"The Rev. James Carlile, of Dublin, opened the Synod by preaching from Phil. i. 27. Time does not allow me to give you any thing like an account of this truly excellent discourse. It electrified the audience. Never were the great principles of civil and religious liberty more powerfully supported. The injustice and impolicy of all political restrictions on account of religious belief, and not merely the inutility, but the pernicious tendency of compulsory subscription to human articles of faith, were demonstrated in a manner which carried conviction to every bosom which was not barred by bigotry and prejudice. The Sermon was a very long one, but this circumstance was utterly unperceived. The sentiments delivered, were admirably adapted to the present state of the Synod. Some Ministers of our body, in order to accomplish their own selfish purposes by getting themselves recognised as leaders of a party, have for a few years past, eagerly embraced every opportunity of exciting jealousy and dissension. The Presbytery of Antrim was by them stigmatized as heretical. The Belfast Institution was to be put down on account of the liberality of principle on which it is established: and every man who would not subscribe that precious compend of Calvinistic bigotry, the Westminster Confession, was denounced as an infidel, and assailed by vulgar clamour and calumny. These fomenters of mischief quailed under the energy of Mr. Carlile's arguments. Many of their followers perceived the delusion which had been practised on them. The tone and temper of the Synod was instantaneously changed. Kind and liberal feelings were restored; and the great majority of the body were induced to arrange themselves under the banner of Christian charity. Mr. Carlile is a Calvinist; and in some sentiments advanced by him, of course, I could not concur. But these things are mere trifles, when compared with the great principles which he so ably vindicated. The circumstance of Mr. Carlile being a Calvinist, gave additional weight to every thing he said. Had a New Light member of the Synod advanced the same arguments, they would have had very little weight. There has been for many years past, a kind of understanding, that the Synod, in its collective capacity, shall not request any Moderator to publish his opening sermon; and it was entirely owing to this cause, that such a request was not made to Mr. C. from the chair. But so deep was the impressión effected

by his discourse, that a paper was circulated, containing an entreaty that he would give it to the world; and upwards of 900 copies were subscribed for in the course of a single day. This fact shows that the Irish Presbyterians are favourable to Catholic Emancipation, though a late Moderator asserted the reverse. It gives me great satisfaction to say, that Mr. Carlile has assented to the application.'

And it gives us great pleasure to find, that he has fulfilled his engagement. The remarks contained in the foregoing extract, as to the effect of Mr. Carlile's discourse on his immediate audience, are fully justified by the proceedings of the body, recorded in their printed minutes. In every question of importance brought before the Meeting, liberality has triumphed. The scandalous overtures of 1825, with respect to the Belfast Institution, have been consigned to oblivion, and virtually repealed. The renewed attempt of the fanatical party to enforce subscription to some human standard of orthodoxy, has been defeated. The Synod is once more what it was, and what every ecclesiastical assembly ought to be, an association of brethren.

WE are sincere friends to Catholic Emancipation, because we think that no human being, whatever may be his sentiments on the subject of religion, should be deprived of his civil rights. And though all the good might not result from the emancipation of the Catholics from civil thraldom, which some of its zealous advocates anticipate, yet it would elevate the Catholics from the degraded caste which now depresses them-it would give them additional motives to rise in the scale of intellect and it would probably induce many, seriously to inquire into the foundation of that faith, to which now, were it merely from feelings of honour as belonging to a persecuted sect, they tenaciously adhere. Brand a man as a criminal, and too usually he will become that which you stigmatize him with being. Remove the disability, and he has then an incentive to excellence, a stimulus to virtue and to knowledge.

Our pleasure on perusing the following letter from the venerable Bishop of Norwich to the Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, will, we trust, be shared by our readers. It is a reply to one from the Archbishop, requesting the Bishop of Norwich to present the Catholic Petition, and assuring him of their "most sincere and unreserved confidence." It is to us delightful to see the Catholic and

the Protestant thus reciprocating kind and generous and Christian feelings. It is, we think, a pledge of what would more generally be witnessed, were the Catholics relieved from the chain which galls them.

"MY DEAR LORD,-The Catholic inhabitants of Tuam and the Union, do me but justice in thinking, that there is not a single individual in the United Kingdom, more cordially attached to the great cause of civil and religious liberty than myself, or who contemplates with more surprise and sorrow, the impolicy, the injustice, and the want of Christian charity, by which so many loyal subjects and conscientious Christians, are deprived of those civil privileges, to which they have, in my opinion, an unquestionable right, for no other reason, which I am able to find out, than their steady attachment to the religion of their ancestors. Old as I am, I will gladly present to the House of Lords, the Petition mentioned by your Grace; and I shall be happy to have an opportunity of bearing my humble testimony in favour of the most injured people upon the face of the earth. Believe me, Sir, with great truth, your affectionate brother,

NORWICH, Oct. 9, 1826.

HENRY NORWICH."

THE Glasgow Auxiliary Bible Society, held its 14th Annual Meeting, on the 16th November; an immense concourse of people attended, and had the Trades' Hall been much larger, it would, no doubt, have been crowded. It had been previously known, that, at this meeting, the question would be decided, as to the longer connection of this Auxiliary with the Parent Institution. The Report of the Committee, advocating a separation in consequence of Apocryphal circulation, and especially the employment and countenance given to "the semi-infidels" of the Continent, was read by the Rev. John Smyth of St. George's. Separation was also supported by the Reverends Hugh Heugh, Patrick M'Farlane, Michael Willis, John Muir, and Mr. James Duncan. The Rev. Dr. Wardlaw proposed, that the consideration of the question of separation, should be postponed till after the Annual Meeting of the Parent Society in May next. This counter resolution was advocated by Mr. W. M'Gavin, and the Reverends Dr. Ewing, Robert Brodie, Dr. Dick, Dr. Mitchell, and William Kidston. Great claims to liberality and Christian charity were made by the separatists, but Dr. Wardlaw

and those who voted with him, proved, by their manners and conduct, that they were its possessors. Truly it was needful, that those who were for condemnation, without waiting for the defence of the accused; that those who would not be satisfied with pledges given by gentlemen and Christians, excepting certain members of the Committee were also turned out of office; that those who I would not believe that the Parent Institution would adhere to their solemn resolutions of May last, because they had not at the same time passed a specific vote of censure on their own previous conduct, in sending out the Apocrypha with the Bible; that those, who, if all these things had been done according to their wishes, would still have voted for separation, unless the British and Foreign Bible Society had dissolved its connection with the present conductors of the Bible Societies on the Continent, and appointed "Christian" agents; it was, indeed, very necessary, that such men should lay claim to liberality of feeling and Christian benevolence, otherwise an uninitiated individual might have been led to conclude, that spiritual pride, and papal intolerance, and pharisaical bigotry, had been the proper characteristics of the parties concerned. We quite agree with Lord Bexley in his speech at Maidstone, in reference to the statements made respecting the conductors of Bible Societies abroad, that "he who can believe them, can believe any absurdity, however gross." As an instance, we would adduce what we cannot but characterize as the abominable statement, made respecting the Strasburgh Preface, and its truly Christian author, Professor Haffner. Charges of the most gross kind have been adduced against him; they have been repeated parrot-like by every advocate for separation; and the "Christians" of the land, have shuddered with pious horror at the bare mention of the "Infidel Preface." It is not an Infidel Preface. The Strasburgh Committee, originally, meant to have prefixed it to an edition of the Bible they were about to publish, but from its length they omitted it. It was published separately. There needed no remonstrance from Britain, to prevent its issuing with the Bible, for the attempt was never made. We thought, from the commencement of this Apocryphal battle, that there was something more than met the eye, in the excessive sensibility of the impugners of the Parent Society, respecting the non-circulation of the pure Word of God, and we ven

tured to suggest as much in our first number. We are now satisfied, that the main reason for this war of words, has been, that Unitarians and Rationalists have stood in the way of the measures, taken to diffuse "evangelical" sentiments in foreign countries. These "engineers of Satan" have been the lion in the path; and the Apocrypha has been a most convenient handle wherewith to combat them. What ought the religious public, what will every man of good sense and honesty think, of those who could style that an Infidel Preface, which thus concludes, as does the Strasburgh? Professor Haffner, in the pure spirit of ardent devotion to the cause of Bible Christianity, asks his countrymen, "At what fountain can they better quench the thirst of the spirit, and the heart, longing for truth and consolation? Yes, he who knows his Bible, who knows the divine instructions there contained, who apprehends them in their purity and brightness, and who, in faith, has received them into his soul, he no longer turns aside from it; he is more and more inwardly satisfied, that it is from God; he daily enjoys its evidence by its beneficial influence, an influence which whosoever experiences, will unite with heart and mouth in the exclamation of Peter, 'Lord whither should we go away? Thou alone hast the words of eternal life."

It is easy for men rolling in wealth, to profess themselves believers in Christianity-it is pleasant enough, when riding on the topmost wave of popularity, to display the Christian banner,—but to endure to the endto be faithful even unto the death-for the soul to quail not in its love of Christ and its devotion to Christian truth, even in the hourly expectation of being beheaded, these are the things that try the faith, and prove the character to be sterling, and manifest the integrity of a man's heart. Through such a trial, the basely calumniated Haffner has passed he was thus faithful proved amidst the faithlessthe prison of Robespierre had no terrors for his breast, for he knew in whom he believed. When Mr. Haldane and Dr. Andrew Thomson have given as strong manifestations of their love to Christ, of their belief in Christianity, then may they talk of their adherence to the truth, and boast themselves to be somewhat. But to witness these men bringing their railing accusations against Haffner, and to hear their cry repeated by their deluded votaries, rouses the best feelings of man's nature against the heartless and