« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
this condition of affairs, Cromwell landed in Ireland with a strong force ; and, after some days, he attacked the Royalist garrison of Drogheda. The defence was gallant but unavailing: the whole garrison were cruelly massacred: many of the inhabitants were put to the sword: and such was the terror inspired by these events, that Fairfax, marching Northward, and Cromwell advancing to the South, scarcely experienced a shadow of opposition. All the principle Towns were occupied by the soldiers of the Commonwealth, (as the English Government was then designated,) and Cromwell after settling Fleetwood as his Deputy in Dublin, returned to England with augmented reputation, to prepare against an expected invasion of the Scotch.
The English Parliament about this time framed an Oath called the Engagement, which required “all persons to bear allegiance to the Commonwealth of England, as then established, without a King or House of Lords.” This Oath was imposed by Colonel Venables, then Governor of Carrickfergus, upon his officers, soldiers, and others exercising authority within his district; and amongst the rest, he required it to be taken by the Presbyterian Ministers. This, they peremptorily refused ; and, certainly, in this instance, they deserve credit. Venables, however, was too judicious to enforce the oath, in the then unsettled state of the country; and rested content with a declaration, that they would not attempt, directly or indirectly, to overthrow the existing Government. Subsequently, urged on by the Independents, he renewed his demand; and on their continued refusal, some were committed to prison, some fled to Scotland, and only six remained in hiding places amongst their people. In this unhappy condition, they remained until the year 1653, when Cromwell having annihilated the Scotch army, under Charles II. at Worcester, dissolved the Parliament, and was proclaimed “Lord Protector of the Commonwealth,” by the voice of the Army. Thereupon, he sent his second son, Henry Cromwell, to Ireland, first as a Commissioner, and finally as Lieutenant. Henry was an amiable, judicious, and moderate man; and he wisely conceived that the best method of reconciling all parties to the Government would be, to allow to all the free exercise of their religion. He accordingly had the Tithes and Bishops' Revenues collected into one Treasury, out of which he paid to every Protestant Minister, of every sect, the annual Salary of at least £100—making up any deficiencies from the Public Revenue. Such an income then, was equal to treble the amount in the present day; and the Presbyterian Ministers, though squeamish about recognizing the Republican Government, cheerfully accepted a pension from their hands! Had they been in power, would they have acted thus tolerantly and generously? No: they would have allowed nothing but Presbyterianism in the Land, “out of pity for the souls of sectarists and idolaters !”
No one can be surprised, that with such generous protection and encouragement, the Presbyterian Ministers increased, between 1653 and 1657 to seventy or eighty ; occupying the principal towns and districts of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Cavan, Londonderry, Tyrone, Donegall, and Monaghan. Ministers and Elders so separated, would not, with the imperfect roads and conveyances then in use, hold frequent meetings in one Body; and consequently, five Meetings, or Presbyteries, were established, for the convenience and oversight of certain localities; and occasionally all assembled in one General Presbytery, to consult upon some important concerns. The five Meetings were Antrim, Down, Route, Lagan, (around Derry,) and Tyrone. The General Presbytery always bore the name of the town in which it assembled : and thus was Presbyterian Order completely established in Ulster.
Of the young Ministers who came from Scotland at this period, Michael Bruce was one of the most distinguished. He was GreatGrandson to the eminent Robert Bruce who became one of the Ministers of Edinburgh, in the year 1587 ; and came to Killinchy, on the recommendation of its first Pastor, John Livingston, July 3rd, 1657. From this worthy man, an uninterrupted succession of eminent Ministers has come down to the present period—all of them, men distinguished for liberality of sentiment, integrity of principle, high intellectual attainments, and unblemished moral reputation. The most remarkable individual of the line, perhaps, was the late Dr. William Bruce, of Belfast—an elegant scholar, a sincere Christian, an accomplished Divine, a steady friend, and an example of all the domestic virtues—a man who became softer, and kinder, and more estimable as his years increased; and whose advocacy of the great principles of Gospel Truth and Christian Liberality can never be forgotten!
The period of Henry Cromwell's Lieutenancy constituted the halcyon and golden days of Irish Presbyterianism. That auspicious Era was virtually terminated by his Father's death, which occurred on the 3rd of September, 1658; for, although his Brother Richard filled the Protectorate, during a few months, Henry, from the first, was quite convinced that all political power must soon pass away from his name and race. He, therefore, resigned his office on the 15th of June, 1659, and retired to a small estate in Cambridgeshire, where he spent the remainder of his days in peace, having joyfully descended from the toilsome grandeur of governing men, to the humble and happy occupation of a farmer.
The restoration, in the person of Charles II. who had twice taken the Covenant and who ascended the throne entirely through Presbyterian influence, was hailed with great joy by the Scottish residents of Ulster. They considered all their great interests secure ;
and looked up to "a covenanted King," as the highest blessing which a nation could enjoy: but, they had forgotten the words of the Psalmist—“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”
(To be continued.)
OBJECTIONS TO UNITARIANISM CONSIDERED.
BY THE REV. W. GLENDY.
(Continued from page 114.) Sir,— I would beseech the Trinitarian seriously to reflect upon the foregoing diversities of opinion, together with many more, which are to be found among the most learned advocates of the doctrine of a Trinity. When he says there are three persons in God, let him ask himself, what does he mean by person? He must mean three different objects of worship, for he worships each of the three separately; but does he really hold that there are three Gods, and that three Gods make one God? If he does, then each of the three cannot be God, for the whole only constitute one God. Let me implore him to ask his conscience-who? what are the objects of his worship? Three persons, with him, it must be : but then the second is held peculiarly sacred, an object of the highest veneration. Now, what does he believe of him, and teach the infant child to lisp ? That he is his Saviour God, “ the only God,” “the great God our Saviour ;" " that he is, and continues to be, both God and man in two distinct natures, and one person for ever.”—Cat. 36. Deity and humanity united in one person ; humanity and Deity constituting one object of his superior adoration. He cannot divide the person ; it is one-one God—the “ God-man.” Humanity, then, is part of his worship. He worships the “ God-man. To him he clings with a more confiding trust, with a more ardent, unswerving love, with a more yearning, heartfelt affection, than to either of the other two. He pours out his heart before him, in all the confidence of prayer, in a firm, unshaken reliance upon the sympathies of his humanity. The feeling of human infirmities with which “ he was touched,” when in the days of his flesh he was tempted like us, produces an unfaltering belief that he will lend a more willing ear to the cry of affliction, and sympathise more readily with the frailties of weak, ignorant, suffering humanity than either of the other two, who cannot be tempted, and who, therefore, feel no such sympathy with “those who are tempted." He looks to a patient, resigned, agonized, suffering God," the second person of the ever-adorable Trinity," with an unbounded trust in his mercy, love, forgiveness, which he cannot feel for his stern, unre
lenting Father who, like the hardened creditor, refuses to release his debtor ; would not, could not forgive, until he had wrung from the heart's blood of his own holy and innocent Son, in agonizing tortures upon the cross, the last farthing of “the debt”—full and ample compensation to his own insulted honour and offended justice, “and had quenched the flaming sword of divine vengeance in the immaculate blood of the victim of his wrath.” The writer well remembers, in bygone days, with how much more comfort he could pray to the second person of the Trinity than to either the Father or Holy Spirit, and how often he has heard the same observation from other pious and conscientious Trinitarians. So long, then, as the Protestant Trinitarian worships humanity and Deity, in the person of Christ Jesus, “ the man of sorrows,” how can he accuse his Roman Catholic brother of idolatry for worshipping humanity in the mother of God, the mother of that very Son whose humanity, as well as Deity, he himself worships in the one person of the “ God-man.” It is no answer here to say, it is the God Jesus whom he worships ; for the “ God-man" is the second person of the Trinitarian God, and humanity is as necessary to constitute him what he is as Deity. (See Cat. 39.) Nor is it true ; for the mercy and pardon of the second person of the Trinity is supplicated in prayer, “ by his wounds, his groans, his bloody sweat.” Now God has none of these. It is the man Christ Jesus who is thus addressed in prayer. Nay, Trinitarian writers tell us that, as our advocate and intercessor in heaven, he points to the scars of bis wounds, and urges upon his Father his blood and death, so as to secure pardon for the sins of the profligate elect, for whom he died, that his blood may not be shed in vain. Here again we have the man Jesus, not the God, the marks of whose wounds still remain on his glorified body, even in heaven; and we have also the Father, the stern, the reluctant, unwilling to forgive.
Let us now look at the absurdities and contradictions which follow from these unscriptural tenets. · That the second person of the Trinity is both God and man, in two separate distinct natures, is the faith of the Trinitarian.-Con. chap. viii. Cat. 40. Now, that man is a person will hardly be questioned, and Christ was a perfect sinless man. But he is also God, and that God is a person, that is an intelligent being, will be denied by none who understand the meaning of words, except a Trinitarian, and only by him, when he has a sectarian purpose to serve. Ilere, then, you have four persons in God
-a quaternity, not a trinity. Besides, you have two separate, distinct natures in the second person of the Trinity, “ each nature performing that which is proper to itself” (see Con, chap. viii. Cat. 39); that is, each nature an agent, -I hope intelligent,-a person ; and yet
these two intelligent natures—persons—are but one person ! There are, then, two distinct natures in the Trinity-humanity and Deity; and yet Christ has told us there is but one nature-spiritual—" for God is a spirit ;" and then either the Trinitarian or Christ must be wrong.
But, moreover, neither the second person of the Trinity, nor the trinity itself, has been always the same. They have undergone a change in the course of the last two thousand years, if Trinitarian opinions be correct, and that, too, of the most wonderful and astounding nature. God became man,
was made flesh and dwelt among us ;” and it would not be more astonishing if the old pagan doctrine were true that man became God! But there was a time when the " God-man” Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, was not man. He was not so until, in the fulness of time, he was conceived in the womb of his virgin mother ; and thus both he and the Trinity were changed, had a new nature incorporated with them. It is not true, then, that the Trinitarian God is unchangeable, either in his nature, constitution, or disposition ; but the God of the Bible has declared, “ I am the Lord and I change not.” Thus it came to pass, that “ he whom no man hath seen, can see, was seen--he who fainteth not neither is weary,” was faint and weary. He who is omnipotent, had an angel from heaven, one of his own creatures, sent to strengthen his omnipotence. He who alone hath immortality, cannot die, was crucified, dead, buried. No, no,” exclaims the Trinitarian, “it was the man Jesus who underwent all these changes. The God changed not, shed no blood, suffered nothing." Be it so ; then we have a “pious young man for our Saviour,” and are redeemed by the blood of a “pious young man?” But what, then, becomes of the blood of God shed upon the cross—its infinite value—an infinite atonement-price-ransom ? &c. &c. All vanish like a morning's dream into thin air. It was the man Jesus that shed his blood, and we have no higher Redeemer than one who was made
with all the essential properties and common infirmities of his nature."See Con. chap. 8.
It is plain that humanity, even when perfected in heaven, can never equal God. In its highest exaltation it is, and must ever remain, imperfect. But Christ is man in heaven as well as God. However high and glorious his humanity now, from its very nature it is and must be imperfect, defective. Most of the contradictions, therefore, which I have just noticed, must apply to him equally in heaven as on earth. He could say when here, I live by the Father.” It was not, then, as is falsely asserted, his own proper Deity that supported him on earth ; it is not that which sustains his humanity in heaven. He and all humanity are, and must continue, through eter