THE RELIGION FOR A GENTLEMAN.

Dr. Stock tells us that in the opinion of Charles II. the Church of Scotland is not a "religion for a gentleman;" for this very liberal writer is studious to omit nothing that might be

offensive.

But how was Charles II. qualified to judge of religion? Or why is his opinion adduced as a standard of any authority? Was it for his piety, his love of truth, or those honourable qualities that adorn a king and a gentleman? It would have been useful to tell us what he or this king meant by a gentleman. Was it a man of gay and profligate character, that held everything sacred in contempt, capable of the basest hypocrisy, dissimulation, and the breach of the most sacred obligations, human and divine?' Then, indeed, Presbyterianism is not the religion of such a gentleAnd it is said, this was the fashionable character of some that were accounted the most accomplished gentlemen of Charles's court. His majesty's character is sufficiently known.

man.

But if by a gentleman is meant a man of a certain dignity of character, of a well-cultivated understanding, elegance of manners, knowledge of the world, and of the duties he owes to his God, to mankind, and to his country, and thinks it a sacred obligation to perform these duties-then such a man might be of the Presbyterian Church, notwithstanding the opinion of this pious king.

The most accomplished gentlemen in France composed the court of Henry, King of Navarre, afterwards the greatest of the kings of France, and they were Presbyterians. The young Duke de la Rochefoucault is mentioned as the most elegant and accomplished gentleman, and is particularly lamented, even by his assassins in the massacre of St. Bartholomew. But why need we speak of individuals? Will not the kings of Prussia, the princes of the illustrious house of Orange, and so many sovereign princes in Germany, furnish many instances of gentlemen that were Presbyterians?

Why did not our author tell us, also, what he and his pious king meant by the religion of a gentleman? Was it an indifference or contempt of everything sacred or honourable? Was it the religion of Hobbes, that is, the established religion or superstition of every country, no matter what it be? Or was it the religion of Loyola, which he is said to have liked as well as his brother James II., though he was too much a gentleman to profess openly the religion he believed?

We hear of a Divine Teacher of religion, who was despised, because none of the rulers, or fine gentlemen among the Jews, believed in Him. And we know His religion was foolishness to the Greeks, who were certainly very fine gentlemen.-Examination, pp. 114, 115.

THE CONTEST WITH JAMES II,

In the contest with King James II., need it be asked whether the Constitution was saved by virtue of these principles of the Established Church, or by deserting them? Not only Protestant Dissenters, but many illustrious members of this Church, saw through the designs and craft of the clergy, and hated this their slavish doctrine. They could plainly discern that, amidst all their cant and fulsome adulation, they only meant themselves and their own power. The King truly was not to be resisted while he was obedient to the clergy, and his divine right must be understood in subserviency to the convenience of the hierarchy. Their passive obedience, their non-resistance, their submission, was all the while conditional; the implied condition was that, however the rights and liberties of the people might be sacrificed, their Establishment must be maintained inviolate, and they must be supported in the plenitude of their power and spiritual domination. For no sooner did these passive gentlemen perceive themselves in danger than they desert their principles, rouse the nation to resistance, and appeal to the favour of the people against the "Lord's anointed," and to that universal jealousy which prevailed against the encroachments of the Crown. They then forgot the doctrine they had so often taught, that the king was accountable to none but God, and that no one could resist him but under the penalty of eternal damnation.

For a long series of years they had persecuted Protestant Dissenters with unrelenting cruelty. But now, in the hour of danger, they make their application to them, imploring their assistance, and earnestly beseeching them not to remember their former cruelties, for which they declared their sorrow, laying the blame upon the Papists. They protested their earnest desire of peace, and promised they would take effectual care to remove everything which had hitherto prevented our union with them, if we would not hearken to the offers of the court, but would join in averting the present danger. These positive assurances, not only of a toleration, but of a comprehension, Bishop Burnet says, passed through his hands, and were transmitted to the Prince of Orange; and he uses this strong expression, that, should these promises be afterwards forgotten, these Churchmen would deserve to be reprobated of God and man.

Protestant Dissenters, with great generosity and zeal, entered into their views, but quickly found their confidence was ill placed; for no sooner was the appearance of danger over, than the old principles resumed their power-High Churchmen thought they had gone too far in their opposition to King James, and had it depended on them, the Revolution had been defeated. A standing army of Englishmen was found to be more inflamed with the love of liberty than the established clergy. James could not depend on the army to support him in violation of the laws and

constitution: the Bishops could be depended upon, and in the Convention Parliament, the majority of the Right Rev. bench voted against the motion that the king had abdicated, and that the throne was vacant. So that King William was advanced to the throne in opposition to the Established clergy.

Protestant Dissenters had contributed very much to the Revolution, and as they had received the strongest assurances of kindness from the High Church party, they now looked for the performance of these promises, and it would seem they had reason to hope for the accomplishment of them; for King William, in his answer to the addresses of the Dissenting ministers, had assured them that he would employ all his power to obtain a union of his Protestant subjects. The Queen made the same declaration in their favour. And his majesty, early in the session, expressed his hopes to both Houses of his first Parliament that "they would leave room for the admission of all Protestants that were able and willing to serve, which conjunction in his service would tend to the better uniting them among themselves, and strengthening them against their common adversaries." But the admission of Dissenters into offices, notwithstanding all their services and all the promises made them, was instantly and strenuously opposed by the High Church party. And even to our day, that party in England has never been able to acquire such liberality of sentiment as to enter into the enlightened views of King William's politics.-Examination, pp. 181-185.

CHAPTER LXXVII.

SAMUEL MARTIN STEPHENSON, M.D.

(1774-1785),

MINISTER AT GREYABBEY.

1. The Declaration of Faith approved by the Reverend Presbytery of Bangor, and read publicly before the Dissenting Congregation of Greyabbey by S. M. Stephenson at his ordination, the 21st day of June, 1774, to which his Reasons for not complying with the Form of Subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith required of him are prefixed, and addressed to the Protestant Dissenters in the North of Ireland. 8vo, pp. 15. 2d ed. Belfast, 1774. C. P. L. 2. A Review of the Reasons of the Dissent of the Presbytery of Belfast from the Resolution of the Presbytery of Bangor, and of the Remarks upon a late Declaration of Faith, and Reasons for not subscribing the Westminster Confession of Faith. Addressed to the Protestant Dissenters of the North of Ireland. To which is annexed a genuine copy of the "Reasons of the Dissent of Messrs. Alexander [Castlereagh], Huey [Newtownards], Laird [Belfast], Kinkead [Killinchy], and King [Holywood], entered by them on Tuesday, May 31st, 1774, in the Minutes of the Presbytery of Bangor, from the resolution of that Presbytery to ordain Mr. Samuel Stephenson in Greyabbey. pp. 32. Belfast, 1775. A. C. B.

3. On the Linen and Hempen Manufactures of the Province of Ulster. pp. 80. [One of the Papers of the Belfast Literary Society.]

4. An Historical Essay on the Parish and Congregation of Templepatrick, compiled in the year 1824. pp. 48. Belfast, 1825. M. C. D.

SAMUEL MARTIN STEPHENSON was born in 1742 at Straidballymorris, in the parish of Templepatrick. His preliminary education was received at Antrim, in a classical school, which was conducted in the session-room of the

Rev. John Ranken (see ch. lxxiv.). He proceeded to the University of Glasgow, where he had the advantage of being trained in Philosophy by Dr. Adam Smith and Dr. Thomas Reid, and the disadvantage of being corrupted in his theological opinions by the lectures of Professor Leechman.

After receiving license to preach the Gospel from the Presbytery of Templepatrick, he obtained a situation in the Diocesan School at Monaghan, and was transferred to the care of the Presbytery of the bounds. There he lodged in the house of a Mr. Braddock, an apothecary, and from him he acquired a taste for the study of medicine, which exercised a material influence on his future career. After two years spent in that position he returned home, and, with the consent of his father, repaired to Dublin for the study of anatomy, and afterwards to Edinburgh, whose medical school even then was adorned by the great names of Cullen, Gregory, Black, and Monro.

During his residence in Dublin, he lodged with the Bells of Charles Street, who were natives of Greyabbey; and it was probably through their influence that he was invited to preach in the congregation of that town, then vacant by the death of the Rev. Hugh Dickson (1742-1771). It was in August, 1773, that Mr. Stephenson first preached in Greyabbey. He was presented with a call from the people, and forthwith put on trials by the Presbytery of Bangor.

On the 19th of April, 1774, the trials were completed. The discourse, upon 2 Cor. v. 19, which he delivered that day, was understood by some to convey opinions at variance with the orthodox doctrines of the corruption of human nature by the Fall and of the Atonement of Christ. Afterwards, when examined on Philosophy, Church History, and Divinity, he gave satisfactory answers only to some of the questions proposed; and when asked to subscribe the Confession of Faith, even according to the loose formula which then satisfied the Presbytery of Bangor, he mentioned some difficulties which lay in the way of his compliance