Presbyterians and the National Church. The former became a distinct and separate community, but so severe was the persecution to which they were subjected, that, for a considerable time, few churches were erected, and little progress was made. The groaning country, whose endurance had been taxed to the uttermost, at last became convulsed, and in the throes of the Revolution found itself once more free. The Toleration Act gave liberty of action to the various religious bodies. Presbyterian churches began to spring up with great rapidity, so that within twenty-five years not fewer than 800 congregations were formed in England. It was a period of such life and energy, that not only were places of worship built, but, in most cases, endowments furnished, to a greater or smaller extent. Now we must here call attention to the fact that there were two Acts the one passed in 1689, the other in 1698-expressly excluding from the toleration granted to others all who denied the doctrine of the Trinity. We cannot and would not defend this exclusion; we deal with it simply as a fact; and we draw from it this simple conclusion, that these Churches and endowments were designed for the use of orthodox Presbyterians, and were not, could not be, designed for the use of Socinians. Besides, at the period to which we refer, there were not in the country congregations of Socinians, though there were scattered individuals of that persuasion. Not only so, but we find explicit evidence of orthodoxy in the wills of those who devoted their substance to the endowment of Presbyterian Churches, as in the case of the Hewleys. Now, in the face of all this, it seems strange, a century and a-half later, to be told that there are, in England, Socinians, claiming to be the lineal descendants and rightful representatives of the old Presbyterians, arrogating to themselves the name of Presbyterian, nay, occupying not a few of the old Presbyterian chapels, and holding their endowments. It is not necessary, with our present object, to dwell on the sad details of defection in the eighteenth century. Suffice it to say, that error crept into the Presbyterian Churches very much in proportion as the strictness of Presbyterian government and discipline was relaxed. The office of ruling Elder fell into disuse, Sessions of course ceased, and with them superior Church Courts. While the organization for sound Presbyterial government became extinct, even the checks common in other Evangelical denominations were not adopted, and thus the whole power of admission to membership, Church censures, &c., came to be vested in the minister. When he, in these series of general religious declension, became unsettled in his beliefs, all manner of persons were admitted as members of the Church. The consequence of all this was, that first Arminianism, the most plausible and amiable form of error, crept in; it led naturally to Arianism, eventually landing the falling Churches in Socinianism. Widely extended, however, as was at this period the mildew that blighted vital godliness, and corrupted the orthodox faith, there were not a few of the Presbyterian Churches which continued true to their ancient principles. These form the nucleus of reviving Presbyterianism in England. They are furnished with Sessions, associated into Presbyteries, and superintended by a Synod. A scrupulous guard is kept over the introduction of error; new congregations are springing up, healthy saplings from the old and undecayed stock; the vigour and elasticity, as of renewed youth, is everywhere manifesting itself; and the eye can scarcely be allowed to range over "The Presbyterian Church in England," small as are her borders at the present time, without coming to the conclusion that this Church possesses, not only the

form, but a large portion of the spirit, of the good old Presbyterianism of England's best times, as her blood, mingling in friendly current with that of the sister Presbyterianism of Scotland, unquestionably flows in her veins.

And

It is beginning to be unmistakeably manifest what Presbyterianism in England is, and the confusion which associated that time-honoured name with Socinianism is dying out. Still, however, the Socinians of England, in some places, attempt to sail under Presbyterian colours. It appears that in Chester the Unitarians have been in the habit of heading their bills with the Presbyterian name, and, in at least a late instance, printed the word "Presbyterian" in very large, and the word "Unitarian" in very small characters. We are glad to observe that, in the recent ordination of Mr. Sloan at Chester, the Rev. Mr. Lundie took occasion to expose this practice, one upon which-in spite of the indignant recalcitration of the Socinian minister at Chester, in the correspondence with Mr. Lundie, which followed, and appeared in the "Chester Chronicle "- -we can look in no other light but that of a "base and unworthy stratagem." It is well that in Chester, and in every corner of the land, the matter be put in its true light, and the public have an opportunity of judging of the claims of Socinians to the Presbyterian name. There is practical unfairness in the assumption by Socinians of this name, as there is practical injustice in their occupation of the old Presbyterian churches. nowhere is this more apparent than in Chester. On what just plea Socinians should be the heirs of Matthew Henry's Church, it is not easy to imagine. His orthodox and spirit-stirring "Commentary," which is still within the walls of the old building, offers its silent protest against the chilling heresy taught there. We cannot refrain from giving a curious extract from a letter lately received from a Correspondent likely to be well informed in this matter. "I believe," says our informant, "that there is a clause in the title-deed of Matthew Henry's Church, requiring that a copy of his 'Commentary' be secured by chains to a suitable spot in the building, for the inspection of poor inquiring people; that desks were constructed against the walls, and the large folio edition of the said work fastened to them by means of an iron eye inserted in the lower end of the book's back, through which passed a chain with one end attached to the desk. After the Socinians got possession of the church, I am told that the Commentary' was removed to a cupboard in the vestry; the excuse given by the sexton for the change of locality being, the people who come here tear out portions as mementoes of Matthew Henry." Matthew Henry in the vestry-cupboard: a "suitable spot," truly! More suitable still, perhaps, to Socinian taste would it be to raise a flag in the middle of the church, and give him decent interment underneath; but then, if our Correspondent's information be correct, the title-deed would scarcely admit of this. Worthy descendants, verily, of the great Evangelical commentator!

6

The plea insisted upon by Socinians, in defence of their appropriation of the ancient name and ancient churches of Presbyterians, is that of lineal descent. We have seen in what sense this claim is well founded. If we are to test the identity of Churches by the descent of blood, and not of belief, we may acknowledge some validity in the plea. But, by the same process of argument, might we not prove both Socinians and Evangelical Protestants to be Roman Catholics? We are the lineal descendants by blood of Roman Catholics. Or, to go even further back, were not the

Romanists of Britain the descendants of the ancient Druids? To carry out their argument of blood descent, we would recommend our Socinian friends to assume the name of Druids. Most clearly those who hold the faith and principles of the ancient Presbyterians are their proper representatives and descendants. An additional argument urged on this point

is not less unsound. They say that free inquiry was a principle with the old Presbyterians, and that therefore they continue their proper representatives, whatever opinions they have been led on inquiry to adopt. One would scarcely believe that such an argument could be soberly urged. Can it be supposed that the founders of the old Presbyterian trusts could recognise, as having any connexion with them, those who, in the licence of innovation, rather than the freedom of inquiry, have subverted the very foundations of their cardinal and most cherished beliefs? Is there not a breach of faith with our honoured ancestors, who, dying in sole dependance on the atonement of a Divine Redeemer, left their property for the teaching and perpetuation of the truths they held, when these bounties are perverted to the promulgation of errors they abhorred, and when the name they bore is arrogated by the promulgators of these errors?

The grounds on which we deny the claim of Socinians to the name of Presbyterian, are very simple: first, because they deny the doctrines, not only held, but regarded as fundamental, by the Churches universally known as Presbyterian. But if it is urged that the Presbyterian name is proper rather to a form of government than to a system of belief, we argue, secondly, that, as we have already seen, Socinians in England have departed utterly from Presbyterial government. They have neither Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, nor Assemblies. The oversight of such Courts was scarcely consistent with their unbridled licence of speculation in divine things; and hence we do not wonder to find Mr. Hincks, one of themselves, thus expressing himself: "A great proportion of us would most strongly oppose any attempt to establish among us even the mildest form of that government to which the name Presbyterian is commonly applied." In reference to this point, we would take leave to quote a sentence from the correspondence above referred to, where the matter is put in small compass :- -"A quadruped is an animal which, whatever else it has or lacks, has at all events four legs: a man may call a man having two legs a quadruped, if he be so minded, but he is no quadruped notwithstanding. A Presbyterian Church is a Church which, whatever else it has or lacks, has at all events Presbyterial government. A man may call a Unitarian Church, having no Presbyterial government, Presbyterian,' but it is no Presbyterian Church notwithstanding."

We are not now advocating an inquiry into the tenure by which Socinians hold many of the ancient Presbyterian chapels, whatever might still, in some instances, be the result of such inquiry. Whatever practical injustice may be done to the intentions and memories, so to speak, of the pious founders of Churches, and institutors of bounties of whom we have spoken, they bear the wrong in silence, nor rise to protest against the perversion of their bounties. Their intentions were good, and are remembered on high, though frustrated by the perversity of man on earth. It is a reflection bearing with it far more than the ordinary painfulness attaching to the general mutability of human affairs, that it seems scarcely possible for the beneficent pious so to fence their gifts and bequests, designed for the propagation of Divine truth, as to secure not merely that they shall not in a generation or two become inoperative for good, but still further

that they shall not be made the instruments of advancing error and heresy. Meanwhile, let us, who are the rightful heirs of the Presbyterian name and mantle, be faithful custodiers of our trust. Let us walk in the footsteps of the faithful dead; and thus make it known over the length and breadth of the land what Presbyterianism really is. We shall thus soon live down the representations of Socinians, and the confusion they endeavour to throw over Presbyterianism and Socinianism. Already, in most parts of England, the slur thus fastened on the Presbyterian name is well-nigh removed, and such efforts as those recently made in Chester to make the public believe that Presbyterianism and Socinianism mean the same thing, can only lead to the ultimate confusion of those who would thus throw dust in men's eyes.

Biography.

A FOREST FLOWER.*