bours, we would most willingly, and not hopelessly, imitate their devotedness and zeal, and follow them in support and defence of the truth. They had to war with superstition we have to contend with scepticism. They had to struggle against ignorance: we against false learning. They had to contend against the errors of Popery we against the heresy of Arianism.

Lastly; it is pleasing to trace the happy change which has of late been exhibited in the few Presbyterian publications which the press of the country has produced. For years gone by, Presbyterian publications (few indeed, in number,) were absolutely deficient of any religious character. Latterly, this fault has been happily amended. Little indeed has been done. The laborious avocations of a Presbyterian Minister, leave him little time for the more learned studies. And, no doubt, to preach, to pray, to visit the sick, and to catechise, are of far more importance than any other work in which a Minister can be engaged. Yet, we are happy to state, that in these latter years, Presbyterian publications have possessed a tone of religious. decision, utterly wanting in their predecessors; and that the labours of several Presbyterian Ministers have afforded examples of some of the best defences of Gospel truth.

How far our own humble publication may become worthy of its name, it rests not with us to determine. The success of our labours depends upon the blessing and grace of God. But, according to to the grace given to us, we shall endeavour to be plain and faithful. We shall assail error; we shall defend the truth; committing our cause to him, who will, in his own time, "bring forth judgment unto victory."

ON THE DOCTRINAL PRINCIPLES HELD BY THE FOUNDERS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND.

No. I.

THE sentiments of those individuals who have been made the instruments of extending the boundaries of the church of Christ, and planting the standard of the cross in dark and uncivilized regions, have been, at all times, objects of considerable interest to their descendants.

Great

anxiety is felt to know how these venerable men thought and spoke, and reasoned on the subjects that have afterwards agitated the churches which they founded; though it has too often happened, as a natural consequence of the veneration which was justly entertained for their persons, that their opinions, when known, became the objects of a superstitious regard, and were too frequently converted into an infallible rule of faith. Such was the case with the early fathers of the church, during the dark ages of Popery. There writings were indeed most diligently collected, and most minutely explored; but the authority of their sentiments was exalted above that of the Bible, and considered as sufficient in itself to decide every controverted point. While Protestants, however, entertain the highest veneration for the characters of the men who in times, either of Pagan darkness and idolatory, or Roman Catholic error and superstition, were the means of extending or of purifying the church; and while they also feel the deepest interest in ascertaining the views of Scripturetruth held by these Fathers and Reformers, they do not prosecute this inquiry for the purpose of idolizing their opinions, or of hereby regulating their own faith. The Bible being their only rule of faith and practice, the sentiments of the most eminent men in the world would not avail against its authoritative declarations. Though they," or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel" than that already revealed in the Scriptures, it must at once be rejected. But this principle does not prevent Protestants from inquiring into the doctrinal views of their more remote predecessors, as a matter of historical research. It neither supersedes the necessity, nor diminishes the interest of such an inquiry, which has at all times been considered as a legitimate branch of ecclesiastical history, and been pursued at the cost of much time, labour, and expense.

Particular circumstances, moreover, may occur in the history of the church, which might render such an inquiry peculiary interesting and important. Should two parties, for instance, arise within the same communion, who though differing widely in doctrinal sentiments, severally claim to be the genuine followers of those men who had originally formed and constituted their religious society; it then becomes indispensably necessary to ascertain what the sentiments of such men were, on the points that may be controverted ;-not, however, with the view of determining by which party the truth, abstractedly considered

६

may be held,-for that is to be decided only by an appeal to the Word of God; hut in order to ascertain by which party the doctrinal opinions of the founders, of their church,-be they in themselves right or wrong,-are really entertained.

Such a case as we have here supposed actually exists, at the present time, in the Synod of Ulster. This body is divided into two parties, known by the respective designations of Orthodox and Arian. The peculiar principles by which each party is distinguished need not be enumerated in this place. They are well known to be directly opposed to each other on the most momentous points of doctrine; while they also differ with regard to the principle by which, the Synod ought to be regulated in licensing and ordaining its preachers. The Orthodox maintain that they are propagating the doctrines which were professed by the first planters of the Presbyterian church in this kingdom; and that, in refusing to intrust the exercise of the sacred office, within the pale of their communion, to persons who deny and impugn these doctrines, they are only acting on the uniform usage of the church in her earliest and purest times. The Arians, on the other hand, knowing how different their doctrinal views are from those of their predecessors, do not directly insist on their identity with them in this respect, but make such allusions to former times and to previous states of the church, as are calculated to lead to a belief of this. Hence they assert, that it is the Orthodox who are the innovators-that different principles from those now professed by their opponents were once predominant-that they constitute the party who are the only genuine Presbyteria and that all their opposition to recent measures of the Synod springs from the desire to bring the Body back to its original principles. What can such allegations mean, if they be not intended to convey the impres sion that a greater similarity exists between the present Arians and the fathers of our Church, than between the Orthodox and those venerable men? Perhaps it will be alleged, that the resemblance pleaded for, only extends to a similarity in the principle of having no creed, and of requiring subscription to none. Be it so. We shall in due time expose the incorrectness of this statement also. But for the present we maintain that the tenor of the language used by the Arians, in reference to former states of

C

the church, is calculated to lead all who are not intimately acquainted with the subject-nay, to our certain knowledge, it has already led many to entertain the belief of their identity, in point of doctrine with the founders of the Presbyterian church. Hence it is, that we have deemed the inquiry proposed in this paper a fit and seasonable one, in order that the erroneous views which have been hastily entertained on the subject may be corrected, and the public mind be accurately informed what were the religious principles of the men to whom we owe the blessings of the Gospel, and of religious liberty in Ulster.

That all these eminent servants of God were orthodox in the sense usually attached to this phrase, there cannot be the slightest doubt. Arianism was, in their day, utterly unknown as an existing heresy among the clergy of the Presbyterian church, either in Scotland or Ireland. It was conceived to be a perversion of the Gospel worse than Popery itself; and the good men of that period had as little expectation that any of their descendants should embrace this system, as we now have of any of our successors enrolling themselves under the banners of Mahomet. Not having to contend with it, therefore, in any shape, nor being under any apprehensions of its ever intruding itself into the precincts of their church, we need not expect from them any such pointed testimonies against it, as had they fallen on these latter days, they would most cheerfully and zealously have borne. But that they were firm believers in the Trinity, the fall of man, the vicarious atonement of Christ, justification by faith, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit, is as certain as that Knox or Calvin himself held these doctrines.

The most eminent of those Ministers who introduced the Presbyterian name and discipline into this country, in the first period of our church's history, were Edward Brice of Braidisland, R. Cunningham of Holywood, John Ridge of Antrim, George Dunbar of Larne, Josiah Welsh of Templepatrick, John Livingston of Killinchy, Mr. Hubbard of Carrickfergus, Robert Blair of Bangor, James Hamilton of Ballywalter, Andrew Stuart of Donagore, Henry Colwart of Oldstone, Robert Hamilton, Samuel Row, and John M'Clelland. These men, during their abode in Ulster, were associated together in

* These six congregations are now held by reputed Arian Ministers.

the closest bonds of religious fellowship. Nothing could exceed the mutual harmony in which they lived and acted, except it were the zeal with which they laboured for the propagation of the truth. They were men much in prayer and in meditation on God's word and works. They preached every day of the week when their bodily strength permitted. They established a strict discipline by sessions in all their parishes: and observed days of fasting and thanksgiving both jointly as Ministers, and in their respective congregations. They held frequent meetings for prayer and conference; especially a monthly one of Ministers and people at Antrim, when two or three days were generally spent in exercises of devotion-measures which the history of the church shows to be as indicative of orthodox principles in those who engage in them, as the profession of the soundest creed in words could be. Though they could not, in conscience, submit to the rites and ceremonies of the Episcopal church, they heartily approved of her confession, which had been drawn up by Archbishop Usher, and adopted by the convocation in 1615, and which was strictly Calvinistic. When this confession was by the artifice and authority of Strafford, in 1634, exchanged for the thirty-nine articles of the English church, they did not object to it; conceiving the new confession to be of the same tenor in point of doctrine as the former, though they loudly complained of the canons which were at the same time introduced. And when they were obliged by the bishops to lay down their ministry and abandon the kingdom, this severity was distinctly stated to be owing, solely to their refusing to comply with the rites and government of the church, and not to the slightest discrepancy between their doctrinal sentiments and those of the established confession. Such of these Ministers as lived to reach Scotland, immediately joined the Presbyterian church there; and rendered her most important assistance, in her successful struggles to cast off the yoke of prelacy, and return to the principles that were avowed and propagated by Knox. Several of them soon rose to be among her most influential members; and to be distinguished for their zeal and ability in vindicating the Gospel from the doctrines of Arminianism, which, under the influence of the Scottish Prelates, had made their way into that kingdom: And nearly all of them were members of that church when the Solemn League and Covenant