As an instance of the different manner, in which different individuals view the same subject, I may just notice, en passant, Mr. M.'s declaration, "That by our attention to polemic theology, we have turned the current of public preaching into an improper channel." Our young ministers, especially, he considers as forsaking practical subjects, and bending their whole attention to doctrinal topics. I must acknowledge I seldom have the pleasure of hearing any of our young preachers; but, as often as I have had the opportunity, Mr. M.'s regret has been my joy. I delight to hear a young minister's sermon rise above the grovelling puerilities of a mere essay on ethics, and aim at the sublime and glorious realities of a gospel sermon. "Talk they of morals: Oh, thou bleeding Love! the chief morality is love of Thee!" What is a merely moral sermon? I say it is a more polished mode of preaching the mere principles of condemnation. I could show you some of the finest moral essays in the universe-sermons, as they are called-and yet they would not tell you, in a dozen volumes, how a poor sinner might be saved! If any man, however, neglect gospel morality, he is a "workman that needeth to be ashamed;" but, if any man neglect to preach "the gospel of the grace of God"-to preach" Christ crucified"- -to invite sinners to the "blood that cleanseth, and that alone cleanseth, from all sin," he may preach ethics like a Socrates, or a Cicero, or a Seneca, and, after all, he may, like them, be a heathen, unacquainted with The first principles of the glorious gospel of Christ. I rejoice to hear that some of our young ministers are taking a more elevated rank of subjects; and I would say unto them, go on openly, and piously, and fearlessly-preach the whole truth, and God will be with you.

Before I close the review of his arguments, I shall just advert, for a moment, to Mr. M.'s proposal of a conjoint publicationone half Arian, the other half Orthodox, to be issued at common cost, and distributed among our congregations. I had considered this as a kind of solemn jest; but Mr. M. declares he was in suber earnest. Well, upon the part of Mr. M. there is the advantage of apparent courage; and refusing the challenge, we may he suspected of cowardice. When, however, I refuse it for myself, I trust the refusal proceeds not from fear, but from principle. My people I consider free to read what they please: I claim only the privilege of advising them to avoid what is wrong. But, upon Mr. M.'s plan, I must advise them to read what I believe to be erroneous. Nay, I must become the very agent, and pander to the perversion of my people's principles. God hath given me a

commission to preach the Gospel of his Son; but he hath not given me a commission to send them another Gospel. God hath given me a command, "Rightly to divide the word of truth;" but God hath not given me a commission to commingle it with error. The Lord hath given me a commission to be "a fellow worker with God;" but he hath not given me a commission to lend a hand to other work. God hath been pleased to send me "to sow the seed of the word;" but he hath not permitted me to aid in scattering the tares. Mr. M. is free from any coercive influence of mine to pursue his own courses; but he must not expect me to join him in a new and forbidden speculation, when I am seeking to dissolve the existing partnership.

There is one portion of Scripture, to which I would beg the attention of the house, as the description of a true church of Christ-and let any one compare it with Mr. M.'s plan of procedure-Eph. ii. 20. "Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together, groweth up a holy temple in the Lord." Mr. M. proposes, that he and I shall build a temple. Well, we are first to dispute about the nature of the foundation.We cannot, or we do not agree; so we must build without one, or let the temple remain unreared. Well, now, we are to consider the materials of the building. I am engaged in polishing the marble columns; Mr. M. pours upon them a corroding acid. The one lays down a course of ponderous stone; the other a course of "wood, hay, stubble." The walls being thus erected, and "daubed with untempered mortar," we are next to roof the temple. Mr. M. brings beams of Arian fir; I prefer Calvanistic oak. We are to frame the materials together. But the variety in their respective strengths and dimensions, strains and distorts the whole. Then we are to "frame them fitly together;" yet we can agree, neither about mortice nor tenon; so we elevate a shapeless and unsubstantial mass, without proportion, beauty, or durability. No wise master builder, sir, would thus rear a house for man; and shall we thus unfitly attempt to raise up a temple for God! No; no, sir. Mr. M. may retire to the "sublime scenery" of his favourite mountains, and build himself a castle among the eyries of the eagle. I shall advise him to choose a site less elevated. But, if he will not be advised, I will not become a co-partner in his habitation. But he will permit me to retire to some sheltered valley, where, far from the neighbourhood of the clouds and the howlings of the storm, I may build me a cottage, and feed the flock which the Chief Shepherd hath committed to my care: that, when

the Chief Shepherd may appear, I may render them back to him unscathed by the enemy, and be acknowledged, in his mercy, "a good and faithful servant."

And this, sir, reminds me of the misplaced irony with which Mr. M. was pleased to treat my allusion to "a uniform livery." Had Mr. M. pleased, he must have observed my phrase was, "the uniform livery of a regiment;"—that livery, sir, in which the heroes of England triumphed over all their foes;-that livery of the king and nation, which enobles the commoner and elevates the prince. But, by a little "rhetorical artifice," which Mr. M.'s large acquaintance with the world enables him so dexterously to employ, he conjured up another scene from Alladdin, and capes, and pockets, and skirts, and Pantaloon and Harlequin passed before us; as if the actual Harlequin himself had appeared upon the stage, with a synodical scene of pantomine, to relieve our clerical drowsiness.I willingly yield to Mr. M. all the advantages derivable from this disagreeable word; but I would remind him, that had I even alluded to one of those useful individuals, to whose services we are indebted for so many of our comforts, there was yet no cause for his reiterated sarcasms. Peter, has not refused, in his second epistle, i. 1, to style himself a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ. James, i 1, has described himself by the same humble title. Nay, I would tell Mr. M. that we all are but servants, and, even at the best,. unprofitable servants;" and, should he still be disposed to deive one idea of ridicule from the title "servant"-oh, I will remind him of one, "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant."

In concluding my review of Mr. Montgomery's arguments, it gives me pleasure to state, that on one point we are agreed. By an accommodation of Acts v. 38, to the subject of Arianism, he advises "If this counsel be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found to fight against God. And upon this he applies the advice by which it is introduced-" And now I say unto you, refrain from these men and let them alone." And here our views of the subject are in perfect unison. After an earnest appeal, and solemn advice, to examine the scriptures anew; and after earnest prayer that their eyes may be enlightened; if they still remain wedded to their erroneous opinions, I would "refrain from these men, I would let them alone." They bring to our house "another gospel," and I would no longer consider them as members of the family.

Why, then, it may be said, if such be my views, have I appear

"

ed as the mover of the amended resolutions of this year, which do not contemplate separation of our present constituency, but merely go to erect a barrier against future inroads? I shall render to this house the reasons of my conduct.

1. I do not think we have yet taken all the steps by which so momentous a matter ought to be preceded. Our congregations have not been addressed; our eldership has not been sufficiently consulted; we have given no admonition; we have proclaimed no fast, as, in every religious emergency, our Scottish forefathers would have done. Now, all these are measures I conceive absolutely pre-requisite: therefore, until they shall have been attempted or taken, I do not conceive separation scriptural.

2. I sincerely declare, that I am not only open to conviction, but actually wishing to be convinced, that separation is unnecessary. The man who attempts to reason me out of my present opinions, has, I must confess, an opponent prejudiced in his favour. I hope, particularly, my friend Mr. Carlile will discuss the subject: and if he can convince me, from Scripture, that Trinitarians, Ariuns, and Socinians, can form a Scriptural Church, and cordially unite in licensing and ordaining one another, I shall willingly resign my present views, and unite with him in preserving our present constituency. But, as I have yet heard no argument that convinces me of the propriety of remaining in our present "most admired disorder," I do hope that something new will be produced; and, above all things, that Scripture be fairly and fully examined, and shown to give most implicit testimony upon the subject, before I be expected to yield my judgment, or consent to the continuance of a nominal union, that only proves how really we are disunited.

3. I have rested for the present in the amended resolutions, because they are in accordance with the opinions of men, for whose opinions I entertain the highest respect. My own opinion is decidedly for separation of the opposing elements of this Body. Upon this point I most cordially concur with the opinions delivered by my venerated friends, Messrs. Elder, Dill, &c. and by my young friends, Messrs. Barnett, and Brown, &c. But when I see arrayed against us men, of whose orthodoxy I can entertain no doubt; men of whose zeal I have seen most convincing proofs :-when I see my friends, Messrs. Horner, and Hanna, and Wright, and Morell, and Stewart, and Reid, &c. &. willing to go no farther than the present resolutions ;-and when I know that the opinion of Dr. Chalmers, whose name and praise are in all the Churches, goes no farther I must confess, that, in the face of this array, it

requires a man to have no little share of decision to hold his opinion without faltering. In face of it I do hesitate, but still my opinion is unchanged; yet I submit with deference, for a time, to the judgment of wiser and better men, that I may judge of the probable efficacy of their measures, by the result of a reasonable experiment.

As the motion of which I now give notice contemplates a separation of this body, permit me to remove the impression derivable from the declaration of Dr. Wright, that there is "no instance of separation to be found in the Scripture." I would refer the Doctor to 1 Tim. i. 20, where he will find a decided example of separation upon doctrinal grounds. I will refer him to the general principle-Gal. i. 7, 8, 9, where the anathema of the Apostle, according to the discipline to which he referred, clearly intimated separation from the body of the Church. And not until the Doctor has explained away my views of these texts, can I yield assent to his assertions, or surrender my ideas of the necessity of a separation.

Dr. Wright has also told us "that separation has never done good." The experience of this Synod is a proof of the contrary. The Antrim Presbytery, was separated from the Synod; and what has followed? Why, we are told, all their congregations adhered to them, are now Arians, and lost to this Synod. Never was there a more palpable misstatement. The meeting-houses, no doubt, remained to the Arian ministers of Belfast; but the third congregation sprang up in the Synod more populous than the other two. Newtownards, Holywood, Antrim, Larne, are examples to the same effect. One part of the people, no doubt, followed an Arian ministry. But generally, by much the more numerous portion, adhered to the Synod and Orthodoxy. Had not the Antrim Presbytery been separated from Synod, perhaps onetenth of the entire Presbyterian population of Ulster, had now, under their successors, been the followers of an Arian ministry. -Whereas, in general, their congregations are much less numerous than the Orthodox bodies which have adhered to the Synod. If Dr. Wright then admit that an Orthodox ministry is preferable to an Arian ministry, he will be compelled to acknowledge, by an appeal to fact, that separation has done extensive good to the General Synod of Ulster.

By more than one member of this house we have been informed that any separation would injure our "importance," and tend to weaken essentially the "Presbyterian interest." I do not indeed comprehend what is meant by the "Presbyterian interest."