صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

hypocrites, that is not his fault, but theirs. But," says another objector, "is not this to act very much in the spirit of the Church of Rome" "Quite the reverse," answers Peter; "don't you see that the Church of Rome persecuted truth and righteousness, while we persecute only "ungodliness and impure worshippings?"


This theory, however, you will perceive, divides itself into two portions. The first part of it is, "that princes are to use their power," "to defend the verity," and that it is "not lawful to grant to the ungodly impure worshippings." The second, commencing with his "yea," is that "it his part to urge sound doctrine." With the first part, I presume, you will not disagree; at least, you will allow it is the prince's duty to "defend the verity," and though you may dislike the suspicious phrase of "putting down the ungodly," you perceive that the ungodly are only to be put down so far as "that the Catholic truth and Church be not assaulted." And now comes the point. Do you hold that "it is lawful for the Christian magistrate to grant to the ungodly impure worshippings?" Do you maintain that a Christian Legislature should extend the shield of its favour alike over the temple of Dagon, and the ark of God-over spiritual Sodom and spiritual Sion? I do not mean to ask, if you would persecute or positively put down the impure worshippings, but if you would make a formal "grant of these to the ungodly." No, you may reply, were I in possession of power, I would not persecute, but I must not be compelled to come forward with a positive sanction of error. This, however, was all that our Presbyterian fathers of England contended for. What they wished was not to be invested with a power to punish sectaries, but merely to be excused from sanctioning them. When they petitioned Parliament to "set up Presbytery," they simply sought the civil sanction, (without which no form of government could, in these days, be exercised,) and that they might be protected in the exercise of their ecclesiastical jurisdiction, without being subject to the control of the civil courts. This the Parliament would not grant them; because, forsooth, if they had the power they would persecute. And how? Why they would have the power of keeping back whomsoever they pleased to judge unworthy from the communion of the Church!

I grant that some of our fathers held the other portion of Martyr's theory, as to its being the part of the prince to urge sound doctrine. But I maintain, first, that they held this merely as a part of the theological system, which it was their duty to teach; and, secondly, that they left the practice of this entirely in the hands of the civil government. The difference between them and the Popish Church in this matter is very striking. Popery, indeed, hands over the heretic to be punished by the secular power; but, in so doing, it converts the State into the mere passive agent and engine of its purposes. The State must not presume to judge of the crime; that has already been decided by the Church; the tecular judge is merely the executioner of the ecclesiastical sentence. The Protestant theory, again, as held by the Reformers both at home and abroad was, that it was the duty of the State to regard and punish certain forms of religious error as crimes; leaving the magistrate entirely at liberty to judge in the matter as conscience directed him. The Protestant Church never handed over those whom she condemned for heresy to be punished by the civil arm. The two jurisdictions

were kept sacredly distinct; even Calvin, in denouncing Servetus to the Council of Geneva, acted solely in his capacity as a citizen. The fault lay, not in the constitution of the Church, but in the law of the State. The Presbyterians of England may have said, “As individuals, we certainly think it is the duty of rulers to urge sound doctrine, and put down the ungodly; but we leave this entirely to yourselves; what we desire from you, as a Church, is the ecclesiastical power of managing Christ's house according to the law of the house." But in point of fact, notwithstanding their theory, which I consider to have been radically wrong, they had, I truly believe, no intention to persecute, and certain it is they never did persecute. Most of them were willing to grant negative tolerationi.e., they would not persecute. The strong writings of the party against toleration may be easily accounted for from the extravagant doctrines then propagated under the pretext of advocating the rights of conscience. Men were in danger of losing all sense of responsibility for error, and sinking into Pyrrhonism, or universal scepticism. The error of our ancestors arose more from honest zeal for truth, than from a spirit of intolerance towards the abettors of heresy. And I do think, that had they obtained the supreme power, they would have proceeded no further than to the exercise of the first part of Martyr's theory. They would have made the prince "Defender of the faith,"-they would not have granted impure worship any positive toleration; but they would not have proceeded to urge religion by force on any. In other words, they would have put the magistrate in the same attitude towards error with Christianity itself that of defensive, not of offensive warfare. Error is, properly speaking, the assailant-the enemy that comes in like a flood; truth, in relation to error, is the defender. And this seems to define the character of the magistrate's province in regard to religious error; like the minister of Christ, he is set for the defence of the Gospel.

Whatever may be thought of the principles of the Presbyterians on the subject of toleration, it is undeniable that their practice, when in power, was marked by the most exemplary forbearance. "The Presbyterian party," says Edwards, "(though the Assembly of Divines, the representative body of the City, the Court of Common Council, the ministry of the kingdom, thousands and tens of thousands of godly well-affected persons, the kingdom of Scotland, yea, all the Reformed Churches own that way,) in their love and forbearance to the sectaries hath been admirable. When the Independents were but few, and other sectaries a small number, some half a score or dozen ministers, with 300 or 400 people, the Presbyterians gave them the right hand of fellowship, admitted them to their meetings, opened their pulpits to them, even more than to most of their own way; and, notwithstanding breach of agreements, drawing away their people, and many high and strange carriages, yet still using all fairness and love, hoping by brotherly kindness, forbearance, and a thorough reformation in the Church, at last to have gained them.

CHRISTIAN LOVE.-To be well-minded towards enemies, is among the heights of the Christian law, and an imitation of the Godhead.-Bacon.

CUSTOM.—If it be hard to break any custom, much more a custom of sinning, which is so agreeable to depraved nature.-Willison.


THE Church of Rome, finding the second commandment very inconvenient as SO pointedly condemning idolatry, has expunged it from most of the catechisms used in her schools. But as all the world knows that there are ten commandments, the tenth commandment is usually divided into two parts, so as to keep up the requisite number. We are ashamed to say that the recent conduct of a Protestant Church has rendered some similar arrangement necessary with regard to the eighth commandment. The Established Church of Scotland having taken possession of a number of chapels and schools which all the people of Scotland know did not rightly belong to her, it is of course impossible to teach the eighth commandment to the children of these schools. We suggest that the difficulty as to the number of precepts in the Decalogue may be best got over in the catechisms prepared for the schools of the Quoad Sacra Churches, by dividing the tenth commandment as the Papists have done, and making the last precept to run thus, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours' churches, nor schools, nor anything that is thy neighbours."

At the time of the disruption, when it was reported that the Establishment had seized all the Mission premises in India, and not only the buildings, but all the books, apparatus, and other furniture of the Colleges, we could scarcely believe that Christian men could do so discreditable an act, even in the blindest impulse of party animosity. For the people of Scotland, and the friends of Missions all over the world, well knew, that the whole of the missionaries in India, without one exception, recognised the Free Church as the true Church of Scotland to which they had vowed allegiance; and the books and apparatus had been almost entirely procured through the exertions of Dr. Duff, and were mainly the donations of his personal friends. If not dishonest, it was certainly dishonourable, to touch that Mission property in India.

But a still more disgraceful scene is now being acted in Scotland. Through the exertions of the beloved and venerable Dr. Chalmers, and the other Evangelical clergy of the Church of Scotland, a great number of new churches were erected before the disruption. With scarcely any exception, these were built and supported by those who now belong to the Free Church. These the Established Church is now trying to seize. Of some they have already got possession, but as the people have deserted them, the Established Church rather sees them empty and locked up than occupied by the people who have been wont to worship in them.


During the meeting of the two General Assemblies lately in Edinburgh, a letter was sent from the Free Church to the Established Church, with "a proposal for referring to arbitration the questions which have recently been the subject of litigation in regard to chapels of ease and quoad sacra churches." Christian course was however rejected by the Established Church, and in the reply not a word was said of the principle of equity, on which the proposal was based, but only reference to law; "I'll have my bond." Well did every man in that house know, that, whatever Scotch law might be, Christian justice was against them.

The Free Church have resolved to apply to Parliament for protection; and a precedent for the interference of the Legislature has lately occurred in the case of our own Presbyterian

Churches in England, the possession of most of which the Socinians were allowed (by the Dissenters' Chapels Bill) to retain, in order to avoid unseemly litigation. How much more ought these Scottish chapels to be secured to those Orthodox and Christian congregations, who built them, and are their rightful owners.


To the Editor of the English Presbyterian Messenger.

senters notice either event in their sermons. I have asked why of some, and have been told, "because there is no order for such a thing in the Testament;" but that is very unsatisfactory, because the same reason would apply to services on week-days: there is no such think as a work of supererogation on such subjects. Is the reason, because there are services for those days in the Church of England, and therefore Dissenters will not them? I have heard regret expressed by very pious men among Dissenters, that those days are never noticed. I am sure you will oblige a great number of your readers by giving a satisfactory answer to my inquiry, and no one more than your obedient servant, A MEMBER AND SUBSCRIBER.

sanctifying of it to give God praise particu-
larly for those two great blessings. Every
Lord's-day in the year, I think, there should
be a full and particular notice taken in our
prayers and praises of these two; as there is
by some Churches, of the one once a-year
upon Easter-day, and of the other once a-year
upon Whit-Sunday."


SOME Christians to the Lord regard a day,

And others to the Lord regard it not. Now, though these seem to choose a different way, Yet both at last to one same point are brought. He that regards the day will reason thus: "This glorious day our Saviour and our King "Performed some mighty act of love for us; "Observe the time in mem'ry of the thing."

So much for the first part of our Corres-Thus he to Jesus points his kind intent,
pondent's inquiry, whether these days are not
of as vital importance as Sundays. As to the
vital importance of the events there is no
dispute among any classes of Christians; but
the vital importance of the days is quite
another question.

SIR,-Will you give me a satisfactory answer to
the question, Why the Presbyterian Church
never notices Christmas-day, Good Friday, or
Easter-day in their services? Surely either
day is of as vital an importance to the Chris- With regard to the supposition that the
tian as Sunday. If Christ had not been born, Presbyterian Church has no services on these
crucified, and, above all, had not risen again, days because the Church of England has
"we should be most miserable;" and yet them, we can only say, that neither the An-
neither the Presbyterian nor any class of Dis-glican Church nor the Roman Church has
any influence on the usages of those Churches
which take their practices from the Word of
God alone. There are many good things
even in the Church of Rome, and many more
in the Church of England. What is good is
derived from the Bible, and what is bad is
added to or altered from the Bible. The
Presbyterian Church seeks to act on the
apostolic maxim, "prove all things, hold fast
that which is good." At the same time, the
experience of other Churches may be useful
either for warning or for guidance. If we
see a traveller before us stepping into a filthy
puddle, we surely will avoid that path in
order to keep on dry and clean ground;
especially when he has got into the mess by
leaving the plain route laid down in his guide-
book. So when we witness the scenes of riot
and dissipation and wickedness at Whitsun-
week or Easter-week, and other English
ecclesiastical holy day times, and the still more
degrading fêtes of Roman Catholic countries,
we all the more admire the wisdom of the
Presbyterian Reformers who abolished the
observance of what was liable to so much
abuse. Not that the abuse of a thing is any
argument against it; we refer to these effects,
not as arguments, but as historical illustra-
tions of the evil of departing from Scripture



The reason why the Presbyterian Church does not observe these holy days, is simply because there is no authority for them in the Word of God. Our Church, as a truly Protestant Church, holds by the maxim, that the Bible is the only rule both of faith and practice. When Scripture ground is once left, there is no saying whither human tradition and human authority may carry us. The Lord in his infinite wisdom has appointed one day in seven specially for the commemoration of the works of the new creation, through Christ Jesus; and therefore on that day we commemorate them. But some men think God's appointment insufficient, and that it must be supplemented by appointments of their own! The reference made by our correspondent to week-day services is not a case in point; for these are not enjoined with authority by the Presbyterian Church, as holy days are by the Church of Rome and the Church of England. The Scripture enjoins the frequent assembling of ourselves together, and exhorting one another, and so much the more as we see the day approaching. The apostles and early Christians did so daily; but this is a very different matter from appointing other days for celebrating the great blessings of redemption for which the Lord'sday, or the Christian Sabbath, has been specially set apart. This is well put by that sound old English Presbyterian, Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on Acts ii. 1:"The day of Pentecost happened on the first day of the week, which was an additional honour put on that day, and a confirmation of it to be the Christian Sabbath, the day which the Lord hath made, to be a standing memorial in his Church of those two great blessings-the resurrection of Christ, and the pouring out of the Spirit, both on that day of the week. This serves not only to justify us in observing that day under the style and title of the Lord's-day, but to direct us in the

usage and rule, even with the best motives.

Other bad effects of these holy days we might mention, such as their influence on Sabbath observance; it being notorious, that in countries where the Church has appointed its holy days the Lord's-day is most despised and profaned.

And offers prayers and praises in his name.
As to the Lord alone his love is meant,
The Lord accepts it. And who dares to blame!
For though the shell indeed is not the meat,
'Tis not rejected when the meat's within.
Though superstition is a vain conceit,
Commemoration surely is no sin.

He, also, that to days has no regard,
The shadows only for the substance quits,
Towards the Saviour's presence presses hard,
And outward things through eagerness omits.

warmly to himself he thus reflects :

"My Lord alone I count my chiefest good; " All empty forms my craving soul rejects,

"And seeks the solid riches of his blood. "All days and times I place my sole delight "In Him, the only object of my care; "External shows for his dear sake I slight, "Lest aught but Jesus my respect should share." Let not the observer, therefore, entertain Nor let the non-observer call him vain; Against his brother any secret grudge:

Thus both may bring their motives to the test;

But use his freedom and forbear to judge.

Our condescending Lord will both approve. Let each pursue the way that likes him best; He cannot walk amiss, that walks in love.


To the Editor of the English Presbyterian Messenger,

MY DEAR SIR,—It is written that "if the watchman seeth the sword coming upon the land, and blow the trumpet, and warn the people; then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet and taketh not warning, if the sword come and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning, his blood shall be upon himself. But he that taketh warning shall save his soul.

But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned: if the sword come and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at the watchman's hands." He who thus forewarns the sentinels of Messiah's army is Let it be noted, that in all this we are the LORD OF HOSTS THE RIGHTEOUS speaking only of the public enjoining of these JUDGE. The sword has already come down days, and their use by the Presbyterian with terrific power on places where the Church, as a Church. To their observance triumphs of the truth were glorious: there is by our members as private Christians we reason to fear that the British Government is have not the slightest objection. The Bible so swayed by Popish influence that they is clear upon this point: "One man esteemeth intend to allow further outrages against one day above another: another esteemeth Protestant Missions, and, as the principle on every day alike. Let every man be fully per- which they may probably act, has been suaded in his own mind. He that regardeth avowed to me by her Majesty's Secretary of the day regardeth it unto the Lord; and he State for Foreign affairs, I feel that it is my that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he duty to sound the alarm, that I may not be doth not regard it." (Rom. xiv. 5, 6.) "Let responsible to Jehovah for the blood that may all things be done unto edifying." So far be shed and the souls that may be lost if this from objecting individually to referring to principle be established without opposition these subjects in the pulpit, it is our own or remonstrance. I therefore beg that you practice to select the lessons and text for will give these pages a place in the "Presbyspecial notice on such days, and that simply terian Messenger." because from the calendar and customs of the country, the minds of many being necessarily directed in one way, it is well to turn any passing occasion to use and application.

We subjoin some lines by Joseph Hart, written about a hundred years ago, which will show to our correspondent that a Dissenting minister can think liberally and write sensibly, even on the subject of

The Inquisition long held its reign of darkness and terror in Portugal, and Popish priests could imprison, torture, or burn those who dared to doubt any of their doctrines, or who refused to observe any of their vain ceremonies.

were at

But, after ages of religious despotism, the natives of Portugal length set free. The Inquisition was abolished. It was made an article of the

National Charter, that "no one shall be prosecuted on account of his religion, provided he respect that of the state, and do not offend public morals." The legislature decreed that "ecclesiastical sentences shall not affect civil rights," and by the law of December 22, 1834, the heaviest penalty which can now be inflicted on a Portuguese subject, even for printing and publishing the most gross blasphemies against religion and against God, is a fine of about 150l. and a year's imprisonment. At the time when the Inquisition had its greatest power, British citizens in Portugal were not subject to its inhuman tribunal, for they were under the protection of treaties which it was well known that Britain both could, and would, enforce. But after the Inquisition was abolished, and Portuguese subjects were, by their National Charter, secured against persecution, the Court of Relaçao, in 1844, revived one of the old laws of the Inquisition, and this against a British subject, simply for uttering Protestant doctrines within his own house! The law referred to warrants the infliction of any amount of punishment (expressly greater than the pilfory, flogging, and three years banishment to the coast of Africa, at the option of the Judge), for religious offences; and uttering Protestant doctrines was brought under that law by their being designated "blasphemy."

The treaty of 1842, guarantees that "the subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall within the dominions of the other be allowed the free use and exercise of their religion without being in any manner disturbed on account of their religious opinions, and that they shall be allowed to assemble together for the purposes of public worship, and to celebrate the rites of their religion in their own dwelling-houses, or in chapels, or places of worship appointed for that purpose, without any, the smallest, hindrance or interruption whatever. The sentence of the Court seemed inconsistent with the terms of the treaty, and was therefore submitted to the consideration of the British Government in 1845, but the only answer received was indicative of their acquiescence in the decision of the Court, so that now British subjects are not exempted from the old Inquisition law of Portugal.

But Her Majesty's Government has advanced another step, and placed British_subjects in a still more alarming position. In an official letter from the Foreign Office, dated 17th April, 1847, I was informed by the Right Hon. Mr. Stanley, that as I appeared to misconstrue the object and intents of treaties, Lord Palmerston thought proper to inform me that "Treaties entered into by Great Britain with foreign powers have not for their object the protection of British subjects who disobey the laws of a foreign state, or who offend the prejudices of the native population, or of the authorities of such state, but are intended to protect from injury or annoyance British subjects who give no just cause of offence.". His Lordship thus plainly avows that offending the prejudices of the populace or of the authorities of foreign states is now regarded by our Government as "a just cause of offence," and a sufficient reason for refusing to British subjects the protection guaranteed to them by treaties. It follows of course that British subjects abroad must observe these prejudices as the rule of their conduct, and accept them as the measure of their rights, under the penalty of forfeiting the protection of their country! When the prejudices of authorities are thus put in the place of laws, there, in plain language, despotism is established. Lord Palmerston, therefore, by avowing this principle, places

British freemen at the absolute disposal of despotism, even in countries which boast of a constitutional form of Government: and if the rights and liberties of British subjects be thus sacrificed to the prejudices of foreigners even in countries where we are professedly defended by treaties, what protection from

the utmost extreme of lawless violence can be expected in those countries with which we have no compact, for the "protection of British subjects who give no just cause of offence?" What protection will be given to Protestants in any Popish country where their mere presence offends the prejudices of Romanists so strongly that they still retain the decrees for their extermination? What protection will there be in any part of the world for those men, who, in obedience to the command of their God, preach that Gospel which is everywhere an offence to human prejudice? His Lordship's avowal of this strange principle is peculiarly alarming when we remember that it is made in a correspondence respecting Madeira, after the most violent outrages had been perpetrated there under the auspices of a foreign Government; after British property had been, as it was emphatically described by the British Consul in an official letter to the Foreign Office, “shamefully invaded," and at the very time when England was supporting the Queen of Portugal upon her throne, and therefore could easily have maintained the rights of British Protestants if the Government had chosen. Does not the avowal of it by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in such circumstances, look like an invitation to foreign authorities to trample on British subjects, and especially to sweep our missionaries from the face of the earth?

As this dangerous principle has been avowed by Lord Palmerston in his correspondence with me, I have felt bound to make it known as a note of warning to the camp of God. Many who have heard have very strongly expressed their condemnation of his Lordship's principle, while some have seemed to vindicate their own non-interference by saying, "It is too horrible to be maintained by the British Government." But a Member of this Government has already avowed it, and horrible as it is, it has been actually carried into operation in more cases than one, and if British Christians do not feel that it is so horrible as to call for their solemn remonstrances, there is no reason to flatter ourselves with the hope that it will ever be retracted by the Government. They are too much under Popish influence, and Romanists are too well aware of the importance of the position thus surrendered, for us to hope that they will yield it back without a struggle.

If British Christians will but firmly remonstrate against it, the principle is indeed too horrible to be maintained for a moment. But if Lord Palmerston's avowal of it, and the precedents afforded by his Lordship's acting on it, be passed over in silence, it will soon be so strongly defended by Puseyites and Romanists that all opposition will be unavailing. The scenes of Madeira and Tahiti will be repeated nearer and nearer home, till those who could have arrested the evil and would not, themselves become its victims.

Believe me, my dear Sir,

Very sincerely and faithfully,
Your fellow-servant,

ROBERT R. KALLEY. P.S.-I enclose a translation of the law to which I have referred.

4, Holford-street, Holford-square,
June 19, 1847.


CHARLES the First was born at Dunfermline, in Scotland, the 19th of November, 1600. So weak was he at his birth, that it was hardly expected he would survive his infancy, and consequently on the 23d December following he was hastily christened, without any of those ceremonies which usually attend the baptism of Royal infants.

Who did baptize the Royal Martyr? The person who officiated was Mr. David Lindsay, alias "Bishop" Lindsay, whom King James I. nominated in 1600 to the bishopric of Ross. Beyond this Royal nomination Lindsay did not possess, at that time, nor for several years after, any other consecration. In the year 1610 three of the Scottish bishops, so made by the King, were summoned to London to receive consecration, the King declaring that he wished "to stop the mouths of those who said he did take upon him to create bishops and bestow spiritual offices." They were accordingly consecrated in due form, though not without some scruple, as one of the bishops contended that "they must be first ordained Presbyters, as having received no ordination from a bishop." This objection was overruled by Dr. Bancroft, who maintained that "there was no necessity, as where bishops could not be had, the ordination given by the Presbyters might be held lawful."—Spottiswoode History, p. 514.

Whether Lindsay was a presbyter or a bishop, there can be no doubt he had not received ordination in either character, according to the Puseyites, till ten years after he had performed the ceremony of baptizing the infant Charles.


THE people in one of the out-parishes in Virginia, United States, wrote to Dr. Rice, who was then at the head of the Theological Seminary in Prince Edward, for a minister. They said they wanted a man of first-rate talents, for they had run down considerably, and needed building up. They wanted one who could write well, for some of the young people were very nice about that matter. They wanted one who could visit a good deal, for their former minister had neglected that, and they wanted to bring it up. They wanted a man of very gentlemanly deportAnd so they went on describing a perfect ment, for some thought a great deal of that. minister. The last thing they mentioned was, they gave their minister three hundred and fifty dollars; but if the Doctor would send them such a man as they described, they would raise another fifty dollars, making it four hundred dollars. The Doctor sat down and wrote a reply, telling them they had better forthwith make out a call for old Dr.

Dwight in heaven; for he did not know of any one in this world who answered this description. And, as Dr. Dwight had been need so much for the body, and possibly living so long on spiritual food, he might not might live on four hundred dollars.

HUMILITY.-Stoop, stoop! it is a low entry to go in at heaven's gates.-Rutherford. So thought Franklin, as to the things of this world; for he relates that as he was about to go through a low passage his friend called out to him to stoop; but he not perceiving what he meant got a hard knock on the forehead, which circumstance he treasured up for his moral guidance in after life, to bear himself humbly on all proper occasions.


Advertisements, business Letters or Parcels, and Money-orders (payable at Charing-cross Post-office), to be addressed to Mr. JAMES PENNYCOOK BROWN, Agent for the Presbyterian

Church in England, 16, Exeter Hall.

The Messenger presents an eligible and suitable medium for Advertisements. Terms-ten lines and under, 5s., and 3d. for each additional line, 11. for a column.

There are

the other Presbyterian Churches! What encouragement can our brethren have to struggle against difficulties when thus unsupported? And wherein is Presbytery in this respect better than Independency, if our practice conforms not to our theory as to mutual support and strength? Another thing that is at present against us is the want of organized information and influence. matters continually occurring which require immediate consideration and decided action; but who is to receive the information, and to communicate and correspond concerning it, and prepare matters for action? In the case of the Home Mission, for instance, the most important of all our schemes, there are opportunities constantly occurring which pass away unPresbyterian Church in England. and order which we desiderate. During last improved, from the want of the organization

Books received," Lands of the Bible," by Dr. Wilson; Free Church Publications; Fairbairn's Typology of Scripture ;" King, "On the Lord's Supper."

[ocr errors]


WE regret much that at the late meeting of Synod at Sunderland, owing to the pressure of prepared business, there was no time for any conference and consultation as to the present position and prospects of our Presbyterian Church in England. We take this opportunity of bringing before the laymen, and especially the office-bearers of our Church, some points worthy of considera


We may premise that it is not for the progress of Presbyterianism as such, that we are in the least anxious, but only for the spread and maintenance of the Gospel through its instrumentality; for which higher end alone would it be worth our while to strive for the revival of the good old Presbyterian cause in England. That there is at this time a great door and effectual opened unto our Church, is very obvious. And it is no less plain that there are many adversaries; many obstacles without, and many hindrances within, to our success. To some of these internal hindrances we would now direct attention.

The first thing we note is that there are several feeble congregations amongst us, too feeble in numbers and strength to be available for acting on the aggressive in our cause. This ought not to be. It is both discreditable to the whole connexion, and a source of common weakness. These posts ought either to be strengthened, or to be at once withdrawn; for the strength of the whole line is affected by their present condition. Which of the two alternatives is better, we leave others to judge, in the particular cases; only remarking, that where success is hopeless, or where a position has been injudiciously taken up, it may be both most wise and most honourable at once to abandon it, if greater force may be thereby elsewhere disposable. But we put it to the leading laymen among us whether without some effort this ought to be permitted. It is the theory of Presbytery that the strong assist and bear the burden of the weak. Let it be also more the Presbyterian practice. Among our brethren, the Independents, it is a common thing that when there are congregations newly formed, or weak, or otherwise requiring aid, stronger and older churches, by collections, and the services of their ministers, and other ways, give that support which our Presbyterian system boasts specially of supplying. We knew an instance lately in London at the anniversary services of one of our weaker stations, where the service in the afternoon (which was intended for giving the opportunity to others to assist,) was not attended by half-a-dozen members of


the meeting of Commission of Synod at Liverpool we trust that these matters will be duly considered, and arrangements suggested for the better organizing and concentrating of our Presbyterian forces in England.

One other remark only we now make. It is not by our Presbyterianism, nor by our Free Churchism, that we are to expect any progress in England, but by our work as a Protestant and Evangelical Church of Christ. By the faithful preaching of the Gospel, and by contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, our honour and rank among the Churches of the land must be acquired and maintained. The more faithful we are to our Master, the more hostility are we sure to meet with. Even among those denominations which are most friendly, we must expect some is offensive, to others our Presbyterian order; opposition. To some our Calvinistic doctrine but if our Westminster standards are worthy of being maintained, let us maintain them in their integrity, believing that both the doctrine and practice contained therein are founded upon the Word of God. If there be little that is distinctive in our principle, we might as well be merged in other denominations of Christians; but God has given to us a banner to display because of the truth, and we may not furl any part of that banner to please men. If we so pleased men, we should not be faithful servants of Jesus Christ.


winter there was an opening for the establishment of a Presbyterian Church in one of the most important towns in England. If Sabbath services could have been at once supplied, we doubt not there would have been ere this an influential congregation there. The matter was brought before the London Presbytery, but there was no man available for duty, and if the Presbytery themselves had undertaken the services, there are expenses of travelling, and supplies, and other arrangements, which the brethren cannot be expected to incur, and for the supply of which we naturally look to the Home Mission fund. involves correspondence, and explanations, and convening of Committees, and many other preliminary arrangements, during all which, time is lost, and doors of usefulness are shut. That department of the Home Mission which relates to the preaching of the Gospel, and the extension and consolidation of the Presbyterian cause, ought to have some organization for more compact and decisive action. We have at this moment various interesting communications arising out of A Friend, by Mr. Gillespie the circulation of the “Messenger," and bearing on the advancement of our cause; but we know not to whom to refer them, and how to act with respect to them. Even if the time were come for the establishment of a weekly newspaper as the medium of our communication, there are matters which it is obviously not wise to bring prematurely into public rumour; and we therefore desiderate some greater facility for correspondence among our Presbyteries, and among the Committees of the Church, and some better arrangement for organized information and influence.

Let us further be permitted to notice, as an obstacle to success, the want of public spirit and Christian energy, in many of the officebearers of our Church. We speak of this of course relatively, and in connexion with the very peculiar position occupied by our Synod in England. So long as the Presbyterianism of England was regarded merely as a pendicle of the Scottish establishment, there was little scope for activity and enterprise; but now that the standard of an independent Church has been raised, and we profess to be the inheritors of the doctrines and principles of the English Puritans and the Westminster Assembly, we expect to see exertion put forth worthy of the high cause in which our Church is embarked. We might refer to various instances during the past year where we have witnessed opportunities let slip, of occupying or strengthening positions, and of promoting the interests of the Church, in ways with which ministers could not interfere, but which a little more energy and public spirit on the part of our elders and deacons would have easily accomplished. At

COLLEGE FUND. Amount already advertised ...... Birkenhead.-Congregational Collection, 1846.. Congregational Association, for half-year's collection ending April, 1847 .... Sabbath School Children's Boxes Alexander Heron ........(don.)

WILL. HAMILTON, 127, Cheapside, London, June 23, 1847.

[blocks in formation]

Presbyteries' Proceedings.


THIS Presbytery held its ordinary monthly meeting at 16, Exeter Hall, on the 8th June; the Rev. Adam Roxburgh, Moderator, p.t.,

in the chair.

Commissions were given in and sustained in favour of the following Ruling Elders to represent their respective sessions in the Presbytery till the beginning of May, 1848, viz., Messrs. James Morris, for Marylebone; John Forsyth, for Hampstead; W. G. M'Kellar, for River-terrace; and James Currie, for Greenwich.

Reports were called for and given in by the different ministers, of their diligence in observing the Synod's instructions, that, on the first Sabbath of June, the subject of the sanc tification of the Lord's-day should be brought prominently before the different congrega tions within the bounds of the Church.

The Presbytery agreed to meet at Riverterrace Church on the evening of Thursday, the 24th of June current, at seven o'clock, to moderate in a call from the Presbyterian congregation there, in favour of a minister—Mr. Ferguson to preach and preside.

The Presbytery agreed that the following be engrossed in their minutes, viz.:-" The Presbytery considering that, since their last meeting, the Church at large, and the Free

Church of Scotland in particular, has been visited with a heavy bereavement in the death of the Rev. Dr. Chalmers, Principal and Primarius Professor of Theology in the Free Church College, who, in the course of a wise but mysterious providence, had been suddenly and unexpectedly removed to his rest on the 31st of May last, desire to record their deep sense of the loss sustained by the Church in the removal of one who, for a long period of years, and during a very interesting period of the Church's history, has with such consummate ability, unwearied energy, and fervid zeal, guided her counsels, and cheered her on in the noble course which she has been called to take in bearing testimony to the crown rights of the Redeemer, and his sole Headship over his Church: while the Presbytery do not here enter upon any consideration of the varied and eminent talents of the late Dr. Chalmers, they cannot but record their admiration of his gifts, and their sympathy with all those who now deplore so heavy a bereavement."

Mr. James Stewart appeared and delivered two discourses on subjects which had been prescribed for him; said discourses were sustained as parts of his trials. The Presbytery agreed to meet at River-terrace Church at six o'clock, on the evening of Thursday, the 24th of June current, to hear the rest of Mr. Stewart's trial discourses, before they proceed to the moderation of the Riverterrace call on the same evening at seven o'clock.

The proceedings of the Presbytery were closed with prayer.

This Presbytery met, by appointment, at the vestry of River-terrace Church, on the 24th June; the Rev. James Ferguson, Moderator, p.t., in the chair.

Mr. Stewart delivered two discourses, which were sustained as parts of his trials.

The edict, for moderating in a call from the congregation assembling in River-terrace Church, in favour of a pastor, was then called for and returned duly executed and endorsed. Whereupon the Presbytery proceeded to the Church. And after sermon by the Moderator, p.t., it was intimated from the chair that the time was now come for some member of the congregation to name an individual to whom a call might be given to be their minister.

It was known that the congregation had not been able to unite in favour of one person; and the suggestion was made, that it might be expedient to delay, in the hope that some one might be found in whose favour they should all be unanimous, but no name was proposed save that of Mr. Weir, of Townsend-street Church, Belfast.

A memorial was given in and read, craving that Mr. Weir should be appointed to preach before the congregation, in order that they might be in a better position to judge of the propriety of calling him. And another document was read, objecting to the course which had been pursued by the Kirk Session and Committee of Management.

After the Presbytery had been satisfied that it was expedient to proceed, the congregation were asked to signify, in the usual way, whether it was their desire that a call should be given to Mr. Weir to be their pastor, and a great majority of those present voted in the affirmative.

The form of a call in favour of Mr. Weir was then produced, read, and subscribed by 235 individuals, communicants and seatholders, in the presence of this Presbytery. It was then moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to by the Presbytery, that

said call be sustained; and that the usual steps be taken to prosecute the same.

Against which judgment a member of the congregation protested, and appealed to the ensuing meeting of Synod for reasons to be given in in due time; took instruments and craved extracts, which were granted.

The Presbytery agreed to proceed with the translation of Mr. Weir, notwithstanding the protest and appeal that had been taken to the Synod. They appointed Professor Lorimer and Mr. Forsyth to draw up reasons of translation and prosecute the same before the Presbytery of Belfast. And they also appointed a Committee to answer the reasons of protest and appeal when they shall have been lodged with the clerk. The Presbytery adjourned to meet at 16, Exeter Hall, on the second Tuesday of July, at three o'clock, P.M.


THIS Presbytery met at Belford, on the 25th ult. Mr. Nicholson preached a sermon from Ps. lxviii. 19, "Thou, O God, didst send," &c. Present, six ministers and an elder. Rev. Robert M'Clelland, Moderator. Mr. Murdoch was chosen Moderator for the next six months. Mr. Watson was appointed Clerk, p.t. The Minutes of the former meeting, and of a pro re nata meeting, having been read and sustained, all the members were found to have fulfilled the appointments of Presbytery, to preach at Norham, except Mr. Munro, who was excused from circumstances. Mr. Nicholson reported that he had, as directed, preached, on the 18th of April, at Norham, and declared the church vacant, which order of Presbytery he returned executed. Mr. Munro reported, that, according to appointment at the pro re nata meeting, he had dispensed the sacrament at Norham, and Mr. Ryder, that he had preached on the Fast-day, and held a session.

The Presbytery appointed Mr. Murdoch to preach at Norham on the first Sabbath of June, Mr. George Shaw on the second and third Sabbaths, and Mr. John Gillespie on the fourth Sabbath of June and the first Sabbath of July. The Moderators, Messrs. M'Clelland and Ryder, with Messrs. Tennant and Eyre, elders, to be a Committee of further supply for Norham,-Mr. Murdoch, Convener.

The deputation from the Synod, it was stated, had been postponed till some time in the course of the summer, whereupon the Presbytery agreed that the arrangements formerly made for their reception be adhered to with a corresponding change of the times. The out-standing Reports of the Home Mission collections were called for. Ancroft Moor and North Sunderland collections were returned, 17. 5s. and 17. 3s. 6d. respectively, with 14s. from the North Sunderland Association. Foreign and Jewish Mission collections: Hide-hill, Berwick, 27. 4s. 4d.; Lowick, 27. Os. 4d.; Tweedmouth, 17. 17s. 7d.; Ancroft Moor, 17. Messrs. Watson and Ryder, ministers, and Messrs. G. F. Barbour and Wm. Tennant were appointed Commissioners to the Synod's Commission, and an extract of their appointment ordered to be forwarded to the Clerk of Synod. A Local Committee to correspond with the Synod's Home Mission Committee was appointed. The Local School Committees were re-arranged. The Presbytery attested and recommended an application from Tweedmouth to the Home Mission Committee. Some financial matters were disposed of. Next ordinary meeting to be held at Etal, at noon, on the last Tuesday of August, Mr. Munro to preach.


THIS Presbytery met at Glanton on the 16th ult., and was duly constituted. Present, the Moderator, Messrs. Anderson, Lennie, Thomson, Huie, and the clerk, with Mr. Young, elder. The minutes of the former meeting having been read, were approved of. The Presbytery proceeded to receive the pieces of trial appointed to Mr. Cromar. The Presbytery having retired, and taken a conjunct view of the whole, expressed their complete satisfaction with Mr. Cromar's trials, and unanimously agreed to sustain the same. Mr. Cromar having laid on the table of the Presbytery an extract of his license from the Presbytery of the Free Church, Aberdeen, along with the requisite certification of character, the Presbytery resolved to proceed with his ordination and induction, and for that purpose to meet at Crookham on Tuesday, 29th June, at twelve o'clock. The following members were appointed to conduct the service: Mr. Johnston to open the meeting with praise and prayer; Mr. Cathcart to preach; Mr. Huie to give an exposition of the principles of Presbytery; Mr. Anderson to ask the questions and offer up the ordination prayer; Mr. Lennie to address the minister; Mr. Blythe to address the people, and conclude the service.

Mr. Anderson read the Report of the Committee on Mr. Whitehouse's case; whereupon it was moved and carried, that said Report be sustained and adopted, and that the Moderator be authorized to adhibit his name to the communication drawn up by the Committee and addressed to the office-bearers and members of the congregation at Spital, and that the same be printed and circulated among the members of that congregation, and that the Convener be intrusted with the consequent arrangements.

In regard to the meetings of the Commission of Synod, Messrs. Lennie, Huie, and Gillespie (ministers), and Messrs. Hood, Hudson, and Young (elders), were appointed to represent the Presbytery at the same.

The Presbytery adjourned to meet at Crookham, as above. Closed with prayer.


THE Presbytery of Glasgow have refused to sanction the translation of Mr. Arnott to the Professorship of Divinity in our College. Further particulars, with our remarks on this matter, we reserve until next number.


Dr. Winter of London, being in company with an Arminian who spoke violently against the doctrine of election, said to him, "You believe in election as firmly as I do." "I deny it," answered the other; "on the contrary, it is a doctrine I detest." "Do you believe that ALL men will be saved on the last day, or only some ?" "Only some." "Do you imagine that some will be found to have saved themselves?" "No, certainly; God in Christ is the only Saviour of sinners." "But God could have saved the rest, could he not ?" "No doubt." "Then salvation is peculiar to the saved!" "To be sure." "And God saves them designedly, and not against his will?" Certainly." "And willingly suffers the rest to perish, though he could easily have hindered it?" "It should seem so." "Then, is not this election? It amounts to the same thing."


MEMORY.-Many have large but unsanctified memories, which serve only to gather knowledge whereby to aggravate their condemnation.-Boston.

« السابقةمتابعة »