1. During many past years, a large portion of the Presbyterians of Ulster exhibited the singular phenomenon of an apparent union, without common principles, or common objects. The principles were not common; for one part were Trinitarian, another Arian, perhaps a few Socinian. The objects were not common; for each necessarily sought the subversion of the other. The only exception to this mutual opposition consisted in a Gallio-like indifference that enjoyed its office, and "cared for none of these things."

2. During this period it was by no means uncommon to find a congregation, that had, for generations, enjoyed an Evangelical ministry, pass, without observation or opposition, to an Arian or Socinian ministry. A few might, perhaps, feebly and ineffectually resist such a change, and, when defeated, take refuge in other churches; but the great body of the people, educated in Orthodoxy, might still be found firmly adhering to its opponents.

3. This apathy of the people usually arose from ignorance or deception. They did not believe their Ministers were Arians; and their Ministers took special care to conceal their real sentiments.

4. The members of congregations were, like the Ministers, divided in religious sentiments. Hence, while Arians suppressed their real opinions for fear of their Orthodox hearers, some Trinitarians softened down, or suppressed their peculiar doctrines, lest they should give offence to their Arian hearers. Much general ignorance of the doc trines of the Gospel necessarily ensued; and, in proportion to this ignorance, the power of religion was weakened, and the way of error opened and prepared.

5. From this state of things followed the extraordinary scene of Trinitarians appointing Arians to preach, and gravely stating they had sent or ordained them to preach the Gospel; while yet they believed they would not preach the Gospel. Hence the circumstance of Trinitarians joining in ministerial communion with Arians, and thereby, however unwittingly, giving their sanction to error. Yet many fathers of the churches sanctioned these practices, and the sons copied after their example.

6. By these means it came to pass, that all reference to the doctrines of the Gospel was studiously banished from the larger meetings of church courts, and the practice of annual pastoral addresses was discontinued, Ministers being unable to agree about one common advice to the people.

7. During a considerable portion of this period, Arianism, if not Socinianism, was rapidly gaining ground among Ministers. Nor could it be otherwise. Students were sent to College without any regard to their opinions, views, or motives. They were licensed to preach, on the mere ground of literature, without, perhaps, a single reference to the doctrines they professed, or intended to inculcate. They were, perhaps, advised to conceal their peculiar sentiments till after ordination. Yet, to judge of their sentiments, only four days of trials were generally conceded to a congregation. During such a state of things, it is not surprising that Arianism should "creep in unawares." And truly it did, for a time, make silent and rapid progress. Arianism has been well defined as "the absence of religion." The discipline we have described was admirably calculated to ensure this absence. Liberality, falsely so called, became the idol of common worship. Indifference to vital religion followed. The morning and evening sacrifice of the family altar was deserted, and a prayerless people were rapidly declining into a lifeless church.

8. But the voice that roused Lazarus from the sleep of the grave, has also roused our church from the slumbers of indifference. God has addressed her, "Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of God is risen upon thee." A spirit of inquiry is gone abroad among her people, and a spirit of holy zeal is beginning to animate her Ministers. Customs confirmed by years are called to the bar of scriptural investigation; practises long followed are brought to the test of righteousness; and principles hitherto admitted must now bear the light of truth. But reformation never was attempted without opposition, nor has it ever been effected without difficulty and danger. "He that is born after the flesh, persecuteth him that is born after the spirit." And as of old there were men enraged by the resurrection of Lazarus, so now do sinful men resist the spiritual resurrection of the church of God, and oppose every obstacle to the progress of truth. The worst motives have been attributed to the men whom it has pleased God to employ as instruments in the work; their measures have been misrepresented; and no effort has been left untried to wound the cause of truth through them. Their zeal is madness, their faithfulness bigotry, their labours a thirst for popularity. The Synod of Ulster has been called "a Synagogue of Satan:" and its attempts

to purify its ministry have been represented as infringements on the right of private judgment. on the free election of Ministers by the people, and, in short, as, the destruction of Presbyterianism itself. Now it is with a view to this awakening, and this opposition, that we endeavour, at present, to draw attention to the

DUTIES OF THE TIMES.

These, we think, we can reduce into a few general heads, which we propose to discuss in the present and succeeding Number.

I. TAKE HEED THAT YE BE NOT DECEIVED. There was in the days of Paul, Ephes. iv. 14, a "sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lay in wait to deceive;" and, as the same spirit manifests itself in our times, we feel it to be our duty to counteract its efforts.

1. BE NOT DECEIVED, when Orthodox Ministers and Elders are accused of being unfavourable to the right of private judgment. When Orthodox Ministers declare their own sentiments, and call upon others to do so likewise,—when they declare they will neither license nor ordain any man to preach the Gospel, until they are convinced that he understands the Gospel, then a loud cry is raised against them, and they are accused of "invading the right of private judgment."

Now, before we can meet this accusation, it becomes us to have reference to the Scriptures, that we may learn what they teach concerning this important right. From Scripture, then, we deduce the following principles:

First, Our Saviour commands us, John v. 39, " Search the Scriptures ;" and this we hold to be a primary and unalienable right; we deny it to none; we enjoin it upon all.

Second, The apostle directs, Rom. xiv. 5, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," To this direction we endeavour to conform; and to this thinking and judging we endeavour to exhort others.

Third, The same apostle declares, 1 Cor. x. 15, “I speak as unto wise men; judge ye what I say." Now, where Paul submitted to be judged, assuredly we claim no exemption.

Fourth, In conformity with the example of Jude, verse 4, we hold it to be our duty "to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints;" yet, agreeably to the account of Paul, 2 Cor. x. 3, 4, 5, “We do not war after

the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."

Fifth, In obedience to the apostolical injunction, 1 John, iv. 1, we "believe not every spirit;" but we endeavour to "try the spirits whether they be of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world." And, agree. ably to the same authority, 2 John, 10th verse, "If there come any unto us," and bring not what we believe to be "the doctrine of Christ," we "receive him not into our house, nor bid him God speed."

Let every man now, who professes to believe the Bible, examine our Orthodox principles, here enumerated; and he must be convinced that we are grossly calumniated, when we are accused of "invading the right of private judg ment." We maintain every man's right to search the Scriptures. We maintain every man's right to full persua sion in his own mind. We admit every man's right to judge all we advance. We claim, we exercise no temporal power; we inflict no earthly penalty. And what we concede to others, we claim for ourselves the right of choosing our own company. Now this right surely ena bles us to determine from whom we shall part, and with whom we shall join. Deprived of this natural and inalienable right, we would be slaves indeed. But we have asserted this right for ourselves, and we freely concede it to all the world. Let Orthodox Ministers and Elders be no more' accused, then, of" invading the right of private judgment;" or, if accused, let us be tried by the Scriptures; for upon them we build; and our house upon the rock will remain, when the foundations of sand and the houses of clay shall have disappeared in the Rood, whereby God is preparing to try the works of men.

2. BE NOT DECEIVED, when Orthodox Ministers and Elders are accused of infringing the "right of election." We could retort this charge with a witness: but defence, not accusation, is our object. The right of church members to elect all office-bearers, we hold to be natural, scriptural, and inalienable. We would not resign it, as it is our own; we would not invade it, as it belongs to the people. Like all other good things possessed by men, the right

of election has often been abused: but a greater abuse than all would be to barter it for worldly honours, or invade it through spiritual tyranny. But it will be said: "Would we not refuse to the people permission to elect an Arian or Socinian ?" We answer, we would do no such thing. The people may choose an Arian or Socinian if they will. But if the people be free in election, should not Ministers be free in ordinations? If the people claim a right to compel Ministers to ordain whom they will, Ministers may just as well claim a right to compel the people to elect whom they will. In truth, they are both free: the people are free to choose or to reject; the Ministers are free to reject or to ordain. Now Orthodox Ministers consider an Arian or Socinian to be unacquainted with the Gospel, and, consequently, incapable of preaching the Gospel. They consider the Arian and Socinian systems to be false, and dare not, by license or ordination, pronounce them to be true.

The Orthodox Ministers are free to confess, that many of them have erred, by joining in the license or ordination of Arians or Socinians; but their eyes have been opened to the inconsistency and guilt of such a procedure, and, by the blessing of God, they will do so no more.

But the very same persons who now unjustly accuse the Orthodox of invading the right of election, did themselves in the day of their power, notoriously invade this right. The Synod of Ulster, a scion from the Church of Scotland, had, during all her history, permitted her people to elect Ministers from the mother church. A few years ago, however, a dominant party in the Synod determined to invade this right. They did so; and, for a number of years, even Drs. Chalmers, or Gordon, or Thomson, and the other ornaments of the Scottish Church, would have been utterly ineligible to one of our congregations. Now, that some Orthodox Ministers joined in this proceeding, we willingly and sorrowfully acknowledge; but if we remember rightly, the Arians supported it to a man. It was stoutly opposed in all the steps of its illiberal progress; but the opposition consisted entirely of Orthodox Ministers and Elders. They contended the matter for years, and their perseverance was at length crowned with victory. They defended the right of election, which Arians had combined to destroy.

Most true it is the Orthodox members of the Synod of Ulster have determined that, as to Arianism or Socinianism,