successors of the present age, the use of such language was merely an exhibition of "mock-modesty;" and that, in reality, they believed it impossible for any farther light to be cast upon the pages of Revelation, than that by which they had been enabled infallibly to discern the whole truth! Upon no other principle than this imaginary perfection of their own judgment, (unless perhaps some lurking love of power and pelf) can we account for the melancholy and inconsistent spectacle which they exhibited to the world, of a church honourably securing its own emancipation, and then voluntarily and meanly submitting its neck to a degrading servitude.

The case of the General Synod of Ulster is not mended by alleging that they only followed the example of the Lutheran church of Germany, the Episcopal church of England and Ireland, and the Presbyterian church of Scotland. All these churches had practically belied their Protestant name and profession; for, with the disclaimer of infallibility upon their lips, they had, each in turn, taken up the tyrannous weapons of the church of Rome; and a reformed Presbyterian Synod, just escaped through the liberality of their sovereign, from the fangs of persecution, ought to have acted upon higher principles, and to have proved to the world that Irish Presbyterianism did not consist in throwing off one yoke to put on another. Had they acted thus, Presbyterianism would not, this day, have been merely the third sect, in Ireland, in point of influence and numbers: but, with its Scotch energy, perseverance, intelligence, and piety, it would have stood at the

head of Irish Protestantism, as it now does at the head of Ulster industry and civilization. The General Synod, however, preferred the exercise of a petty tyranny over its own members, and the exhibition of a verbal orthodoxy before the world, to the glorious moral and social influence which it might have attained, by bearing aloft the standard of religious freedom. From the time that France ceased to be a republic, and sunk into an empire under the iron despotism of Napoleon, Marshal Ney declared that her armies lost the spring and irresistible energy which had carried them forward to certain victory; and so it was with the General Synod of Ulster, when they fettered themselves with creeds: they lost the erect and manly bearing of freemen, by which they had acquired extraordinary social influence, and merely hobbled in chains amidst their enslaved competitors. From that time, they were overmatched by the church of Rome, which enjoyed the advantage of superior antiquity, and by the church of England which possessed the advantage of superior worldly emoluments; so that, taking into account the proportional increase of population, Presbyterianism has, ever since, lagged behind both.

up

3. The course pursued by the laity, during the discussions of "The Seven Synods," was particularly melancholy. The great majority of the congregations selected, for elders, the most furious bigots in their communion; and these elders sat in the synods to overawe their ministers, and, as far as possible, to prevent the expression of a liberal sentiment, or the tendering of an honest vote. In all cases, the majorities against the non-subscribers were made of elders, who were the most impatient for a decision, and the loudest clamourers for "a vote, a vote!" So many as 106 elders attended a single synod, whilst the entire number of congregations was only 123. The largest number of ministers that ever voted on the side of intolerance was only 36, whilst in spite of popular intimidation, 40 supported the cause of Christian liberty; and many retired from the house, or remained in it, without voting. Now, this state of affairs, I have termed melancholy: but it was more— it was humiliating and disgraceful on the part of the laity. They would not act so absurdly on any other subject, save religion: they would not select for the instructors of their children men who adhered to the antiquated systems of education pursued two hundred years ago: they would not choose for their physicians, men who had made no advance in medical knowledge beyond the days of Hippocrates and Galen: they would not employ those as their

lawyers who repudiated all the improved legislation of modern times. No in their temporal affairs, they would not adopt a principle of action so absurd and injurious; yet in spiritual concerns, they seem to consider there is no safety but in clinging to the venerable errors of former ages. They engage ministers who are supposed to have enlarged their minds by varied studies, and to have especially devoted their attention to the investigation of the sacred scriptures. These men they place in their pulpits, and dignify with the titles of their spiritual guides and instructors. But all this, in creed-bound churches, is nothing more than a solemn mockery. Their ministers are not their teachers, but their slaves. They merely go through the dull and degrading routine of a prescribed task. The forms and ceremonies which they are to observe, and the doctrines which they are to inculcate, are all set down in plain black-letter: and from these they dare not deviate one hair-breadth, on pain of suspension and degradation! How can such men be called instructors? They are nothing more than the mere bond-slaves of the laity and of churches: they have no will, no voice of their own: they are not teachers, so much as school-boys repeating a lesson: they may think, but they dare not speak, unless their thoughts be co-incident with those of some conclave of divines, or some enactment of the legislature, two or three hundred years ago! Is not this a miserable and humiliating condition in which to place educated men? Is it not a dreadful thing, thus to cramp and trammel "the ambassadors of Christ,"men who are solemnly commanded "to speak boldly the whole counsel of God"-" to keep back nothing which is profitable for edification?" How can men thus circumstanced, " cry aloud and spare not"-how can they " rebuke and exhort with all authority and doctrine?" And what do the people gain by this enslaving of the clergy? Why, they have their prejudices fostered, their passions soothed, their vanity gratified: but their religious knowledge is not one whit increased: they stand, as to spiritual concerns, and in an advancing world, precisely where their forefathers stood in past centuries. Floods of light have been poured upon the wide domains of philosophy, literature, arts, science, legislation, com. merce, manufactures, and education: but the people perversely labour to shut up religion in dungeons, and to prevent the beams of Heaven from shining upon their altars. In acting thus, they conspire against their own dearest interests: they pay men for deluding them they virtually say to their teachers, like the degene

rate Israelites of old, "prophesy unto us smooth things, prophesy not unto us right things, prophesy deceits." And, what was the result in ancient times? Why, "the prophets prophesied lies, because the people loved to have it so!" And is human nature changed, in our modern times? Are men now exalted above the reach of temptation -above all the influences of popularity, and fashion, and convenience, and gain? Would to God, that the laity of all the churches which submit to human creeds, would reflect upon the evils which they entail upon themselves and their children, by cramping and tempting their clergy. Religion, under such circumstances, may be a sentiment or a prejudice, but it is no concern of the understanding. They are not, as Paul enjoins them to be, "fully persuaded in their own minds:" they are persuaded in the minds of others— they adopt their creed on trust-they do, in relation to their eternal interests, that which they would not do, in relation to the meanest concern of time. Instead of playing fast and loose with principle, they ought to consider truth as "the pearl of great price;" and they ought to say to their ministers-" every profession has its preparations and its duties: you have been appointed our teachers on account of your learning, your integrity, your talents, and your various qualifications for the study and exposition of the Bible. Our studies and pursuits have been of a different nature; and therefore, we adopt the language of the Jews of Rome, in addressing Paul-we would hear of thee what thou thinkest'—we adjure you, as you are to answer for our souls at the great day, tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We would scorn you, if you uttered a common falsehood in the ordinary intercourse of the world; but, you would merit our abhorrence, if you be base and false enough to mislead us with regard to the grand concerns of an eternal scene." Were the people thus to act honestly towards themselves and their ministers, churches would speedily assume a different aspect-the pulpit would be animated by a living soulreason and faith would walk hand in hand-inculcated prejudice would give place to individual conviction-every man being, himself, an honest worshipper, would respect the integrity of his brother-and, in spite of an inevitable variety of creeds, one blessed bond of human sympathy and Christian love would eventually unite the entire followers of the Redeemer. But these fair prospects are only the visions of hope; and I lament to say, that there is little in the existing condition of the religious world, to make us

sanguine of their realization. The elders of the General Synod of Ulster, in the comparatively unenlightened period of 1726, were not one item more bigoted and fierce than their successors in that body, who, a century afterwards, compelled the Remonstrants to secede from the church of their fathers. The age in which we live is greatly distinguished by the parade and exhibition of religion; but, I firmly believe that there never was less of its genuine spirit in the world.

4. The conduct of the clergy, during the debates which ended in the expulsion of the presbytery of Antrim, was not, on the whole, very creditable. I do not speak of Mr. Masterton, of Connor, and the other leaders of the intolerant party: I refer to the non-subscribers themselves, who, in my mind, manifested more ability and dexterity than candour and moral courage. They appear to have been exceedingly timid, to have stood far too much upon the apologetic, and to have taken a lower ground than they were entitled to occupy. I readily admit, that much allowance ought to be made for the temper of the times, for the ignorance of the people, for the difficulties which thy had to encounter, for the intolerant state of the law, and for the dangers by which they were surrounded: yet, still, I am not able to believe, that their sole ground of objection to subscription was its infringement on Christian liberty. This ground, I admit to have been valid and sufficient; and, had they fought on it alone, without making ostentatious professions of orthodoxy, both by word and writing, I should see nothing to condemn. That they were all Trinitarians and Calvinists, however, I confess I greatly doubt-more especially as several of them, almost immediately afterwards, are well known to have avowed Arian and Arminian opinions. In good truth, I can scarcely believe that such men as John Abernethy, Samuel Haliday, and James Kirkpatrick, ever were Calvinists, in the literal sense of the word. They may have thought themselves "moderate Calvinists," like a certain friend of mine, a learned professor; but that, in my view, is no Calvinism at all-for Calvinism and moderation have no affinity. A Calvinist, I gladly allow, may be a very gentle and amiable man, in all the ordinary relations of life; but, his creed is essentially stern, inflexible, and severe. Supposing the worst, however, some allowance must be made for the use of cautious and deprecatory language on the part of the non-subscribers, with the enormous fine and cruel imprisonment of Thomas Emlyn, fresh in their recollection: and,