blessing which one may accept or reject; good news which may be welcomed or contemned; a light which may be extinguished or fanned into a flame. In the Gospel history, the hearer of the word sometimes follows Jesus, sometimes refuses to acknowledge him. Christ invites, persuades, entreats, never compels nor forces obedience. When a disciple goes away, he uses no force to retain him. He says to all "Come "; when the timid desert him, he turns to the faithful and exclaims, "will ye also go away"? He sometimes declines to perform miracles, or to grant signs from Heaven, evidently that he may leave to all the liberty either of doubting or believing. In these things we see the Saviour's true divinity. We ask, then, without fear, which representation gives the most striking idea of the Son of God? That which attributes to him a redemption which leaves man free as God has made him; or that which affirms that he saves the soul only by despoiling it of its noblest characteristic, free agency? To redeem the world without impeaching the justice of God, or infringing upon the liberty of man, this was a work worthy of the well-beloved Son of God.

On both sides of the question we discuss, numerous texts, may, no doubt, be brought forward. It is easy to quote passages in which the work of salvation is attributed sometimes to the free grace of God, and sometimes to the free agency of man. In fact both of these views of the subject are important, nor is it difficult to see a reason why sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, assumes a greater prominency in the evangelical record, according to the subject in hand, or the point from which they are regarded, but in the exposition of these texts there is this difference in the mode of explanation adopted by ancient and modern orthodoxy, that the passages which seem to support the theory of our opponents occasion us no difficulty, while the texts favourable to our views involve them in inextricable embarrassment. Ancient orthodoxy denying all agency but that of God in the work of salvation, cannot explain those numerous passages which admit and invite the efforts of man. We, who believe both in the influence of divine grace, and the energy of the awakened conscience, do not require to place those texts in opposition, but employ the one class of passages to explain and modify the others. The Scriptures themselves sufficiently indicate that this is the right mode of interpretation. Ezekiel represents God as thus addressing Israel: "A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you". (Ezek., xxxvi. 26.); and ancient orthodoxy finds

in these words a triumphant proof that the regeneration of the faithful is due to God alone, forgetting that the same writer, in that celebrated chapter which he devotes to an assertion and illustration of the responsibility of man-one of the most beautiful portions of holy writ-had before exhorted the Jews to "make to themselves a new heart and a new spirit". (Ezek. xviii. 31.) Who does not see that these texts, taken literally, contradict each other, and that the truth lies between the literal interpretation of each. Certainly the prophet would have been astounded, had the Jewish people replied to his exhortation in the language furnished by our opponents, "We cannot make to ourselves a new heart, we can do nothing towards our own conversion, God must do all". The same apparent opposition of texts is common in the New Testament, indicating to the thoughtful reader, the necessity of employing one class to restrict and explain the other. One text frequently cited to prove the nullity of man in the work of salvation, is the language of St. Paul "God worketh in you both to will and to do", but how often is it forgotten to refer to the preceding verse in which the apostle had expressly exhorted the disciples to work out their own salvation, (Phil. ii. 12, 13.) employing in the original, a phrase which denotes a continued and laborious duty-"with fear and trembling." Does the apostle mean to say in the 12th verse, "work", and in the 13th, "ye cannot work, God will do all." No! he merely means to warn them, that God's grace never abandons the man who labours in his duty, and that divine aid will be ever near to succour human effort. The inspired founders of the church and their companions are, as far as moral liberty is concerned, on the same level with other believers, and no one will question but that to them was vouchsafed the aid of God's grace, yet St. Paul, on more than one occasion, addresses them, "as workers together with God". The idea of co-operation is certainly not that of a division of labour-in which one labourer does all and the other nothing! The holy scriptures are in fact filled with exhortations, threats, and promises, which have no meaning, if man is but a passive instrument under the all-controling influence of Grace. St. Paul assures us, that God will not suffer us to be tempted above what we are able to bear; but if man can do nothing, and God does all, what need is there to assure us that God who sanctifies us by his grace will not allow his work to be thwarted by temptations, as if it were possible that any temptation could be stronger than the power of God! Final

ly, let the reader meditate on the following passages :-" If a man love me, he will keep my words", (John xvi. 23.) "Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you". (James iv. 8.) "Ask and it shall be given unto you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you". (Mat vii. 8.) Does Christ intend to say-" It is impossible for you to ask, to seek, to knock, I shall ask and seek and knock for you! No! therefore we contend that man, though he cannot save himself, can and must do his part in working out his own salvation.

(To be continued.)

THE LILIES OF THE FIELD.

Each at the dawn uprears its dewy chalice,
Breathing forth incense to the early morning-
Gems that make bright the lone sequester'd valleys,
The woodland green, and silent glen adorning !
God said "Let there be light," and, lo! creation
Shone forth with smiles, emparadised and fair;
Then man had Eden for a habitation

And ye, bright children of the Spring, were there !
Ye speak with silent eloquence:

your voices
Come to the soul with accents breathing lowly,
To tell how virtue gladdens and rejoices,

And stirs the heart with feelings pure and holy!
Meekly ye tell an emblematic story

Of the Creator's love, with pathos true,

For Solomon, with all his regal glory,

Was ne'er arrayed so fair as one of you!

Ay, ye have lessons for the wise, revealing

Much solemn truth that wakes sublime emotion;
And wisdom, gazing, still grows wiser, feeling
How much ye bring of worship and devotion.
For who may look upon you smiling sweetly,

Or who with thoughtful gaze your beauties scan,
Nor see on every leaf, inscribed most meetly,
A living moral unto sinful man?

Ye neither toil nor spin, yet God hath made you
More to be loved than all that art can render :

In nature's silken robes he hath array'd you,
And ye are clad with more than queenly splendour!
More bright ye are when, by the shining river,
Ye offer to the sky your mild perfume,

Than aught that art can boast or bring-than ever
Were richest fabrics of the Indian loom!

Ye come to mingle in the dreams of childhood

That o'er the soul to mem'rys shrine are stealing-
Ye tell of joys by fountain, mead, and wildwood,
The hallow'd scenes of life's glad morn revealing!
With thankful joy we feel the precious pleasures
That flow from him who is all-wise and good :
And you, ye gentie, sinless things, are treasures
That win our love and wake our gratitude.

OUTLINES OF THE HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM, IN IRELAND.

BY THE REV. H. MONTGOMERY,

(Continued from No. VI. Vol. II. page 207.)

L. L. D.

IT is evident, from the circumstances already detailed, that the expulsion of the Presbytery of Antrim, the investigation of principles to which it gave rise, and the calm by which it was succeeded, were eminently favourable to the cause of religious liberty and the propagation of Christian truth. So soon as the year 1730, the Minutes of the General Synod show that subscription was falling into disrepute; and in 1734-5, new rules were framed "to prevent the Formula of Subscription from being expressed in ambiguous phraseology" so little power have compulsory laws to bind men's consciences, or to accomplish the ends for which they are enacted. The laity in several places, and especially those who had lately come from Scotland, were by no means satisfied with this state of affairs; and whenever a congregation became vacant, the doctrinal views of candidates were rigorously scrutinized. This gave rise to much insincerity and trimming amongst probationers; and frequently led to disputed settlements. One of those disputes, in the congregation of Templepatrick, produced results which have ever since materially influenced the Presbyterianism of Ireland; and I consider it necessary for the proper understanding of those affairs, to advert to certain events which occurred in Scotland a few years before.

After various contests with Prelacy, Presbyterianism was finally and peaceably established in Scotland, in the year 1688, under the sanction of William III., who was himself a Calvinist. At that period, each congregation freely elected its own Minister; but the subsequent abrogation of that important privilege led to a disruption, of whose origin and progress I extract the following account from "The Narrative and Testimony" of the Body that seceded :—

"It was natural to expect that a princess of Anne's tyrannical and bigotted principles would look with a jealous eye upon a republican form of church government; and the active part which the Church of Scotland took in promoting the Act of Succession, in favour of the heirs of the Princess Sophia of Hanover, to the exclusion of the Stuarts, made the Queen and her Tory ministers bear a grudge to that Church. Innovation succeeded innovation, until at length the law of patronage was established, (by Act of Parliament in 1712, which was a direct violation of one of the Articles of Union between England and Scotland,) by which the power of electing their ministers was completely taken from the people, and lodged respectively in the crown, in the principal proprietors of parishes, in magistrates of towns, and, in a few instances, in the universities. Shortly

afterwards, a formidable party was to be found in the ecclesiastical courts, in favour of the measures which had been pursued by the Queen's government. The ministers and elders who remained faithful to the principles of the Church were loud in their complaints against these innovations, and pursued every legal method in their power to rescue the privileges of the people from the grasp of their enemies. THOMAS BOSTON, minister of Ettrick, of pious memory, was among the first and most zealous champions in the cause of the people. The crown and other patrons now, without any scruple, imposed ministers upon parishes, not only without the consent of the parishioners, but in direct opposition to their expressed opinions. Error in doctrine, and relaxation in discipline, followed close in the train of these intruding pastors, who entered not into the sheepfold by the door. "Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, one of the ministers of Stirling, in a sermon preached before the Synod of Perth and Stirling, (he being moderator at the time), from Ps. cxviii. 22. "The stone which the builders rejected is become the head stone of the corner," declaimed with much zeal against the defections of the church in doctrine and discipline; said she had rejected Christ as her King and Head, and was become a nursery of errors. These remarks produced three days warm debating in the Synod; the result of which was, that Mr. Erskine should retract the offensive opinions, or be rebuked at the bar of the court. To this, he positively refused submission, and frankly stated, that the expressions in question were not used inadvertently, but were written in his MS., and that he would not retract them. From this sentence he appealed to the General Assembly. Three other ministers, Messrs. Wilson, Fisher, and Moncrieff, stood before the Assembly, in the same situation as Mr. Erskine did. After much discussion, the Assembly approved of the sentence, and proceeded to rebuke Mr. Erskine, who refused submission to said censure, and, with the other three ministers, entered a protest; upon which the protestors were ordered to appear before the Commission of the General Assembly in August, and if they did not then retract, and withdraw their protest, the Commission were authorized to suspend them from their ministerial functions. Petitions from sessions, presbyteries, and royal burghs, were very generally prepared, and forwarded to the Commission, praying that they would deal tenderly with the four brethren, and not proceed to any harsh measures with them. At the appointed time, the Commission met, and after much disputation, Messrs. Ebenezer Erskine, Wilson, Fisher, and Moncrieff, were ordered to the bar. They appeared, but continued to adhere to their protest. It was then proposed, in consequence of their obstinacy, that they should be suspended from the exercise of their ministry. And in the event of the four ministers acting contrary to the sentence of suspension, the Commission were empowered at their first meeting, to proceed to a higher censure. The ministers continued to preach, and the Commission, after long reasoning to no purpose, did proceed to inflict the higher censure, by loosing the relation of the ministers to their several congregations. This sentence was carried by the casting vote of the Moderator! The four ministers in a most solemn manner, declared, that they would continue to perform all the duties attached to their office as ministers of the gospel, although they were now compelled to make a secession, not from the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, but solely from the prevailing party in the established church; and after protesting against the sentence above mentioned, they entered an appeal to the first first free, faithful and reforming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.'

"The four ministers, soon after being ejected from the national church, met, and constituted themselves into an ecclesiastical court, under the designation of THE ASSOCIATE PRESBYTERY,' December, 1733. Their con