rested his musket against the pulpit-door. The discourse, delivered under such circumstances, was, we can well believe, very energetic; and as the Christian soldier enforced his patriotic exhortations by appropriate action and gesticulation, not only did the preacher's own musket rattle, but his armed audience characteristically expressed their approbation by striking the butts of their muskets on the meeting-house floor."*

The next publication of Mr. Kelburn was a sermon on 2 Tim. iv. 2, which he preached at the ordination of the Rev. James Simpson in Newtownards, and which was published in 1790. It is a very excellent evangelical discourse.

The most important of his theological productions is his Five Sermons on the Divinity of Christ, originally published in 1792, but reprinted in 1821. They produce the usual arguments on that doctrine, and are regarded by those who have read them as both able and convincing.

He was a man of strong political sympathies. When the insurrection of 1798 broke out, he was arrested during the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and was imprisoned in Kilmainham. During his long imprisonment he lost the use of both his limbs, and did not long survive his liberation. He resigned his congregation on the first Tuesday of November, 1799, and died on the 31st of March, 1802.

Little of his personal or family history is now known. I find it stated that his cousin, William Kelburn, was an eminent engraver and artist in London, who was employed in drawing and engraving the plants for Curtis's Flora Londinensis. +

REPLY TO DR. CROMBIE ON THE SABBATH.

With regard to setting apart or appropriating a portion of the Sabbath day for the purpose of learning the use of arms, I think it very improper, for the following reasons :-First, a sufficient portion of time may be spared from our usual employ* Christian Unitarian, vol. iii. p. 272. + Gentleman's Magazine, vol. cii. p. 222.

ments without any difficulty. No man, surely, will pretend to say that the pittance proposed to be devoted to this employment on the Sabbath could not be spared out of the six days; nor can it be supposed that the Volunteers are so confined to labour, or so straitened in their circumstances, that they cannot attend on week days. If they are, it were better such had never undertaken the task, or that their place had been supplied by others, than that the Lord's Day should be so profaned. Any superior exactness in exercise or manœuvres, which may be required in such a space of time, cannot be very considerable: nor can we agree with our author in asserting that the end justifies the means ; for if the end which we propose to obtain is good, and the means are so likewise, then we act right; but let the end be ever so desirable, valuable, or good, it can never justify evil means used to obtain it. It is in no case lawful to do evil that good may come of it; for the action is evil in the first instance, and we are not so sure that the good we expect will follow as that the action itself is evil. In a word, if the means we use to obtain a lawful end are intrinsically good, they are just; but if not, the end will never justify them. But is it not a very great temptation to multitudes to neglect their duty (which extends much further than to the time of public worship) when they see men parading in arms and performing their evolutions? The multitude, always curious, will be then called out to see a gay sight, and many before they return home will have forgotten the religious instructions of the day. Supposing that it is not so great a crime to be thus employed as in many other ways, yet this is no defence, though it is the most that many can urge. Our author has hit upon a wonderful expedient to render attendance upon public worship more fashionable. I have a very contemptible opinion of a fashionable attendance upon public worship. One religious devout worshipper is more acceptable in the sight of God than ten thousand fashionable attenders. Though I respect the Volunteers, yet I do not think their exercising on the Sabbath will bring this "neglected day into deserved estimation,” even though they should attend upon public worship. Such a change must be the work of God, giving us more grace and hearts better disposed to His service.-Morality of the Sabbath, pp. 38-40.

PRACTICAL USE OF THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DEITY.

The doctrine of Christ's Divinity is either true or false; if it be true, as it certainly is, then we must believe it, and exercise our faith and hope accordingly; that is, we must believe in Jesus, we must trust in Him, and love and serve Him, in the obedience of faith; yea, we must honour Him as we honour the Father. But if Christ is not God, then we must not believe in Him, nor trust in Him, nor worship Him, nor pray to Him, nor honour Him as we honour the Father. This makes a great

difference in practical religion, in faith and practice. Principles are intimately connected with practice; yea, religious principle is religious practice, in several instances, where no outward act of religion is exercised.

The doctrine we have been defending is no speculative doctrine; it contains principles intimately connected with the religion of the heart, which is practical religion. And these principles are also connected with the outward acts of religion, if inward religion and the outward exercises of devotion and worship are, or ought, to be connected. If this doctrine be false, they that believe it to be true, and, in consequence of this persuasion, address one prayer to Christ, or sing His praises, or exercise towards Him any act of religious worship, are idolaters; and of consequence the Apostles were idolaters, and the saints and angels are idolaters, or the Scriptures are not the Word of God, nor given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But if the doctrine be true, what are they that reject it, and will not give glory to the Son of God, the glory due unto His holy name? What are they that will not acknowledge the Son of God as their Lord and their God? They are unbelievers and children of disobedience.

Again, to show the connection of this doctrine with practical religion, we observe that it is intimately connected with an act of practical religion, namely, our drawing nigh to God through a Mediator, by whom we have access to a reconciled God and Father. If the doctrine of Christ's Divinity is not true, then there is no access to God, no way of drawing nigh to God, no opportunity to exercise this religious duty; for if Christ is not the Redeemer, the Mediator, the way, the truth, and the life, then there is no Redeemer, no Mediator, no access to the Father; for no man, saith the Scripture, cometh to the Father but by Him. Now if there is no access by Him, then there is no access at all. But if Christ is not that Redeemer, that Mediator which the Scripture declares Him to be, then He is not the Mediator by whom we should have access to the Father. That is, if He does not answer the exact account and description given of Him as the Mediator by whom we have access to God, then the access to God is not by Him, but perhaps by another. However, we know that there is but one Christ, one Mediator, one Redeemer, and if Jesus Christ is not this Redeemer, then all our hope in Him is lost and perished. Christ Jesus is not the Redeemer spoken of in Scripture, if He is not God manifest in flesh. He is not the Redeemer if he is not the "Maker," the "Husband of His Church," the "Holy One of Israel," the "Lord of Hosts," the "God of the whole earth." He is both God and man, who mediates between God and man: the Mediator must be able to lay his hands upon both parties, and reconcile them to each other. I mention this to show that if we give up the doctrine of Christ's Divinity, we give up our hope of salvation by Jesus Christ.-Divinity, Sermon v., pp. 110-113.

CHAPTER LXXXV.

JOHN ROGERS, M.A. (1767-1814),

MINISTER AT CAHANS, COUNTY MONAGHAN.

1. A Historical Dialogue. 1781.

1787.

2. Dialogues between Students at the College; which contain a Defence of the leading Doctrines of Christianity; also showing their tendency to promote Holiness; interspersed with philosophical observations. 12mo, pp. 104. Monaghan, A. C. B. 3. The Substance of a Speech delivered in a Synod at Cookstown, July 8, 1808, being a Vindication of the Co-ordinate Constitution and Formula of the Associate Synod of Ireland; also containing a brief History of the first Presbyterian Ministers in Ireland after the Reformation, and proving that the General Synod of Ulster never was subject to the Review or Control of the National Assembly of Scotland; to which are subjoined arguments to prove that a certain local and specified matter of doubtful disputation ought not to be a term of ministerial or Christian communion. With an Appendix. 12mo, pp. 47. Dublin, 1809.

4. Sermons.

A. C. B.

JOHN ROGERS was born about 1740. He was ordained on the 3d of June, 1767, at Cahans, in County Monaghan, as successor to Dr. Clark (see ch. Ixiv.).

In 1781 he published his Historical Dialogue, in which, says Dr. Killen," he discusses, in a very agreeable style, several theological subjects then much agitated, and, among the rest, the doctrine of the Reformed Presbytery regarding the civil magistrate.'

In 1782 he attended the Volunteer meeting at Dungannon, and was one of the two persons present who disapproved of the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities, and in this respect dissented from the decision of the meeting.

He published his Dialogues between Students in 1787. This pamphlet contains, in proportion to its size, a large amount of sound theology. One cannot read this production, and the works of his predecessor, Dr. Clark, without feeling the importance of having such men settled in Ulster at a time when many ministers of the General Synod were sadly deficient in evangelical spirit. In the preface he speaks of the importance of having a home education provided for candidates for the ministry-an idea which, after several failures, was eventually realised by the opening of the Belfast Institution as a collegiate institution in 1815.

In 1796 Mr. Rogers was appointed as Professor of Divinity for the Irish Burgher Synod. He did not leave his country charge, but the young men who waited on his prelections met him at his church and lodged in the surrounding farmhouses. Some most excellent ministers received in this way their theological training and afterwards did credit to the ability and learning of their instructor.

Early in the present century there was an attempt to unite into one the two branches of the Secession Church in Ireland. The attempt proved a failure, owing to the fact that the Antiburgher body, being a dependent branch of the Antiburgher Synod in Scotland, could conclude nothing without the sanction of the Synod of which it was a part. The Burgher Synod in Ireland was already independent of the parent Church. The two bodies in Ireland were not, therefore, co-ordinate, and were not in a position to treat on equal terms. Mr. Rogers, in a speech delivered before his own Synod, met at Cookstown in 1808, pointed out the causes of the failure, and showed by able and conclusive argument "that a Presbytery or Synod in one kingdom ought not to be subject to the review or control of a Synod in another kingdom." In the end, all came to see that he was quite right in the position that he took up, and his able demonstration had no small effect in guiding all parties to a sound conclusion. Its main value now is that it stereotypes the state of feeling