When a man prefers a peaceful conscience to easy circumstances, and gives up the bread which perisheth, for that bread of life which comes from heaven-when he thus binds himself to truth and liberty, albeit obloquy and privation follow the act of Christian heroism, to question the sincerity of the deed, or the integrity which dictated it, would, indeed, be madness. Justice is thereby done to our much defamed nature; even opponents honour such devotion to principle, whilst a grateful and generous sympathy is excited in all who have hearts to feel and understandings to com prehend the dignity of virtue, the moral honesty which worldly emolument could not bribe, nor worldly obloquy terrify.

The Remonstrants, in their Address to the Synod, state, "In our absence, you will naturally come more calmly to the re-consideration of those enactments of which we complain; and we are not without hope, that the issue of your dispassionate deliberations will be honourable to yourselves, favourable to the cause of Christian liberty, and conducive to the unity and prosperity of the Presbyterian Church." The following are illustrations of the expected calmness and dispassionate consideration, which were to mark the absence of heretical persons.

Mr. Cooke. I think it would be wrong for the Synod to command the Committee to hold their examination, either in public or in private. It should be left to exercise its own discretion. It is not wise to expose an examination to the public gaze, where the object is to probe the breast!

Mr. Hogg (of Carlin).-If perfect uniformity of belief be aimed at, we should have a Committee who are themselves perfectly agreed. Now, I know some of the late Committee who are not Calvinists.

Mr. Stewart, I hope he would not be understood to allude to me (laughter).

Mr. Hogg. I have often expressed my very high opinion of Mr. Cooke; but as he states, that Arminianism concedes the es sentials of Calvinism, I must say, that there never was a greater. falsehood (order). I have no wish to use a hard word, but it is at least an untruth (great laughter).

Mr. Cooke. If he merely means to say, that I have been guilty of an error in judgment, he is perfectly at liberty; but if he means to say, that I told a lie, I would call upon the house to prevent such language.

Mr. Hogg. I do not intend to impugn his veracity. Now, I object to the appointment of a motley Committee. I object to the attempt to probe the bosoms, as Mr. Cooke says, of young men. I would apply to the congregations of the individuals, for their characters; for it generally happens, that those who are loudest in praise of themselves, are not the most deserving. So far as we attempt to probe the breast, we are grafting Arminian Methodism on Presbyterianism.

We think Mr. Hogg might have found a more fitting prototype. "The Conference" certainly has been no unapt scholar in the lesson and the practice of intolerance, as our friend Bernard Slater of Rochdale can testify, in relation to the late Joseph Cooke;

yet to "the Holy Inquisition" must be given the bad pre-eminence in the unholy and impious invention of probing the breast.

As a family picture of intolerance, what can exceed the following? Mr. S. Dill spoke at great length, in order to prove the scripturality and constitutionality of the overtures. He rebutted the charge of diminishing the authority of Scripture, as alleged by the Remonstrants, He charged the Unitarians and Arians with op❤ posing the authority of Christ to that of Paul, and one text to another, in order to neutralize both; with stating that the Epistles are only to be taken as epistolary writing, not intended for the use of posterity.-Mr. F. Dill contended, that the Synod had fallen from the purity of their forefathers; and that it was more deplorable that Arians should be over the people, than that the Ministers should be spoiled of their goods.—Mr. Richard Dill, Senior: An unsound minister is a poisoned fountain, sending around noxious exhalations and death. I would rather leave an hundred ministers and their families to starve, than put an unsound minister over a congregation. Arianism is not Christianity. I will not say that an individual Arian is not a Christian; but I say Arianism is not Christianity! I am not sure that Arianism contains a single principle of Christianity, with the exception of the doctrine of the resurrection! I wish to be charitable; but as charity begins at home, I must say if Calvinism be Christianity, Arianism is not.

Truly, if this be the charity of the Dills, it both begins and ends at home; it is contracted by ignorance, it is narrowed by fanaticism. What fearful havoc does creed idolatry make with human feelings. How fervently should we pray for its extinction! how perseveringly and indefatigably should we labour that the prayer may be accomplished!

The

The overtures passed at the Annual Meeting of the Synod in 1828 were confirmed; the request of the Remonstrants against these overtures, that in the event of their being confirmed, a Committee of the Synod should be appointed to confer with a Committee of their number, for the arrangement of an amicable separation, was agreed to and appointed;—and thus is the Synod of Ulster given up to the promotion and the practice of intolerance. Ichabod, its glory is departed. But darkest clouds sometimes herald the bright sunshine. Murky and lowering present appearances assuredly are, but the blackness of bigotry may yet be displaced by the radiant beams of Christian benevolence, fire, the earthquake, and the storm, preceded the still small voice. The bow of hope is even now spreading across the horizon. During the last Meeting, there was one who raised his voice for charity. And the elements of discord and disunion evidently exist among the now triumphant majority. It presents indeed to the superficial observer, a strongly knit phalanx, and it is headed by no mean and inexperienced leader; but we grievously mistake if Messrs. Magill and Dill, Hogg and Carlile, Elder, Stewart, and John Brown, will be found readily to submit to the order and subordination so essential to strict and regular discipline. They have cleansed the Synod, as they imagine," of the

leprosy of Arianism"-may it be speedily cleansed of sectarian pride, pharasaical arrogance, and inquisitorial presumption.

The Remonstrants, in their address to the Synod, justly remark, “The question at issue between us, is not, as has been frequently asserted, a question of doctrine: it is not, whether Trinitarianism or Anti-Trinitarianism, Calvinism or Arminianism, be most accordant with the Word of God. Upon these points, we acknowledge a variety of opinion to exist, even amongst ourselves. The real subject in debate, therefore, is not the absolute truth or error of certain theological tenets; but simply this, whether the sacred Scriptures be a sufficient or an insufficient rule of faith and duty; whether the Ministers and Licentiates of the General Synod shall be permitted, without molestation or injury, to inculcate those views of Christian doctrine, which, in their own consciences, they believe to be true; or shall be required, under the penalty of the most serious worldly loss, to teach the opinions approved by a Committee of their brethren, no wiser and no less fallible than themselves, although they should believe those opinions to be utterly erroneous; and, finally, whether the people of the Presbyterian communion shall have full liberty to elect Pastors whose religious sentiments accord with their own, or be limited in their choice to such individuals as may have regulated their religious profession by the standard of human authority. We press it upon your serious consideration, that this is the real and only question at issue. Absolute Truth can be determined only by an Infallible Tribunal; but Liberty of Conscience, which is the divinely chartered right of every Christian, may be mutually conceded, and ought to be conceded in the fullest extent, by those whose theological views are most directly opposed to each other. Whilst, therefore, we are by no means indifferent either to the maintenance or extension of our own peculiar opinions, we desire to hold them in charity with all men; and, in conformity with our uniform practice, we shall never attempt to press their adoption upon others, by any authoritative or penal enactments." In the furtherance of these views of Christian freedom, of Scriptural inquiry, whether they ultimately lead to the adoption of our principles or not, we fervently wish those who have been driven from the Synod, God speed. We have all along stated freely and candidly, but we hope with Christian feeling, we are confident with real kindness of intention, our views of the proceedings and addresses at the various meetings. As men and as Christians, we love equality and independence, and therefore entertain a keen suspicion of Church government and of all Ecclesiastical corporations, whether national or provincial, Episcopalian or Presbyterian. We are Dissenters, and in that character, as also as Britons, we protest against the Regium Donum which constitutes the Presbyterian Church of Ireland a demi-establishment, and, as it seems to us, violates every principle of rational and justifiable dissent. We are Unitarians, and rejoice in every circumstance favourable to mental liberty, and which promises an approximation to our doctrines, convinced as we are, that on the more extensive knowledge, and reception, and practice of that faith, is mainly dependant the improvement, purification, and happiness of mankind.

The English Unitarians and the Marriage Question; a Conversation.-No. 1.

སྒོ། པྤ། ༈ ནི ཨཱརནྟཾ% &མཐར་ (Continued from page 73.).

P. You will admit, I think, that the opinions of men are best known from their own words. And you will also grant me, that their actions should accord with their own expressed opinions. Unitarians, then, as a body, have approached Parliament, for the redress of a grievance. They have declared, in the presence of the Council of the Nation, and before all the people, that the Marriage Ceremony violates their consciences.-L. If you can prove this, you will gain much of your point with respect to them, but not with respect to me.

P. With respect to both, you should say. But, however, I think I can prove what I have asserted; and I will go upon facts. The Unitarian Association, the Repre sentative Body of Unitarians, drew up a petition to Parliament, and recommended it to the adoption of the whole denomination; and, I believe, the recommendation was generally acted upon: the Repository says, "throughout the country." (M. R. vol. xvii. p. 320.) The petition states, that the present Marriage Service is "inconsistent, in several points, with the religious belief which the petitioners conscientiously entertain;" that it "imposes a burthen on conscience;" and that it is "repugnant in many parts to their religious principles." The petitioners are spoken of as "praying for relief from the Marriage Service, as far as it implies Trinitarian worship." (M. R. vol. xvii. p. 320.) In "the petition of the Associated Unitarian Christians of Kent and Sussex," the petitioners state, that "they cannot exculpate themselves from the charge of a palpable violation of moral principle, in joining in devotions addressed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and, particularly, in receiving a benediction pronounced for the ratification of the ceremony, in the names of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy

Ghost." (M. R. vol. xii. p. 503.) In the Unitarian Freethinking Christians' Petition, the petitioners state, "that by an Act of the Legislature, which passed in the 26th year of the reign of George the Second, they are prevented entering into the marriage state, without submitting to a rite of the Established Church of England, and joining in an act of religious worship, with one of its ordained ministers-which act of worship, is a clear and public admission of the doctrines, the authority, and claims of such church." (M. R. New Series, vol. i. p. 462.) The Act first brought in, was, "An Act to relieve certain persons, &c." And the preamble stated, that these " persons entertained conscientious objections to the use of certain parts of the Office of Matrimony, in the Book of Common Prayer, &c." Another Act was afterwards substituted for this; but it was still founded on the "conscientious dissent" of the persons for whose relief it was intended. The service was regarded by them, "as a grievance repugnant to their religious feelings," &c. And it was deemed "expedient to grant ease to scrupulous consciences in this respect." Thus, Unitarians themselves have proclaimed to the nation-to the whole world (for the fact is matter of history), that the present Marriage Ceremony is a violation of their consciences.-L. I admit it. They stand completely pledged on this point. They are bound in conscience to follow up their declarations, by a corresponding line of conduct. For, however difficult their position may be, I cannot see how they can consistently conform to the ceremony, with the admissions which they have made, unless it be conscientious to do what we believe to be a violation of conscience; which no man in his senses would maintain for a moment.

P. And yet they have continued to do that which they have thus openly condemned, from the period in which they first uttered it, to the present time. Are they not, therefore, highly inconsistent? Are they not highly culpable?-Z. I will not answer for them; to their own master they stand or fall. I pity their position; it is a hard one. They are goaded by what they believe to be conscientious scruples on the one hand, and yet they have no law to protect them on the other. In the conflict, their scruples are sacrificed, and their consciences also. Much better would it have been, to have said nothing about conscience, if they had not intended to act agreeably to