======================================================================== WRITINGS OF SAMUEL MILLER by Samuel Miller ======================================================================== A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by Samuel Miller, compiled for study and devotional reading. Chapters: 40 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. 00.00. Miller, Samuel - Library 2. 01.01. Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable 3. 01.03. Advertisement 4. 01.04. Sermon I. Infant Baptism Established 5. 01.05. Sermon II. Objections Answered 6. 01.06. Sermon III. The Mode of Adminsering Baptism 7. 01.07. Sermon IV. The Mode of Administering Baptism 8. 01.08. Additional Notes: Note A. Giving a Name in Baptism 9. 01.09. Additional Notes: Note B. Baptismal Regeneration 10. 01.10. Additional Notes: Note C. Sponsors in Baptism. 11. 01.11. Additional Notes: Note D. Confirmation 12. 01.12. Additional Notes: Note E. Vote of the Westminster Assembly. 13. 01.13. Footnoes 14. 02.00. Of Creeds and Confessions 15. 02.01. The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confession 16. 02.02. Adherence to Our Doctrinal Standards 17. 03.00. Warrant, Nature and Duties of the Office of the Ruling Elder 18. 03.01. Introductory 19. 03.02. Testimony from the Order of the Old Testament Church 20. 03.03. Evidence in Favor of the Office from the New Testament Scriptures 21. 03.04. Testimony of the Church Fathers 22. 03.05. Testimony of the Witnesses for the Truth during the Dark Ages 23. 03.06 Testimony of the Reformers, and Other Learned and Disinterested Witnesses 24. 03.07. Testimony of Eminent Divines since the Time of the Reformers 25. 03.08. Ruling Elders Absoluutely Necessary in the Church 26. 03.09. The Nature and Duties of the Office 27. 03.10. Distinction Between the Offices of the Ruling Elder and Deacon 28. 03.11. The Qualifications Proper for this Office 29. 03.12. On the Election of Ruling Elders 30. 03.13. Of the Ordination of Ruling Elders 31. 03.14. Of the Resignation of Ruling Elders 32. 03.15. Advantages of Conducting this Discipline on the Presbyterian Plan 33. S. An Able and Faithful Ministry 34. S. Conversation 35. S. Revival of Religion 36. S. Revivals Conversation 37. S. Samuel Miller's Letter on Christmas Observance 38. S. The Christian Education of Children and Youth 39. S. The Duty, the Benefits, and the Proper Methods of Religious Fasting 40. S. The Guilt, Folly, and Sources of Suicide ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: 00.00. MILLER, SAMUEL - LIBRARY ======================================================================== Miller, Samuel - Library Miller, Samuel - Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable Miller, Samuel - Of Creeds and Confessions Miller, Samuel - Warrant, Nature and Duties of the Office of the Ruling Elder S. An Able and Faithful Ministry S. Conversation S. Revival of Religion S. Revivals Conversation S. Samuel Miller’s Letter on Christmas Observance S. The Christian Education of Children and Youth S. The Duty, the Benefits, and the Proper Methods of Religious Fasting S. The Guilt, Folly, and Sources of Suicide ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: 01.01. INFANT BAPTISM SCRIPTURAL AND REASONABLE ======================================================================== INFANT BAPTISM SCRIPTURAL AND REASONABLE AND BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING OR AFFUSION THE MOST SUITABLE AND EDIFYING MODE IN FOUR DISCOURSES. BY SAMUEL MILLER, D.D. Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government, in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, PHILADELPHIA: PUBLISHED BY JOSEPH WHETHAM. 1835. Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1834, by Wm. M. Engles, in the Office of the Clerk, of the District Court, of the eastern district of Pennsylvania. Printed by William S. Martien, No. 9 George street. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: 01.03. ADVERTISEMENT ======================================================================== ADVERTISEMENT. The substance of the following discourses was delivered, in two sermons, in the Church in Freehold, Monmouth county, New Jersey, on the 29th of September 1833. A desire for their publication having been expressed by some who heard them, I have thought proper to revise and enlarge the whole, and present it in the present form. The subject is one which has given rise to much warm discussion, and it would seem, at first view, to be a work of supererogation, if not of still more unfavorable character, to trouble the Christian community with another treatise upon it. But our Anti-Paedobaptist brethren appear to be resolved that it shall never cease to be agitated; and as, indeed, the constant stirring of this controversy seems to furnish no small share of the very aliment on which they depend for subsistence as a denomination, they cannot be expected to let it rest. The great importance of the subject, in my estimation; and the hope that this little volume may reach and benefit some, who are in danger of being drawn into the toils of error, and have no opportunity of perusing larger works, have induced me to undergo the labor of preparing it for the press. My object is, not to write for the learned, but to present the subject in that brief, plain, popular manner which is adapted to the case of those who read but little. I have, therefore, designedly avoided the introduction of much matter which properly belongs to the subject, and which is to be found in larger treatises; and have especially refrained from entering further into the field of philological discussion, than was absolutely necessary for the accomplishment of my plan. If I know my own heart, my purpose is, not to wound the feelings of a human being; not to stir up strife; but to provide a little manual, better adapted than any of this class that I have seen, for the use of those Presbyterians who are continually assaulted, and sometimes perplexed, by their Baptist neighbors. May the Divine benediction rest upon the humble offering! SAMUEL MILLER. Princeton, Nov. 1834. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: 01.04. SERMON I. INFANT BAPTISM ESTABLISHED ======================================================================== SERMON I. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into mine house and abide there. Acts 16:15. As man has a body as well as a soul, so it has pleased infinite wisdom to appoint something in religion adapted to both parts of our nature. Something to strike the senses, as well as to impress the conscience and the heart; or rather, something which might, through the medium of the senses, reach and benefit the spiritual part of our constitution. For, as our bodies in this world of sin and death, often become sources of moral mischief and pain, so, by the grace of God, they are made inlets to the most refined moral pleasures, and means of advancement in the divine life. But while the outward senses are to be consulted in religion, they are not to be invested with unlimited dominion. Accordingly the external rites and ceremonies of Christianity are few and simple, but exceedingly appropriate and signifiSong of Solomon We have but two sacraments, the one emblematical of that spiritual cleansing, and the other of that spiritual nourishment, which we need both for enjoyment and for duty. To one of these sacramental ordinances there is a pointed reference in the original commission given by their Master to the apostles: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, — baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." (Matthew 28:19-20.) And, accordingly, wherever the Gospel was received, we find holy baptism reverently administered as a sign and seal of membership in the family of Christ. Thus on the occasion to which our text refers, "a certain woman," we are told, "named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, heard Paul and Silas preach in the city of Philippi; and the Lord opened her heart, so that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into mine house and abide there." I propose, my friends, from these words, to address you on the subject of Christian Baptism. You are sensible that this is a subject on which much controversy has existed, in modern times, among professing Christians. It shall be my endeavor, by the grace of God, with all candor and impartiality, to inquire what the Scriptures teach concerning this ordinance, and what appears to have been the practice in regard to it in the purest and best ages of the Christian church, as well as in later times. May I be enabled to speak, and you to hear as becomes those who expect, in a little while, to stand before the judgment seat of Christ! There are two questions concerning baptism to which I request your special attention at this time, viz: Who are the proper subjects of this ordinance? And in what manner ought it to be administered? To the first of these questions our attention will be directed in the present, and the ensuing discourse. I. Who are to be considered as the proper subjects of Christian Baptism? That baptism ought to be administered to all adult persons, who profess faith in Christ, and obedience to him, and who have not been baptized in their infancy, is not doubted by any. In this all who consider baptism as an ordinance at present obligatory are agreed. But it is well known that there is a large and respectable body of professing Christians among us who believe, and confidently assert, that baptism ought to be confined to adults; who insist, that when professing Christians bring their infant offspring, and dedicate them to God, and receive for them the washing of sacramental water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, they entirely pervert and misapply an important Christian ordinance. We highly respect the sincerity and piety of many who entertain these opinions; but we are perfectly persuaded that they are in error, nay in great and mischievous error; in error which cannot fail of exerting a most unhappy influence on the best interests of the church of God. We have no doubt that the visible church is made up, not only of those who personally profess the tnie religion, but also of their children; and that we are bound not only to confess Christ before men for ourselves, but also to bring our infant seed in the arms of faith and love, and present them before the Lord, in that ordinance which is at once a seal of God’s covenant with his people, and an emblem of those spiritual blessings which, as sinners, we and our children equally and indispensably need. Our reasons for entertaining this opinion, with entire confidence, are the following: 1. Because in all Jehovah’s covenants with his professing people, from the earliest ages, and in all states of society, their infant seed have been included. That this was the case with regard to the first covenant made with Adam in paradise, is granted by all; certainly by all with whom we have any controversy concerning Infant Baptism. And, indeed, the consequences of the violation of that covenant, to all his posterity, furnish a standing and a mournful testimony that it embraced them all. The covenant made with Noah, after the deluge, was, as to this point, of the same character. Its language was, “Behold, I establish my covenant with thee and with thy seed." The covenant with Abraham was equally comprehensive. “Behold," says Jehovah, “my covenant is with thee. Behold, I establish my covenant with thee, and with thy seed, after thee." The covenants of Sinai and of Moab, it is evident, also comprehended the children of the immediate actors in the passing scenes, and attached to them, as well as to their fathers, an interest in blessings or the curses, the promises or the threatenings which those covenants respectively included. Accordingly when Moses was about to take leave of the people, he addressed them as “standing before the Lord their God, with their little ones, and their wives, to enter into covenant with the Lord their God." (Deuteronomy 29:10-12.) And when we come to the New Testament economy, still we find the same interesting feature not only retained, but more strikingly and strongly displayed. Still the promise, it is declared, is “to us and our children, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Now, has this been a feature in all Jehovah’s covenants with his people in every age? And shall we admit the idea of its failing in that New Testament or Christian covenant, which, though the same in substance with those which preceded it, excels them all in the extent of its privileges, and in the glory of its promises? It cannot be. The thought is inadmissible. But further, 2. The close and endearing connection between parents and children affords a strong argument in favor of the church-membership of the infant seed of believers. The voice of nature is lifted up, and pleads most powerfully in behalf of our cause. The thought of severing parents from their offspring, in regard to the most interesting relations in which it has pleased God in his adorable providence to place them, is equally repugnant to Christian feeling, and to natural law. Can it be, my friends, that when the stem is in the church, the branch is out of it? Can it be that when the parent is within the visible kingdom of the Redeemer, his offspring, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, have no connection with it? It is not so in any other society that the great moral Governor of the world ever formed. It is not so in civil society. Children are born citizens of the State in which their parents resided at the time of their birth. In virtue of their birth they are plenary citizens, bound by all the duties, and entitled to all the privileges of that relation, whenever they become capable of exercising them. Prom these duties they cannot be liberated. Of these privileges they cannot be deprived, but by the commission of crime. But why should this great principle be set aside in the church of God? Surely it is not less obvious or less powerful in grace than in nature. The analogies which pervade all the works and dispensations of God are too uniform and striking to be disregarded in an inquiry like the present. But we hasten to facts and considerations still more explicitly laid down in Holy Scripture. 3. The actual and acknowledged church-membership of infants under the Old Testament economy, is a decisive index of the Divine will in regard to this matter. Whatever else may be doubtful, it is certain that infants were, in fact, members of the church under the former dispensation; and, as such, were the regular subjects of a covenant seal. When God called Abraham, and established his covenant with him, he not only embraced his infant seed, in the most express terms, in that covenant, but he also appointed an ordinance by which this relation of his children to the visible church was publicly ratified and sealed, and that when they were only eight days old. If Jewish adults were members of the church of God, under that economy, then, assuredly, their infant seed were equally members, for they were brought into the same covenant relation, and had the same covenant seal impressed upon their flesh as their adult parents. This covenant, moreover, had a respect to spiritual as well as temporal blessings. Circumcision is expressly declared, by the inspired apostle, to have been "a seal of the righteousness of faith." (Romans 4:11.) So far was it from being a mere pledge of the possession of Canaan, and the enjoyment of temporal prosperity there, that it ratified and sealed a covenant in which “all the families of the earth were to be blessed." And yet this covenant seal was solemnly appointed by God to be administered, and was actually administered, for nearly two thousand years, to infants of the tenderest age, in token of their relation to God’s covenanted family, and of their right to the privileges of that covenant. Here, then, is a fact, — a fact incapable of being disguised or denied, — nay, a fact acknowledged by all — on which the advocates of infant baptism may stand as upon an immoveable rock. For if infinite wisdom once saw that it was right and fit that infants should be made the subjects of "a seal of the righteousness of faith," before they were capable of exercising faith, surely a transaction the same in substance may be right and fit now. Baptism, which is, in like manner, a seal of the righteousness of faith, may, without impropriety, be applied equally early. What once, undoubtedly, existed in the church, and that by Divine appointment, may exist still, without any impeachment of either the wisdom or benevolence of Him who appointed it. But, 4. As the infant seed of the people of God are acknowledged on all hands to have been members of the church, equally with their parents, under the Old Testament dispensation, so it is equally certain that the church of God is the same in substance now that it was then; and, of course, it is just as reasonable and proper, on principle, that the infant offspring of professed believers should be members of the church now, as it was that they should be members of the ancient church. I am aware that our Baptist brethren warmly object to this statement, and assert that the church of God under the Old Testament economy and the New, is not the same, but so essentially different, that the same principles can by no means apply to each. They contend that the Old Testament dispensation was a kind of political economy, rather national than spiritual in its character; and, of course, that when the Jews ceased to be a people, the covenant under which they had been placed, was altogether laid aside, and a covenant of an entirely new character introduced. But nothing can be more evident than that this view of the subject is entirely erroneous. The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant, and, of consequence, the identity of the church under both dispensations, is so plainly taught in Scripture, and follows so unavoidably from the radical scriptural principles concerning the church of God, that it is indeed wonderful how any believer in the Bible can call in question the fact. Every thing essential to ecclesiastical identity is evidently found here. The same Divine Head; the same precious covenant; the same great spiritual design; the same atoning blood; the same sanctifying Spirit, in which we rejoice, as the life and the glory of the New Testament church, we know, from the testimony of Scripture, were also the life and the glory of the church before the coming of the Messiah. It is not more certain that a man, arrived at mature age, is the same individual that he was when an infant on his mother’s lap, than it is that the church, in the plenitude of her light and privileges, after the coming of Christ, is the same church which, many centuries before, though with a much smaller amount of light and privilege, yet, as we are expressly told in the New Testament, (Acts 7:38.) enjoyed the presence and guidance of her divine Head "in the wilderness." The truth is, the inspired apostle, in writing to the Galatians, (Galatians 4:1-6.) formally compares the covenanted people of God, under the Old Testament economy, to an heir under age. “Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors, until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Hence, the inspired apostle, in writing to the Hebrews, (Hebrews 4:2.) referring to the children of Israel, says — “Unto us was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them." Again, in writing to the Corinthians, (1 Corinthians 10:10-14.) he declares, “They did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ." "Abraham," we are told, (John 8:56.) "rejoiced to see Christ’s day; he saw it, and was glad." And, of the patriarchs generally, we are assured that they saw Gospel promises afar off, and embraced them. The church under the old economy, then, was not only a church — a true church — a divinely constituted church — but it was a Gospel church, a church of Christ — a church built upon the “same foundation as that of the apostles." But what places the identity of the church, under both dispensations, in the clearest and strongest light, is that memorable and decisive passage, in Romans 11:1-36, in which the church of God is held forth to us under the emblem of an olive tree. Under the same figure had the Lord designated the church by the pen of Jeremiah the prophet, in Jeremiah 11:1-23. The prophet, speaking of God’s covenanted people under that economy, says — “The Lord called thy name a green olive tree, fair and of goodly fruit.’’ Bat concerning this olive tree, on account of the sin of the people in forsaking the Lord, the prophet declares, — “With the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled a fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken." Let me request you to compare with this, the language of the apostle in Romans 11:1-36 : "For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead? For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not against the branches; but if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say, then, the branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold, therefore, the goodness and the severity of God! on them which fell severity; but toward thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness. Otherwise, thou also shalt be broken off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and wert grafted, contrary to nature, into a good olive tree, how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" That the apostle is here speaking of the Old Testament church, under the figure of a good olive tree, cannot be doubted, and is, indeed, acknowledged by all; by our Baptist brethren as well as others. Now the inspired apostle says concerning this olive tree, that the natural branches, that is the Jews, were broken off because of unbelief. But what was the consequence of this excision? Was the tree destroyed? By no means. The apostle teaches directly the contrary. It is evident, from his language, that the root and trunk, in all their “fatness," remained; and Gentiles, branches of an olive tree "wild by nature," were "grafted into the good olive tree;" — the same tree from which the natural branches had been broken off. Can any thing be more pointedly descriptive of identity than this? But this is not all. The apostle apprizes us that the Jews are to be brought back from their rebellion and wanderings, and to be incorporated with the Christian church. And how is this restoration described? It is called “grafting them in again into their own olive tree.” In other words, the “tree" into which the Gentile Christians, at the coming of Christ were “grafted," was the “old olive tree," of which the ancient covenant people of God were the "natural branches;" and, of course, when the Jews shall be brought in, with the fulness of the Gentiles, into the Christian church, the apostle expressly tells us they shall be “grafted in again to their own olive tree!” Surely, if the church of God before the coming of Christ, and the church of God after the advent, were altogether distinct and separate bodies, and not the same in their essential characters, it would be an abuse of terms to represent the Jews, when converted to Christianity, as grafted in again into their own olive tree. 5. Having seen that the infant seed of the professing people of God were members of the church under the Old Testament economy; and having seen also that the church under that dispensation and the present is the same; we are evidently prepared to take another step, and to infer, that, if infants were once members, and if the church remains the same, they undoubtedly are still members, unless some positive divine enactment excluding them, can be found. As it was a positive divine enactment which brought them in, and gave them a place in the church, so it is evident that a divine enactment as direct and positive, repealing their old privilege, and excluding them from the covenanted family, must be found, or they are still in the church. But can such an act of repeal and exclusion, I ask, be produced? It cannot. It never has been, audit never can be. The introduction of infants into the church by divine appointment, is undoubted. The identity of the church, under both dispensations, is undoubted. The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant, in which not merely the lineal descendants of Abraham, but “all the nations of the earth were to be blessed,” is undoubted. And we find no hint in the New Testament of the high privilege granted to the infant seed of believers being withdrawn. Only concede that it has not been formally withdrawn, and it remains of course. The advocates of infant baptism are not bound to produce from the New Testament an express warrant for the membership of the children of believers. The warrant was given, most expressly and formally, two thousand years before the New Testament was written; and, having never been revoked, remains firmly and indisputably in force. It is deeply to be lamented that our Baptist brethren cannot be prevailed upon to recognize the length and breadth, and bearing of this great ecclesiastical fact. Here were little children, eight days old, acknowledged as members of a covenanted society — a society consecrated to God, for spiritual as well as temporal benefits — and stamped with a covenant seal, by which they were formally bound, as the seed of believers, to be entirely and forever the Lord’s. Can infant membership be ridiculed, as it often is, without lifting the puny arm against Him who was with “his church in the wilderness, and whose ways are all wise and righteous?" 6. Our next step is to show that baptism has come in the room of circumcision, and, therefore, that the former is rightfully and properly applied to the same subjects as the latter. When we say this, we mean, not merely that circumcision is laid aside in the church of Christ, and that baptism has been brought in, but that baptism occupies the same place, as the appointed initiatory ordinance in the church, and that, as a moral emblem, it means the same thing. The meaning and design of circumcision was chiefly spiritual. It was a seal of a covenant which had not solely, or even mainly, a respect to the possession of Canaan, and to the temporal promises which were connected with a residence in that land; but which chiefly regarded higher and more important blessings, even those which are conveyed through the Messiah, in whom "all the families of the earth" are to be blessed. So it is with baptism. While it marks an external relation, and seals outward privileges, it is, as circumcision was, a “seal of the righteousness of faith," and has a primary reference to the benefits of the Messiah’s mission and reign. Circumcision was a token of visible membership in the family of God, and of covenant obligation to him. So is baptism. Circumcision was the ordinance which marked, or publicly ratified, entrance into that visible family. So does baptism. Circumcision was an emblem of moral cleansing and purity. So is baptism. It refers to the remission of sins by the blood of Christ, and regeneration by his Spirit; and teaches us that we are by nature guilty and depraved, and stand in need of the pardoning and sanctifying grace of God by a crucified Redeemer. Surely, then, there is the best foundation for asserting, that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. The latter, as all grant, has been discontinued; and now baptism occupies the same place, means the same thing, seals the same covenant, and is a pledge of the same spiritual blessings. Who can doubt, then, that there is the utmost propriety, upon principle, in applying it to the same infant subjects? Yet, though baptism manifestly comes in the place of circumcision, there are points in regard to which the former differs materially from the latter. And it differs precisely as to those points in regard to which the New Testament economy differs from the Old, in being more enlarged, and less ceremonial. Baptism is not ceremonially restricted to the eighth day, but may be administered at any time and place. It is not confined to one sex; but, like the glorious dispensation of which it is a seal, it marks an enlarged privilege, and is administered in a way which reminds us, that “there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, in the Christian economy; but that we are all one in Christ Jesus." 7. Again; it is a strong argument in favor of infant baptism, that we find the principle of family baptism again and again adopted in the apostolic age. We are told, by men learned in Jewish antiquities, that, under the Old Testament economy, it was customary, when proselytes to Judaism were gained from the surrounding nations, that all the children of a family were invariably admitted to membership in the church with their parents, and on the faith of their parents; that all the males, children and adults, were circumcised, and the whole family, male and female, baptized, and incorporated with the community of “God’s covenanted people.”* Accordingly, when we examine the New Testament history, we find that, under the ministry of the apostles, who were all native Jews, and had, of course, been long accustomed to this practice, the same principle of receiving and baptizing families on the faith of the parents, was most evidently adopted and acted upon in a very striking manner. When “the heart of Lydia was opened, so that she attended to the things which were spoken by Paul," we are told that “she was baptized and her household." When the jailor at Philippi believed, “he was baptized, he and all his, straightway." Thus also we read of “the household of Stephanas" being baptized. Now, though we are not certain that there were young children in any of these families, it is highly probable there were. At any rate, the great principle of family baptism, of receiving all the younger members of households on the faith of their domestic head., seems to be plainly and decisively established. This furnishes ground on which the advocate of infant baptism may stand with unwavering confidence. (* I consider the Jewish baptism of proselytes as a historical fact well established. I am aware that some Pedobaptists, whose judgment and learning I greatly respect, have expressed doubts in reference to this matter. But when I find the Jews asking John the Baptist, “Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be not the Christ?" &c. I can only account for their language by supposing that they had been accustomed to that rite, and expected the Messiah, when he came, to practice it. We have the best evidence that they baptized their proselytes as early as the second century; and it is altogether incredible that they should copy it from the Christians. And a great majority of the most competent judges in this case, both Jewish and Christian, from Selden and Lightfoot down to Dr. Adam Clarke, have considered the testimony to the fact as abundant and conclusive.) And here let me ask, was it ever known that a case of family baptism occurred under the direction of a Baptist minister? Was it ever known to be recorded, or to have happened, that when, under the influence of Baptist ministrations, the parents of large families were hopefully converted, they were baptized, they and all their’s straightway? There is no risk in asserting that such a case was never heard of. And why? Evidently, because our Baptist brethren do not act in this matter upon the principles laid down in the New Testament, and which regulated the primitive Christians. 8. Another consideration possesses much weight here. We cannot imagine that the privileges and the sign of infant membership, to which all the first Christians had been so long accustomed, could have been abruptly withdrawn, without sounding the hearts of parents, and producing in them, feelings of deep revolt and complaint against the new economy. Yet we find no hint of this recorded in the history of the apostolic age. Upon our principles, this entire silence presents no difficulty. The old principle and practice of infant membership, so long consecrated by time, and so dear to all the feelings of parental affection, went on as before. The identity of the church under the new dispensation with that of the old, being well understood, the early Christians needed no new warrant for the inclusion of their infant seed in the covenanted family. As the privilege had not been revoked, it, of course, continued. A new and formal enactment in favor of the privilege would have been altogether superfluous, not to say out of place; especially as it was well understood, from the whole aspect of the new economy, that, instead of withdrawing or narrowing privileges, its whole character was that it rather multiplied and extended them. But our Baptist brethren are under the necessity of supposing, that such of the first Christians as had been Jews, and who had ever been in the habit of considering their beloved offspring as included, with themselves, in the privileges and promises of God’s covenant, were given to understand, when the New Testament church was set up, that these covenant privileges and promises were no longer to be enjoyed by their children; that they were, henceforth, to be no more connected with the church than the children of the surrounding heathen; and this under an economy distinguished, in every other respect, by greater light, and more enlarged privilege: — I say, our Baptist brethren are under the necessity of supposing that the early Christians were met on the organization of the New Testament church, with an announcement of this kind, and that they acquiesced in it without a feeling of surprise, or a word of murmur! Nay, that this whole retrograde change passed with so little feeling of interest, that it was never so much as mentioned or hinted at in any of the epistles to the churches. But can this supposition be for a moment admitted? It is impossible. We may conclude, then, that the acknowledged silence of the New Testament as to any retraction of the old privileges, or any complaint of its recall, is so far from warranting a conclusion unfavorable to the church membership of infants, that it furnishes a weighty argument of an import directly the reverse. 9. Although the New Testament does not contain any specific texts, which, in so many words, declare that the infant seed of believers are members of the church in virtue of their birth; yet it abounds in passages which cannot reasonably be explained but in harmony with this doctrine. The following are a specimen of the passages to which I refer. The prophet Isaiah, though not a New Testament writer, speaks much, and in the most interesting manner, of the New Testament times. Speaking of the "latter day glory," of that day when "the wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock, and when there shall be nothing to hurt or destroy in all God’s holy mountain;" speaking of that day, the inspired prophet declares, “Behold, I create new heavens, and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. For as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them.’" Isaiah 65:17. The language of our Lord concerning little children can be reconciled with no other doctrine than that which I am now endeavoring to establish. “Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them and pray; and his disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands upon them, and departed thence," Matthew 19:13-15. On examining the language used by the several Evangelists in regard to this occurrence, it is evident that the children here spoken of were young children, infants, such as the Savior could "take in his arms." The language which our Lord himself employs concerning them is remarkable. “Of such is the kingdom of heaven." That is, theirs is the kingdom of heaven; or, to them belongs the kingdom of heaven. It is precisely the same form of expression, in the original, which our Lord uses in the commencement of his sermon on the mount, when he says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven;" "Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." This form of expression, of course, precludes the construction which some have been disposed to put on the passage, in order to evade its force, viz. that it implies, that the kingdom of heaven is made up of such as resemble little children in spirit. We might just as well say, that the kingdom of heaven does not belong to those who are "poor in spirit," but only to those who resemble them; or, that it does not belong to those who are "persecuted for righteousness sake," but only to those who manifest a similar temper. Our Lord’s language undoubtedly meant that the kingdom of heaven was really theirs of whom he spake; that it belonged to them; that they are the heirs of it, just as the "poor in spirit," and the "persecuted for righteousness sake," are themselves connected in spirit and in promise with that kingdom. But what are we to understand by the phrase “the kingdom of heaven," as employed in this place? Most manifestly, we are to understand by it, the visible Church, or the visible kingdom of Christ, as distinguished both from the world, and the old economy. Let any one impartially examine the Evangelists throughout, and he will find this to be the general import of the phrase in question. If this be the meaning, then or Savior asserts, in the most direct and pointed terms, the reality and the Divine warrant of infant church membership. But even if the kingdom of glory be intended, still our argument is not weakened, but rather fortified. For if the kingdom of glory belong to the infant seed of believers, much more have they a title to the privileges of the church on earth. Another passage of Scripture strongly speaks the same language. I refer to the declaration which we find in the sermon of the apostle Peter, on the day of Pentecost. When a large number of the hearers, on that solemn day, were “pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do?" The reply of the inspired minister of Christ was, ^’ Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." The apostle is here evidently speaking of the promise of God to his covenant people; that promise in which he engages to be their God, and to constitute them his covenanted family. Now this promise, he declared to those whom he addressed, extended to their children as well as to themselves, and, of course, gave those children a covenant right to the privileges of the family. But if they have a covenant title to a place in this family, we need no formal argument to show that they are entitled to the outward token and seal of that family. I shall adduce only one more passage of Scripture, at present, in support of the doctrine for which I contend. I refer to that remarkable, and, as it appears to me, conclusive declaration of the apostle Paul, concerning children, which is found in the seventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in reply to a query addressed to him by the members of that church, respecting the Christian law of marriage: "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." The great question in relation to this passage is, in what sense does a believing parent “sanctify" an unbelieving one, so that their children are "holy?" It certainly cannot mean, that every pious husband or wife that is allied to an unbelieving partner, is always instrumental in conferring on that partner true spiritual purity, or, in other words, regeneration and sanctification of heart; nor that every child born of parents of whom one is a believer, is, of course, the subject of Gospel holiness, or of internal sanctification. No one who intelligently reads the Bible, or who has eyes to see what daily passes around him, can possibly put such a construction on the passage. Neither can it be understood to mean, as some have strangely imagined, that where one of the parents is a believer, the children are legitimate; that is, the offspring of parents, one of whom is pious, are no longer bastards, but are to be considered as begotten in lawful wedlock! The word “holy" is no where applied in Scripture to legitimacy of birth. The advocates of this construction may be challenged to produce a single example of such an application of the term. And as to the suggestion of piety in one party being necessary to render a marriage covenant valid, nothing can be more absurd. Were the marriages of the heathen in the days of Paul all illicit connections? Are the matrimonial contracts which take place every day, among us, where neither of the parties is pious, all illegitimate and invalid? Surely it is not easy to conceive of a subterfuge more completely preposterous, or more adapted to discredit a cause which finds it necessary to resort to such aid. The terms "holy" and "unclean," as is well known to all attentive readers of Scripture, have not only a spiritual, but also an ecclesiastical sense, in the word of God. While, in some cases, they express that which is internally and spiritually conformed to the Divine image; in others, they quite as plainly designate something set apart to a holy or sacred use; that is, separated from a common or profane, to a holy purpose. Thus, under the Old Testament economy, the peculiar people of God, are said to be a "holy people," and to be "severed from all other people, that they might be the Lord’s;" not because they were all, or even a majority of them, really consecrated in heart of God; but because they were all his professing people, — his covenanted people; they all belonged to that external body which he had called out of the world, and established as the depository of his truth, and the conservator of his glory. In these two senses, the terms "holy" and "unclean" are used in both Testament’s times, almost innumerable. And what their meaning is, in any particular case, must be gathered from the scope of the passage. In the case before us, the latter of these two senses is evidently required by the whole spirit of the apostle’s reasoning. It appears that among the Corinthians, to whom the apostle wrote, there were many cases of professing Christians being united by the marriage tie with pagans; the former, perhaps, being converted after marriage; or being so unwise, as, after conversion, deliberately to form this unequal and unhappy connection. What was to be deemed of such marriages, seems to have been the grave question submitted to this inspired teacher. He pronounces, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, that, in all such cases, when the unbeliever is willing to live with the believer, they ought to continue to live together; that their connection is so sanctified by the character of the believing companion, that their children are "holy," that is, in covenant with God; members of that church with which the believing parent is, in virtue of his profession, united: in one word, that the infidel party is so far, and in such a sense, consecrated by the believing party, that their children shall be reckoned to belong to the sacred family with which the latter is connected, and shall be regarded and treated as members of the Church of God.{1} "The passage thus explained," says an able writer, "establishes the church membership of infants in another form. For it assumes the principle, that when both parents are reputed believers, their children belong to the Church of God as a matter of course. The whole difficulty proposed by the Corinthians to Paul, grows out of this principle. Had he taught, or they understood, that no children, be their parents believers or unbelievers, are to be accounted members of the church, the difficulty could not have existed. For if the faith of both parents could not confer upon the child the privilege of membership, the faith of only one of them certainly could not. The point was decided. It would have been mere impertinence to tease the apostle with queries which carried their own answers along with them. But on the supposition that when both parents were members, their children were also members; the difficulty is very natural and serious. "I see," would a Corinthian convert exclaim, "I see the children of my Christian neighbors, owned as members of the Church of God; and I see the children of others, who are unbelievers, rejected with themselves. I believe in Christ myself: but my husband, my wife, believes not. What is to become of my children? Are they to be admitted with myself? Or are they to be cast off with my partner?" "Let not your heart be troubled," replies the apostle, “God reckons them to the believing, not to the unbelieving parent. It is enough that they are yours. The infidelity of your partner shall never frustrate their interest in the covenant of your God. They are holy because you are so." "This decision put the subject at rest. And it lets us know that one of the reasons, if not the chief reason of the doubt, whether a married person should continue, after conversion, in the conjugal society of an infidel partner, arose from a fear lest such continuance should exclude the children from the Church of God. Otherwise, it is hard to comprehend why the apostle should dissuade them from separating by such an argument as he has employed in the text. And it is utterly inconceivable how such a doubt could have entered their minds, had not the membership of infants, born of believing parents, been undisputed, and esteemed a high privilege \ so high a privilege, that the apprehension of losing it, made conscientious parents at a stand, whether they ought not rather to break the ties of wedlock, by withdrawing from an unbelieving husband or wife. Thus the origin of this difficulty, on the one hand, and the solution of it, on the other, concur in establishing our doctrine, that, by the appointment of God himself, the infants of believing parents are born members of his church."{2} 10. Finally; the history of the Christian Church, from the apostolic age, furnishes an argument of irresistible force in favor of the divine authority of infant baptism. I can assure you, my friends, with the utmost candor and confidence, after much careful inquiry on the subject, that, for more than fifteen hundred years after the birth of Christ, there was not a single society of professing Christians on earth, who opposed infant baptism on any thing like the grounds which distinguish our modern Baptist brethren. It is an undoubted fact, that the people known in ecclesiastical history under the name of the Anabaptists, who arose in Germany, in the year 1522, were the very first body of people, in the whole Christian world, who rejected the baptism of infants, on the principles now adopted by the AntiPaedobaptist body. This, I am aware, will be regarded as an untenable position by some of the ardent friends of the Baptist cause; but nothing can be more certain than that it is even so. Of this a short induction of particulars will afford conclusive evidence. Tertullian, about two hundred years after the birth of Christ, is the first man of whom we read in ecclesiastical history, as speaking a word against infant baptism; and he, while he recognizes the existence and prevalence of the practice, and expressly recommends that infants be baptized, if they are not likely to survive the period of infancy; yet advises that, where there is a prospect of their living, baptism be delayed until a late period in life. But what was the reason of this advice? The moment we look at the reason, we see that it avails nothing to the cause in support of which it is sometimes produced. Tertullian adopted the superstitious idea, that baptism was accompanied with the remission of all past sins; and that sins committed after baptism were peculiarly dangerous. He, therefore, advised, that not merely infants, but young men and young women; and even young widows and widowers should postpone their baptism until the period of youthful appetite and passion should have passed. In short, he advised that, in all cases in which death was not likely to intervene, baptism be postponed, until the subjects of it should have arrived at a period of life, when they would be no longer in danger of being led astray by youthful lusts. And thus, for more than a century after the age of Tertullian, we find some of the most conspicuous converts to the Christian faith, postponing baptism till the close of life. Constantine the Great, we are told, though a professing Christian for many years before, was not baptized till after the commencement of his last illness. The same fact is recorded of a number of other distinguished converts to Christianity, about and after that time. But, surely, advice and facts of this kind make nothing in favor of the system of our Baptist brethren. Indeed, taken altogether, their historical bearing is strongly in favor of our system. The next persons that we hear of as calling in question the propriety of infant baptism, were the small body of people in France, about twelve hundred years after Christ, who followed a certain Peter de Bruis, and formed an inconsiderable section of the people known in ecclesiastical history under the general name of the Waldenses. This body maintained that infants ought not to be baptized, because they were incapable of salvation. They taught that none could be saved but those who wrought out their salvation by a long course of self-denial and labor. And as infants were incapable of thus "working out their own salvation,” they held that making them the subjects of a sacramental seal, was an absurdity. But surely our Baptist brethren cannot be willing to consider these people as their predecessors, or to adopt their creed. We hear no more of any society or organized body of AntiPaedohaptists, until the sixteenth century, when they arose, as before stated, in Germany, and for the first time broached the doctrine of our modern Baptist brethren. As far as I have been able to discover, they were absolutely unknown in the whole Christian world, before that time. But we have something more than mere negative testimony on this subject. It is not only certain, that we hear of no society of AntiPaedobaptists resembling our present Baptist brethren, for more than fifteen hundred years after Christ; but we have positive and direct proof that, during the whole of that time, infant baptism was the general and unopposed practice of the Christian Church. To say nothing of earlier intimations, wholly irreconcilable with any other practice than that of infant baptism, Origen, a Greek father of the third century, and decidedly the most learned man in his day, speaks in the most unequivocal terms of the baptism of infants, as the general practice of the church in his time, and as having been received from the Apostles. His testimony is as follows — "According to the usage of the church, baptism is given even to infants; when if there were nothing in infants which needed forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be superfluous."{3} Again; “Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? Or, when have they sinned? Or, can there be any reason for the laver in their case, unless it be according to the sense which we have mentioned above, viz: that no one is free from pollution, though he has lived but one day upon earth? And because by baptism native pollution is taken away, therefore infants are baptized."{4} Again: “For this cause it was that the church received an order from the Apostles to give baptism even to infants.”{5} The testimony of Cyprian, a Latin Father of the third century, contemporary with Origen, is no less decisive. It is as follows: In the year 253 after Christ, there was a Council of sixty-six bishops or pastors held at Carthage, in which Cyprian presided. To this Council, Fidus, a country pastor, presented the following question, which he wished them, by their united wisdom, to solve — viz. Whether it was necessary, in the administration of baptism, as of circumcision, to wait until the eighth day; or whether a child might be baptized at an earlier period after its birth? The question, it will be observed, was not whether infants ought to be baptized? That was taken for granted. But simply, whether it was necessary to wait until the eighth day after their birth? The Council came unanimously to the following decision, and transmitted it in a letter to the inquirer. “Cyprian and the rest of the Bishops who were present in the Council, sixty-six in number, to Fidus, our brother, greeting: "As to the case of Infants, — whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born, and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, that no one should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day after he is born; we were all in the Council of a very different opinion. As for what you thought proper to be done, no one was of your mind; — but we all rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no human being that is born. This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the Council; that we ought not to hinder any person from baptism, and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to us all. And this rule, as it holds for all, we think more especially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those newly born."{6} Surely no testimony can be more unexceptionable and decisive than this. Lord Chancellor King, in his account of the primitive church, after quoting what is given above, and much more, subjoins the following remark — "Here, then, is a synodical decree for the baptism of infants, as formal as can possibly be expected; which being the judgment of a synod, is more authentic and cogent than that of a private father; it being supposeable that a private father might write his own particular judgment and opinion only; but the determination of a synod (and he might have added, the unanimous determination of a synod of sixty-six members) denotes the common practice and usage of the whole church.”{7} The Famous Chrysostom, a Greek father, who flourished towards the close of the fourth century, having had occasion to speak of circumcision, and of the inconvenience and pain which attended its dispensation, proceeds to say — "But our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain, and procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us with the grace of the Spirit; and it has no determinate time, as that had; but one that is in the very beginning of his age, or one that is in the middle of it, or one that is in his old age, may receive this circumcision made without hands; in which there is no trouble to be undergone but to throw off the load of sins, and to receive pardon for all past offences."{8} Passing by the testimony of several other conspicuous writers of the third and fourth centuries, in support of the fact, that infant baptism was generally practiced when they wrote, I shall detain you with only one testimony more in relation to the history of this ordinance. It is that of Augustine, one of the most pious, learned and venerable fathers of the Christian Church, who lived a little more than three hundred years after the Apostles, — taken in connection with that of Pelagius, the learned heretic, who lived at the same time. Augustine had been pleading against Pelagius, in favor of the doctrine of original sin. In the course of this plea, he asks — "Why are infants baptized for the remission of sins, if they have no sin?" At the same time intimating to Pelagius, that if he would be consistent with himself, his denial of original sin must draw after it the denial of infant baptism. The reply of Pelagius is striking and unequivocal. "Baptism," says he, "ought to be administered to infants, with the same sacramental words which are used in the case of adult persons." "Men slander me as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants." “I never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to infants; for who can be so impious as to hinder infants from being baptised, and born again in Christ, and so make them miss of the kingdom of God?" Again: Augustine remarks, in reference to the Pelagians — "Since they grant that infants must be baptized, as not being able to resist the authority of the whole church, which was doubtless delivered by our Lord and his Apostles; they must consequently grant that they stand in need of the benefit of the Mediator; that being offered by the sacrament, and by the charity of the faithful, and so being incorporated into Christ’s body, they may be reconciled to God," &.c. Again, speaking of certain heretics at Carthage, who, though they acknowledged infant baptism, took wrong views of its meaning, Augustine remarks — "They, minding the Scriptures, and the authority of the whole church, and the form of the sacrament itself, see well that baptism in infants is for the remission of sins." Further, in his work against the Donatists, the same writer speaking of baptized infants obtaining salvation without the personal exercise of faith, he says — “which the whole body of the church holds, as delivered to them in the case of little infants baptized; who certainly cannot believe with the heart unto righteousness, or confess with the mouth unto salvation, nay, by their crying and noise while the sacrament is administering, they disturb the holy mysteries: and yet no Christian man will say that they are baptized to no purpose." Again, he says — "The custom of our mother the church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded, nor be accounted needless, nor believed to be any thing else than an ordinance delivered to us from the Apostles.” In short, those who will be at the trouble to consult the large extracts from the writings of Augustine, among other Christian fathers, in the learned Wall’s history of Infant Baptism, will find that venerable father declaring again and again that he never met with any Christian, cither of the general church, or of any of the sects, nor with any writer, who owned the authority of Scripture, who taught any other doctrine than that infants were to be baptized for the remission of sin. Here, then, were two men, undoubtedly among the most learned then in the world — Augustine and Pelagius; the former as familiar probably with the writings of all the distinguished fathers who had gone before him, as any man of his time; the latter also a man of great learning and talents, who had travelled over the greater part of the Christian world; who both declare, about three hundred years after the apostolic age, that they never saw or heard of any one who called himself a Christian, not even the most impious heretic, no nor any writer who claimed to believe in the Scriptures, who denied the baptism of infants. {9} Can the most incredulous reader, who is not fast bound in the fetters of invincible prejudice, hesitate to admit, first, that these men verily believed that infant baptism had been the universal practice of the church from the days of the apostles; and, secondly, that, situated and informed as they were, it was impossible that they should be mistaken? The same Augustine, in his Epistle to Boniface, while he expresses an opinion that the parents are the proper persons to offer up their children to God in baptism, if they be good faithful Christians; yet thinks proper to mention that others may, with propriety, in special cases, perform the same kind office of Christian charity. “You see," says he, “that a great many are offered, not by their parents, but by any other persons, as infant slaves are sometimes offered by their masters. And sometimes when the parents are dead, the infants are baptized, being offered by any that can afford to show this compassion on them. And sometimes infants whom their parents have cruelly exposed, may be taken up and offered in baptism by those who have no children of their own, nor design to have any." Again, in his book against the Donatists, speaking directly of infant baptism, he says — “If any one ask for divine authority in this matter, although that which the whole church practices, which was not instituted by councils, but was ever in use, is very reasonably believed to be no other than a thing delivered by the authority of the apostles; yet we may besides take a true estimate, how much the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the circumcision which God’s ancient people received. For Abraham was justified before he received circumcision, as Cornelius was endued with the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. And yet the apostle says of Abraham, that he received the sign of circumcision, "a seal of the righteousness of faith," by which he had in heart believed, and it had been “counted to him for righteousness." Why then was he commanded to circumcise all his male infants on the eighth day, when they could not yet believe with the heart, that it might be counted to them for righteousness; but for this reason, because the sacrament is, in itself, of great importance? Therefore, as in Abraham, “the righteousness of faith" went before, and circumcision, "the seal of the righteousness of faith, came after;" so in Cornelius, the spiritual sanctification by the gift of the Holy Spirit went before, and the sacrament of regeneration, by the laver of baptism, came after. And as in Isaac, who was circumcised the eighth day, the seal of the righteousness of faith went before, and (as he was a follower of his father’s faith) the righteousness itself, the seal whereof had gone before in his infancy, came after; so in infants baptized, the sacrament of regeneration goes before, and (if they put in practice the Christian religion) conversion of the heart, the mystery whereof went before in their body, comes after. By all which it appears, that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, and conversion of the heart another." So much for the testimony of the Fathers. To me, I acknowledge, this testimony carries with it irresistible conviction. It is, no doubt, conceivable, considered in itself, that, in three centuries from the days of the apostles, a very material change might have taken place in regard to the subjects of baptism. But, that a change so serious and radical as that of which our Baptist brethren speak, should have been introduced without the knowledge of such men as have been just quoted, is not conceivable. That the church should have passed from the practice of none but adult baptism, to that of the constant and universal baptism of infants, while such a change was utterly unknown, and never heard of, by the most active, pious, and learned men that lived during that period, cannot, I must believe, be imagined by any impartial mind. Now when Origen, Cyprian, and Chrysostom, declare, not only that the baptism of infants was the universal and unopposed practice of the church in their respective times and places of residence; and when men of so much acquaintance with all preceding writers, and so much knowledge of all Christendom, as Augustine and Pelagius, declared that they never heard of any one who claimed to be a Christian either orthodox or heretic, who did not maintain and practice infant baptism; I say, to suppose, in the face of such testimony, that the practice of infant baptism crept in, as an unwarranted innovation, between their time and that of the apostles, without the smallest notice of the change having ever reached their ears is, I must be allowed to say, of all incredible suppositions, one of the most incredible. He who can believe this, must, it appears to me, be prepared to make a sacrifice of all historical evidence at the shrine of blind and deaf prejudice. It is here also worthy of particular notice, that those pious and far famed witnesses for the truth, commonly known by the name of the Waldenses, did undoubtedly hold the doctrine of infant baptism, and practice accordingly. In their Confessions of Faith and other writings, drawn up between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, and in which they represent their creeds and usages as handed down, from father to son, for several hundred years before the Reformation, they speak on the subject before us so frequently and explicitly, as to preclude all doubt in regard to the fact alleged. The following specimen of their language will satisfy every reasonable inquirer. "Baptism," say they, "is administered in a full congregation of the faithful, to the end that he that is received into the church, may be reputed and held of all as a Christian brother, and that all the congregation may pray for him, that he may be a Christian in heart, as he is outwardly esteemed to be a Christian. And for this cause it is that we present our children in baptism, which ought to be done by those to whom the children are most nearly related, such as their parents, or those to whom God has given this charity." Again; referring to the superstitious additions to baptism which the Papists had introduced, they say, in one of their ecclesiastical documents, — "The things which are not necessary in baptism are, the exorcisms, the breathings, the sign of the cross upon the head or forehead of the infant, the salt put into the mouth, the spit into the ears and nostrils, the unction of the breast, &c. From these things many take an occasion of error and superstition, rather than of edifying and salvation." Understanding that their Popish neighbors charged them with denying the baptism of infants, they acquit themselves of this imputation as follows: “Neither is the time or place appointed for those who are to be baptized. But charity, and the edification of the church and congregation ought to be the rule in this matter. "Yet, notwithstanding, we bring our children to he baptized; which they ought to do to whom they are most nearly related; such as their parents, or those whom God hath inspired with such a charity." “True it is," adds the historian, “that being, for some hundreds of years, constrained to suffer their children to be baptized by the Romish priests, they deferred the performance of it as long as possible, because they detested the human inventions annexed to the institution of that holy sacrament, which they looked upon as so many pollutions of it. And by reason of their pastors, whom they called Barbes, being often abroad travelling in the service of the church, they could not have baptism administered to their children by them. They, therefore, sometimes kept them long without it. On account of which delay, the priests have charged them with that reproach. To which charge not only their adversaries have given credit, but also many of those who have approved of their lives and faith in all other respects.” It being so plainly a fact, established by their own unequivocal and repeated testimony, that the great body of the Waldenses were Paedobaptists, on what ground is it that our Baptist brethren assert, and that some have been found to credit the assertion, that those venerable witnesses of the truth rejected the baptism of infants? The answer is easy and ample.{10} A small section of the people bearing the general name of Waldenses, followers of Peter de Bruis, who were mentioned in a preceding page, while they agreed with the mass of their denomination in most other matters, differed from them in regard to the subject of infant baptism. They held, as before stated, that infants were not capable of salvation; that Christian salvation is of such a nature that none can partake of it but those who undergo a course of rigorous self-denial and labor in its pursuit. Those who die in infancy not being capable of this, the Petrobrussians held that they were not capable of salvation; and, this being the case, that they ought not to be baptized. This, however, is not the doctrine of our Baptist brethren; and, of course, furnishes no support to their creed or practice. But the decisive answer is, that the Petrobrussians were a very small fraction of the great Waldensian body; probably not more than a thirtieth or fortieth part of the whole. The great mass of the denomination, however, as such, declare, in their Confessions of Faith, and in various public documents, that they held, and that their fathers before them, for many generations, always held, to infant baptism. The Petrobrussians, in this respect, forsook the doctrine and practice of their fathers, and departed from the proper and established Waldensian creed. If there be truth in the plainest records of ecclesiastical history, this is an undoubted fact. In short, the real state of this case may be illustrated by the following representation. Suppose it were alleged, that the Baptists in the United States are in the habit of keeping the seventh day of the week as their Sabbath? Would the statement be true? By no means. There is, indeed, a small section of the Antipaedobaptist body in the United States, usually styled “Seventh day Baptists" — probably not a thirtieth part of the whole body — who observe Saturday in each week as their Sabbath. But, notwithstanding this, the proper representation, no doubt, is — (the only representation that a faithful historian of facts would pronounce correct) — that the Baptists in this country, as a general body, observe “the Lord’s day" as their Sabbath. You may rest assured, my friends, that this statement most exactly illustrates the real fact with regard to the Waldenses as Paedobaptists. Twenty-nine parts, at least, out of thirty, of the whole of that body of witnesses for the truth, were undoubtedly Paedobaptists. The remaining thirtieth part departed from the faith of their fathers in regard to baptism, but departed on principles altogether unlike those of our modern Baptist brethren. I have only one fact more to state in reference to the pious Waldenses, and that is, that soon after the opening of the Reformation by Luther, they sought intercourse with the Reformed churches of Geneva and France; held communion with them; received ministers from them; and appeared eager to testify their respect and affection for them as "brethren in the Lord." Now it is well known that the churches of Geneva and France, at this time, were in the habitual use of infant baptism. This single fact is sufficient to prove that the Waldenses were Paedobaptists. If they had adopted the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, and laid the same stress on it with them, it is manifest that such intercourse would have been wholly out of the question. If these historical statements be correct, and that they are so, is just as well attested as any facts whatever in the annals of the church, the amount of the whole is conclusive, is demonstrative, that, for fifteen hundred years after Christ, the practice of infant baptism was universal; that to this general fact there was absolutely no exception, in the whole Christian church, which, on principle, or even analogy, can countenance in the least degree, modern AntiPaedobaptism; that from the time of the apostles to the time of Luther, the general, unopposed, established practice of the church was to regard the infant seed of believers as members of the church, and, as such, to baptize them. But this is not all. If the doctrine of our Baptist brethren be correct; that is, if infant baptism be a corruption and a nullity; then it follows, from the foregoing historical statements, most inevitably, that the ordinance of baptism was lost for fifteen hundred years: yes, entirely lost, from the apostolic age till the sixteenth century. For there was, manifestly, “no society, during that long period, of fifteen centuries, but what was in the habit of baptizing infants." God had no church, then, in the world for so long a period.’ Can this be admitted? Surely not by any one who believes in the perpetuity and indestructibility of the household of faith. Nay, if the principle of our Baptist brethren be correct, the ordinance of baptism is irrecoverably lost altogether; that is, irrecoverably without a miracle. Because if, during the long tract of time that has been mentioned, there was no true baptism in the church; and if none but baptized persons were capable of administering true baptism to others; the consequence is plain; there is no true baptism now in the world! But can this be believed? Can we imagine that the great Head of the church would permit one of his own precious ordinances to be banished entirely from the church for many centuries, much less to be totally lost? Surely the thought is abhorrent to every Christian feeling. Such is an epitome of the direct evidence in favor of infant baptism. To me, I acknowledge, it appears nothing short of demonstration. The invariable character of all Jehovah’s dealings and covenants with the children of men; his express appointment, acted upon for two thousand years by the ancient church; the total silence of the New Testament as to any retraction or repeal of this privilege; the evident and repeated examples of family baptism in the apostolic age; the indubitable testimony of the practice of the whole church on the Paedobaptist plan, from the time of the apostles to the sixteenth century, including the most respectable witnesses for the truth in the dark ages; all conspire to establish on the firmest foundation, the membership, and the consequent right to baptism of the infant seed of believers. If here be no divine warrant, we may despair of finding it for any institution in the Church of Cod. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: 01.05. SERMON II. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED ======================================================================== SERMON II. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. " And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying — if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into mine house, and abide there." Acts 16:15. Having adduced, in the preceding discourse, the direct evidence in support of Infant Baptism, let us now attend to some of the most common and popular objections^ brought by our Baptist brethren, against the doctrine which we have attempted to establish. And, 1. The first is, that we have no direct warrant in the New Testament, in so many words, for Infant Baptism. “We are no where," say our opponents, "in the history of the apostolic age, told, in express terms, either that infants ought to be baptized, or that they were, in fact, baptized. Now is it possible to account for this omission on the supposition that such baptism was generally practiced?" This objection has been urged a thousand times, with great confidence, and with no inconsiderable effect, on the minds of some serious persons of small knowledge, and of superficial thought. But when thoroughly examined, it will, I am persuaded, appear destitute of all solid foundation. For, in the first place, even if it were as our Baptist brethren suppose; that is, even if no express warrant, in so many words, were found in the New Testament, authorizing and directing infant baptism, could this reasonably be considered, upon Paedobaptist principles, unaccountable, or even wonderful? The Paedobaptist principle, let it be borne in mind, is, that the church under the New Testament economy is the same with the church under the Old Testament dispensation; that the former was the minority or childhood, the latter the maturity of the visible kingdom of the Messiah; that one of the most striking features in the New Testament character of this kingdom is, a great increase of light, and enlargement of privilege; that the infant seed of believers had been born in covenant with God, and their covenanted character marked and ratified by a covenant seal, for two thousand years before Christ appeared; and that, if this privilege had been intended simply to be continued, no new enactment was necessary to ascertain this intention, but merely allowing it to proceed without interposing any change. This is the ground we take. Now, taking this ground; assuming as facts what have been just stated as such, can any thing be more perfectly natural than the whole aspect of the New Testament in relation to this subject? Very little, explicit or formal, is said in reference to the covenant standing of children, on the opening of the new economy, simply because no material alteration as to this point, was intended. All the first Christians having been bred under the Jewish economy, and having been always accustomed to the enjoyment of its privileges, would, of course, expect those privileges to be continued, especially, if nothing were said about their repeal or abridgement. To announce to these Jewish believers, that the covenant standing, and covenant advantages of their beloved children, were not to be withdrawn or curtailed, if no other alteration in reference to this matter, than an increase of privilege were intended, would have been just as unnecessary as to inform them that the true God was still to be worshipped, and the atoning sacrifice of the Messiah still regarded as the only ground of hope. In short, assuming Paedobaptist principles, we might expect the New Testament to exhibit precisely the aspect which it does exhibit. Not to say, in so many words, that the privilege in question was to be continued; but all along to speak as if this were to be taken for granted, without an explicit enactment; to assure the first Christians that “the promise was still to them and their children;" and not to them only, but also to "as many as the Lord their God should call" into his visible church; to tell them that, in regard to this matter, the administration of his New Testament kingdom was to be such as to abolish all distinction of sex in Christian privilege; that, in Christ, there was to be no longer a difference made between "male and female;" and, in conformity with this intimation, and as a practical comment upon it, to introduce whole families with the converted -parents into the church, by the appropriate New Testament rite, as had been invariably practiced under the Old Testament economy. But now turn, for a moment, to the opposite supposition; to that of our Baptist brethren. They are obliged, by their system, to take for granted, that, after the children of the professing people of God had been, for nearly two thousand years, in the enjoyment of an important covenant privilege; a privilege precious in itself, and peculiarly dear to the parental heart; it was suddenly, and without explanation, set aside: that on the opening of the New Testament dispensation, a dispensation of larger promises, and of increased liberality, this privilege was abruptly and totally withdrawn; that children were ejected from their former covenant relation; that they were no longer the subjects of a covenant seal, or of covenant promises; and that all this took place without one hint of any reason for it being given; without one syllable being said, in all the numerous epistles to the churches, by any one of justification or apology, for so important a change! Nay, that, instead of such notice and explanation, a mode of expression, under the new economy, should be throughout used, corresponding with the former practice, and adapted still to convey the idea that both parents and children stood in their old relation, notwithstanding the painful change! Is this credible? Can it be believed by any one who is not predetermined to regard it as true? But if the New Testament economy does not include the church membership of the infant seed of believers, such a change, undoubtedly, did take place, on the coming in of the new economy. The Jewish disciples of Christ saw their children at once cut off from the covenant of promise, and denied its appropriate seal, to which they had always been accustomed, and in which the tenderest parental feelings were so strongly implicated. Yet we hear of no complaint on their part. We find not a word which seems intended to explain such a change, or to allay the feelings of those parents who could not fail, if such had been the fact, both to feel and to remonstrate. I must say, my friends, that, to my mind, this consideration, if there were no other, is conclusive. Instead of our Baptist brethren having a right to call upon us to find a direct warrant in the New Testament, in favor of infant membership, we have a right to call upon them to produce a direct warrant for the great and sudden change which they allege took place. If it be, as they say, that the New Testament is silent on the subject, this very silence is quite sufficient to destroy their cause, and to establish ours. It affords proof positive that no such change as that which is alleged, ever occurred. That a change so important and interesting should have been introduced, without one word of explanation or apology on the part of the inspired apostles, and without one hint or struggle on the part of those who had enjoyed the former privilege; in short, that the old economy, in relation to this matter, should have been entirely broken up, and yet the whole subject passed over by the inspired writers in entire silence, is surely one of the most incredible things that can well be imagined! He who can believe it, must have a mind “fully set in him" to embrace the system which requires it. So much on the supposition assumed by our Baptist brethren, that there is no direct warrant in the New Testament far infant membership, and of course, none for infant baptism. Admitting that the New Testament is silent on the subject, their cause is ruined. No good reason, I had almost said, no possible reason, can be assigned for such silence, in the circumstances in which the Christian church was placed, but the fact that things, as to this point, were to go on as before. That the old privilege, so dear to the parent’s heart, was to receive no other change than a new seal, less burdensome; applicable equally to both sexes; in a word, recognizing, extending, and perpetuating all the privileges which they had enjoyed before. But it cannot be admitted that the New Testament contains no direct warrant for infant membership. The testimony adduced in the preceding discourse is surely worthy, to say the least, of the most serious regard. When the Master himself declares concerning infants, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven;" when an inspired apostle proclaims — "The promise is to us and our children;" and when we plainly see, under the apostolical administration of the church, whole families received, in repeated instances, into the church, on the professed faith of the individuals who were constituted their respective heads, just as we know occurred under the old economy, when the membership of infants was undisputed: when we read such things as these in the New Testament, we surely cannot complain of the want of testimony which ought to satisfy every reasonable inquirer, 2. A second objection, often urged by our Baptist brethren, is drawn from what they insist is the general law of positive institutions. “In cases of moral duty, say they, we are at liberty to argue from inference, from analogy, from implication; but in regard to positive institutions, our warrant must be direct and positive. Now, as we no where find in the New Testament any positive direction for baptizing infants, the general law, which must govern in all cases of positive institution, plainly forbids it. Here no inferential reasoning can be admitted." This argument, I am persuaded, will not be regarded as forcible by any who examine it with attention and impartiality. The whole principle is unsound. The fact is, inferential reasoning may be, and is in many cases, quite as strong as any other. Besides, if it be contended, that in every thing relating to positive institutes, Ave must have direct and positive precepts, the assumed principle will prove too much. Upon this principle, females ought never to partake of the Lord’s Supper; for we have no positive precept, and no explicit example in the New Testament to warrant them in doing so, and yet our Baptist brethren, forgetting their own principle, unite with all Christians who consider the sacramental supper as still obligatory on the church, in admitting females to its participation. This practice is, no doubt, perfectly right. It rests on the most solid inferential reasoning, which may be just as strong as any other, and which, in this case, cannot be gainsayed or resisted. But every time our Baptist brethren yield to this reasoning, and act accordingly, they desert their assumed principle. 3. A third objection frequently urged is, that if infant baptism had prevailed in the primitive church, ive might have expected to find in the New Testament history some examples of the children of professing Christians being baptized in their infancy. Our Baptist brethren remind us that the New Testament history embraces a period of more than sixty years after the organization of the church, under the new economy. "Now," say they, "during this long period, if the principle and practice of infant baptism had been the law of the church, we must, in all probability, have found many instances recorded of the baptism of the children of persons already in the communion of the church. Whereas, in all that is distinctly recorded, or occasionally hinted at, concerning the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, Gallatia, Colosse, &;c., we find no mention made of such baptisms. We, therefore, conclude that none such occurred." This objection, when examined, will be found, it is believed, to have quite as little weight as the preceding. The principal object of the New Testament history is to give an account of the progress of the Gospel. Hence it was much more to the purpose of the sacred writers to inform us respecting the conversions to Christianity, from Judaism and Paganism, than to dwell in detail on what occurred in the bosom of the church itself. Only enough is said on the latter subject to trace the disturbances which occurred in the churches to their proper source, and to render intelligible and impressive the various precepts in relation to these matters which are recorded for the instruction of the people of God in all ages. Hence all the cases of baptism which are recorded, are cases in which it was administered to converts from Judaism or Paganism, to Christianity. To the best of my recollection, we have no example of a single baptism of any other kind. Now this, upon Paedobaptists principles, is precisely what might have been expected. In giving a history of such churches, who would think of singling out cases of infant baptism? This is a matter so much of course, and of every day’s occurrence, that it is in no respect a remarkable event, and, of course, could not be expected to be recorded as such. No wonder, then, that we find no instance of this kind specified in the annals of the apostolical church. But this is not all. There is connected with this fact, a still more serious difficulty, which cannot fail of bearing with most unfriendly weight on the Baptist cause. Though it is not wonderful, for the reason just mentioned, that we read of no cases of infant baptism among the Christian families of the apostolical age; yet, upon Baptist principles, it is much more difficult to be accounted for, that we find no example of persons born of Christian parents being baptized in adult age. Upon those principles, the children of professing Christians bear no relation to the church. They are as completely “without" as the children of Pagans or Mohammedans, until by faith and repentance they are brought within the bond of the covenant. Their being converted and baptized, then, we might expect to be just as carefully noticed, and just as minutely detailed, as the conversion and baptism of the most complete “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel." Yet the fact is, that during the whole three score years after the ascension of Christ, which the New Testament history embraces, we have no hint of the baptism of any adult born of Christian parents. In my judgment, this fact bears very strongly in favor of the Paedobaptist cause. 4. It is objected, that Jesus Christ himself was not baptized until he was thirty years of age; and, therefore, it is inferred, that his disciples ought not to be baptized until they reach adult age. To this objection I reply (1.) Christ was baptized by John. Now it is certain, that John’s Baptism was not Christian baptism: for it is evident, from the Acts of the Apostles, (Acts 19:1-5.) that those who were baptized by John, were baptized over again, "in the name of the Lord Jesus." Besides, it is evident, from the whole passage, that the baptism of Christ by John was an essentially different thing from baptism as now practiced in the Christian church. The ministry of John the Baptist was a dispensation, if we may say so, intermediate between the Old and the New Testament economies. And, as our blessed Lord thought proper to “fulfill all righteousness," he submitted to the baptismal rite which marked that dispensation. Besides, under the Old Testament economy, when the High Priest first entered on his holy office, he was solemnly washed with water. And that officer, we know, was wont to come to the discharge of his functions at “about thirty years of age," the very age at which our Savior was baptized, and entered on his public ministry. In like manner, when the "great High Priest of our profession," Christ Jesus, entered on his public ministry, he thought proper to comply with the same ceremony; that he might accomplish the prophecy, and fulfill all the typical representations concerning the Savior, which had been left on record in the Old Testament Scriptures. The baptism of Christ, then, has no reference to this controversy, and cannot be made to speak either for or against our practice in regard to this ordinance. But (2.) If this argument have any force, it proves more than our Baptist brethren are willing to allow, viz: that no person ought to be baptized under thirty years of age. So that even a real Christian, however clear his evidences of faith and repentance, though he be twenty, twenty-five, or even twenty-nine years of age, must in no case think of being baptized until he has reached the full age of thirty. A consequence so replete with absurdity, that the simple statement of it is -enough to insure its refutation. 5. A fifth objection continually made by our Baptist brethren is, that infants are not capable of those spiritual acts or exercises which the New Testament requires in order to a proper reception of the ordinance of Baptism. Thus the language of the New Testament, on various occasions, is — “Repent, and be baptized. Believe, and be baptized. If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest be baptized. They that gladly received the word were baptized. Many of the Corinthians, having believed, were baptized." In short, say our Baptist brethren, as baptism is acknowledged on all hands to be a “seal of the righteousness of faith;" and as infants are altogether incapable of exercising faith; it is, of course, not proper to baptize them. In answer to this objection, my first remark is, that all those exhortations to faith and repentance, as prerequisites to baptism, which we find in the New Testament, are addressed to adult persons. And when we are called to instruct adult persons, who have never been baptized, we always address them precisely in the same way in which the apostles did. We exhort them to repent and believe, and we say, just as Philip said, "If thou belie vest with all thine heart, thou mayest be baptized." But this does not touch the question respecting the infant seed of believers. It only shows that when adults are baptized, such a qualification is to be urged, and such a profession required. And in this, ail Paedobaptists unanimously agree. But still, our Baptist brethren, unsatisfied with this answer, insist, that, as infants are not capable of exercising faith; as they are not capable of acting either intelligently or voluntarily in the case at all, they cannot be considered as the proper recipients of an ordinance which is represented as a "seal of the righteousness of faith." This objection is urged with unceasing confidence, and not seldom accompanied with sneer and even ridicule, at the idea of applying a covenant seal to those who are incapable of either understanding, or giving their consent, to the transaction. It is really, my friends, enough to make one shudder to think how often, and how unceremoniously language of this kind is employed by those who acknowledge that infants of eight days old, were once, and that by express Divine appointment, made the subjects of circumcision. Now circumcision is expressly said by the apostle to be a "seal of the righteousness of faith," as well as baptism. But were children of eight days old then capable of exercising faith, when they were circumcised, more than they are now when they are baptized? Surely the objection before us is as valid in the one case as in the other. And, whether our Baptist brethren perceive it or not, all the charges of "absurdity" and "impiety" which they are so ready to heap on infant baptism, are just as applicable to infant circumcision as to infant baptism. Are they, then, willing to say, that the application of a “seal of the righteousness of faith" to unconscious infants, of eight days old, who, of course, could not exercise faith, was, under the old economy, preposterous and absurd? Are they prepared thus to "charge God foolishly?" Yet they must do it, if they would be consistent. They cannot escape from the shocking alternative. Every harsh and contemptuous epithet which they apply to infant baptism, must, if they would adhere to the principles which they lay down, be applied to infant circumcision. But that which unavoidably leads to such a consequence cannot be warranted by the word of God. After all, the whole weight of the objection, in this case, is founded on an entire forgetfulness of the main principle of the Paedobaptist system. It is forgotten that in every case of infant baptism, faith is required, and, if the parents be sincere, is actually exercised. But it is required of the parents, not of the children. So that, if the parent really present his child in faith, the spirit of the ordinance is entirely met and answered. It was this principle which gave meaning and legitimacy to the administration of the corresponding rite under the old dispensation. It was because the parents were visibly within the bond of the covenant, that their children were entitled to the same blessed privilege. The same principle precisely applies under the New Testament economy. Nor does it impair the force of this consideration to allege, that parents, it is feared, too often present their children, in this solemn ordinance, without genuine faith. It is, indeed, probable that this is often lamentably the fact. But so it was, we cannot doubt, with respect to the corresponding ordinance, under the old dispensation. Yet the circumcision was neither invalidated, nor rendered unmeaning, by this want of sincerity on the part of the parent. It was sufficient for the visible administration that faith was visibly professed. When our Baptist brethren administer the ordinance of baptism to one who professes to repent and believe, but who is not sincere in this profession, they do not consider his want of faith as divesting the ordinance of either its warrant or its meaning. The administration may be regular and scriptural, while the recipient is criminal, and receives no spiritual benefit. It is, in every case, the profession of faith which gives the right, in the eye of the church, to the external ordinance. The want of sincerity in this profession, while it deeply inculpates the hypocritical individual, affects not either the nature or the warrant of the administration. 6. Again; it is objected, that baptism can do infants no good. “Where," say our Baptist brethren, “is the benefit of it? What good can a little ’sprinkling with water’ do a helpless, unconscious babe?’’ To this objection I might reply, by asking, in my turn — What good did circumcision do a Jewish child, helpless and unconscious, at eight days old? To ask the question is almost impious, because it implies an impeachment of infinite wisdom. {11} God appointed that ordinance to be administered to infants. And, accordingly, when the apostle asked, in the spirit of some modern cavilers, "What profit is there of circumcision?" He replies, much, every way. In like manner, when it is asked, "What profit is there in baptizing our infant children?" I answer. Much, everyway. Baptism is a sign of many important truths, and a seal of many important covenant blessings. Is there no advantage in attending on an ordinance which holds up to our view, in the most impressive symbolical language, several of those fundamental doctrines of the Gospel which are of the deepest interest to us and our offspring; such as our fallen, guilty, and polluted state by nature, and the method appointed by infinite wisdom and love for our recovery, by the atoning blood, and cleansing Spirit of the Savior? Is there no advantage in solemnly dedicating our children to God, by an appropriate rite, of his own appointment? Is there no advantage in formally binding ourselves, by covenant engagements, to bring up our offspring "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?" Is there no advantage in publicly ratifying the connection of our children, as well as ourselves, with the visible church, and as it were binding them to an alliance with the God of their fathers? Is there nothing, either comforting or useful in solemnly recognizing as our own that covenant promise, “I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to be a God to thee and thy seed after thee? Is it a step of no value to our children themselves, to be brought, by a divinely appointed ordinance, into the bosom, and to the notice, the maternal attentions, and the prayers of the church, "the mother of us all?" And is it of no advantage to the parents, in educating their children, to be able to remind them, from time to time, that they have been symbolically sanctified, or set apart, by the seal of Jehovah’s covenant, and to plead with them by the solemn vows which they have made on tlieir behalf? Verily, my dear friends, those who refuse or neglect the baptism of their children, not only sin against Christ, by disobeying his solemn command; but they also deprive both themselves and their children of great benefits. They may imagine that, as it is a disputed point, it may be a matter of indifference, whether their children receive this ordinance in their infancy, or grow up unbaptized. But is not this attempting to be wiser than God? I do not profess to know all the advantages attendant or consequent on the administration of this significant and divinely appointed rite; but one thing I know, and that is,, that Christ has appointed it as a sign of precious truths, and a seal of rich blessings, to his covenant people, and their infant offspring; and I have no doubt that, in a multitude of cases, the baptized children, presented by professing parents who had no true faith, but who, by this act, brought their children within the care, the watch, and the privileges of the church, have been instrumental in conferring upon their offspring rich benefits, while they themselves went down to everlasting burnings. If I mistake not, I have seen many cases, in which, as far as the eye of man could go, the truth of this remark has been signally exemplified. Let it not be said, that such a solemn dedication of a child to God, is usurping the rights of the child to judge and act for himself, when he comes to years of discretion; and that it is inconsistent with the privilege of every rational being to free inquiry, and free agency. This objection is founded on an infidel spirit. It is equally opposed to the religious education of children; and, if followed out, would militate against all those restraints, and that instruction which the Word of God enjoins on parents. Nay, if the principle of this objection be correct, it is wrong to pre-occupy the minds of our children with an abhorrence of lying, theft, drunkenness, malice, and murder; lest, forsooth, we should fill them with such prejudices as would be unfriendly to free inquiry. The truth is, one great purpose for which the church was instituted, is to watch over and train up children in the knowledge and fear of God, and thus, to "prepare a seed to serve him, who should be accounted to the Lord for a generation." And I will venture to say, that that system of religion which does not embrace children in its ecclesiastical provisions, and in its covenant engagements, is most materially defective. Infants may not receive any apparent benefit from baptism, at the moment in which the ordinance is administered; although a gracious God may, even then, accompany the outward emblem with the blessing which it represents, even “the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit." This, indeed, may not be, and most commonly, so far as we can judge, is not the case. But still the benefits of this ordinance, when faithfully applied by ministers, and faithfully received by parents, are abundant — nay, great and important every way. When children are baptized, they are thereby recognized as belonging to the visible church of God. They are, as it were, solemnly entered as scholars or disciples in the school of Christ. They are brought into a situation, in which they not only may be trained up for God, but in which their parents are bound so to train them up; and the church is bound to see that they be so trained, as that the Lord’s claim to them shall ever be recognized and maintained. In a word, by baptism, when the administrators and recipients are both faithful to their respective trusts, children are brought into a situation in which all the means of grace; all the privileges pertaining to Christ’s covenanted family; in a word, all that is comprehended under the broad and precious import of the term Christian education, is secured to them in the most ample manner. Let parents think of this, when they come to present their children in this holy ordinance. And let children lay all this to heart, when they come to years in which they are capable of remembering and realizing their solemn responsibility. 7. A seventh objection which our Baptist brethren frequently urge is, that, upon our plan, the result of baptism seldom corresponds with its professed meaning. We say it is a symbol of regeneration; but experience proves that a great majority of those infants who are baptized never partake of the grace of regeneration. The practice of Paedobaptists, they tell us, is adapted to corrupt the church to the most extreme degree, by filling it with unconverted persons. To this objection we reply: That baptism is not more generally connected or followed with that spiritual benefit of which it is a striking emblem, is indeed to be lamented. But still this acknowledged fact does not, it is believed, either destroy the significance of the ordinance, or prove it to be useless. If it hold up to view, to all who behold it, every time that it is administered, the nature and necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit; if it enjoin, and, to a very desirable extent, secure, to the children of the church enlightened and faithful instruction, in the great doctrines of the Gospel, and this doctrine of spiritual cleansing in particular; and if it is, in a multitude of cases, actually connected with precious privileges, and saving benefits; we have, surely, no right to conclude that it is of small advantage, because it is not in all cases followed by the blessing which it symbolically represents. How many read the Bible without profit! How many attend upon the external service of prayer, without sincerity, and without a saving blessing! But are the reading of the Scriptures, and the duty of prayer less obligatory, or of more dubious value on that account? In truth, the same objection might be made to circumcision. That, as well as baptism, was a symbol of regeneration, and of spiritual cleansing: but how many received the outward symbol without the spiritual benefit? The fact is, the same objection may be brought against every institution of God. They are all richly significant, and abound in spiritual meaning, and in spiritual instruction; but their influence is moral, and may be defeated by unbelief. They cannot exert a physical power, or convert and save by their inherent energy, Hence they are often attended by many individuals, without benefit; but still their administration is by no means, in respect to the church of God, in vain in the Lord. It is daily exerting an influence of which no human arithmetic can form an accurate estimate. Thousands, no doubt, even of baptized adults receive the ordinance without faith, and, of course, without saving profit. But thousands more receive it in faith, and in connection with those precious benefits of which it is a symbol. This is the case with all ordinances; but because they are not always connected with saving benefits, we are neither to disparage, nor cease to recommend them. But if baptism be a symbol of regeneration; if it hold forth to all who receive it, either for themselves or their offspring, the importance and necessity of this great work of God’s grace; if it bind them to teach their children, as soon as they become capable of receiving instruction, this vital truth, as well as all the other fundamental truths of our holy religion; if, in consequence of their baptism, children are recognized as bearing a most important relation to the church of God, as bound by her rules, and responsible to her tribunal; and if all these principles be faithfully carried out into practice; can our children be placed in circumstances more favorable to their moral benefit? If not regenerated at the time of baptism, (which the nature of the ordinance does not necessarily imply) are they not, in virtue of their connection with the church, thus ratified and sealed, placed in the best of all schools for learning, practically, as well as doctrinally, the things of God? Are they not, by these means, even when they fail of becoming pious, restrained and regulated, and made better members of society? And are not multitudes of them, after all, brought back from their temporary wanderings, and by the reviving influence of their baptismal seal, and their early training, made wise unto salvation? Let none say, then, that infant baptism seldom realizes its symbolical meaning. It is, I apprehend, made to do this far more frequently than is commonly imagined. And if those who offer them up to God in this ordinance, were more faithful, this favorable result would occur with a frequency more than tenfold. 8. A further objection often urged by the opponents of infant baptism is, that we have the same historical evidence for infant communion that we have infant baptism; and that the evidence of the former in the early history of the church, altogether invalidates the historical testimony which we find in favor of the latter. In reply to this objection, it is freely granted, that the practice of administering the eucharist to children, and sometimes even to very young children, infants, has been in use in various parts of the Christian church, from an early period, and is, in some parts of the nominally Christian world, still maintained. About the middle of the third century, we hear of it in some of the African churches. A misconception of the Savior’s words — “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you;" led many to believe that a participation of the Lord’s supper was essential to salvation. They were, therefore, led to give a small portion of the sacramental bread dipped in wine to children, and dying persons, who were not able to receive it in the usual form; and, in some cases, we find that this morsel of bread moistened with the consecrated wine was even forced down the throats of infants, who were reluctant or unable to swallow it. Nay, to so revolting a length was this superstition carried, in a few churches, that the consecrated bread and wine united in the same manner as in the case of infants, were thrust into the mouths of the dead^ who had departed without receiving them during life! But it is doing great injustice to the cause of infant baptism to represent it as resting on no better ground than the practice of infant communion. The following points of difference are manifest, and appear to me perfectly conclusive. (1.) Infant communion derives not the smallest countenance from the Word of God; whereas, with regard to infant baptism, we find in Scripture its most solid and decisive support. It would rest on a firm foundation if every testimony out of the Bible were destroyed. (2.) The historical testimony in favor of infant communion, is greatly inferior to that which we possess in favor of infant baptism. We have no hint of the former having been in use in any church until the time of Cyprian, about the middle of the third century; whereas testimony more or less clear in favor of the latter has come down to us from the apostolic age. (3.) Once more: Infant communion by no means stands on a level with infant baptism as to its universal or even general reception. We find two eminent men in the fourth century, among the most learned then on earth, and who had enjoyed the best opportunity of becoming acquainted with the whole church, declaring that the baptism of infants was a practice which had come down from the apostles, and was universally practised in the church; nay, that they had never heard of any professing Christians in the world, either orthodox or heretical, who did not baptize their children. But we have no testimony approaching this, in proof of the early and universal adoption of infant communion. It was manifestly an innovation, founded on principles which, though, to a melancholy degree prevalent, were never universally received. And as miserable superstition brought it into the church, so a still more miserable superstition destroyed it. When transubstantiation arose, the sacred elements, (now transmuted, as was supposed, into the real body and blood of the Savior) began to be considered as too awful in their character to be imparted to children. But in the Greek church, who separated from the Latin before transubstantiation was established, the practice of infant communion still superstitiously continues. 9. Again: It is objected that Paedobaptists are not consistent with themselves, in that they do not treat their children as if they were members of the church. “Paedobaptists," say our Baptist brethren, “maintain that the children of professing Christians are, in virtue of their birth, members of the church — plenary members — externally in covenant with God, and as such made the subjects of a sacramental seal. Yet we seldom or never see a Paedobaptist church treating her baptized children as church members, that is, instructing, watching over, and disciplining them, as in the case of adult members. Does not this manifest that their system is inconsistent with itself, impracticable, and therefore unsound?" This objection is a most serious and weighty one, and ought to engage the conscientious attention of every Paedobaptist who wishes to maintain his profession with consistency and to edification. It cannot be denied, then, that the great mass of the Paedobaptist churches, do act inconsistently in regard to this matter. They do not carry out, and apply their own system by a corresponding practice. That baptized children should be treated by the church and her officers just as other children are treated: that they should receive the seal of a covenant relation to God and his people, and then be left to negligence and sin, without official inspection, and without discipline, precisely as those are left who bear no relation to the church, is, it must be confessed, altogether inconsistent with the nature and design of the ordinance, and in a high degree unfriendly to the best interests of the Church of God. This distressing fact, however, as has been often observed, militates, not against the doctrine itself, of infant membership, but against the inconsistency of those who profess to adopt and to act upon it. If one great end of instituting a church, as was before observed, is the training up of a godly seed in the way of truth, holiness, and salvation; and if one great purpose of sacramental seals is to "separate between the precious and the vile," and to set a distinguishing mark upon the Lord’s people; then, undoubtedly, those who bear this mark, whether infant or adult, ought to be treated with appropriate inspection and care, and their relation to the Church of God never, for a moment, lost sight of or neglected. In regard to adults, this duty is generally recognized by all evangelical churches. Why it has fallen into so much neglect, in regard to our infant and juvenile members, maybe more easily explained than justified. And yet it is manifest, that attention to the duty in question in reference to the youthful members of the church, is not only important, but, in some respects, pre-eminently so; and peculiarly adapted to promote the edification and enlargement of the Christian family. If it be asked, what more can be done for the moral culture and welfare of baptized children, than is done? I answer, much, that would be of inestimable value to them, and to the Christian community. The task, indeed, of training them up for God, is an arduous one, but it is practicable, and the faithful discharge of it involves the richest reward. The following plan may be said naturally to grow out of the doctrine of infant membership; and no one can doubt that, if carried into faithful execution, it would form a new and glorious era in the history of the Church of God. Let all baptized children, from the hour of their receiving the seal of God’s covenant, be recorded and recognized as infant disciples. Let the officers of the church, as well as their parents according to the flesh, ever regard them with a watchful and affectionate eye. Let Christian instruction, Christian restraint, and Christian warning, entreaty and prayer ever attend them, from the mother’s lap to the infant school, and from the infant school to the seminary, whatever it may be, for more mature instruction. Let them be early taught to reverence and read the Word of God, and to treasure up select portions of it in their memories. Let appropriate Catechisms, and other sound compends of Christian truth, be put into their hands, and by incessant repetition and inculcation be impressed upon their minds. Let a school, or schools, according to its extent, be established in each church, placed under the immediate instruction of exemplary, orthodox, and pious teachers, carefully superintended by the pastor, and visited as often as practicable by all the officers of the church. Let these beloved youth be often reminded of the relation which they bear to the Christian family; and the just claim of Christ to their affections and service, be often presented with distinctness, solemnity, and affection. Let every kind of error and immorality be faithfully reproved, and as far as possible suppressed in them. Let the pastor convene the baptized children as often as practicable, and address them with instruction and exhortation in the name of that God to whom they have been dedicated, and every endeavor made to impress their consciences and their hearts with Gospel truth. When they come to years of discretion, let them be affectionately reminded of their duty to ratify, by their own act, the vows made by their parents in baptism, and be urged, again and again, to give, first their hearts, and then the humble acknowledgment of an outward profession, to the Savior. Let this plan be pursued faithfully, constantly, patiently, and with parental tenderness. If instruction and exhortation be disregarded, and a course of error, immorality, or negligence be indulged in, let warning, admonition, suspension, or excommunication ensue, according to the character of the individual, and the exigencies of the case. "What!" some will be disposed to say, “suspend or excommunicate a young person, who has never yet taken his seat at a sacramental table, nor even asked for that privilege?" Certainly. Why not? If the children of professing Christians are born members of the church, and are baptized as a sign and seal of this membership, nothing can be plainer than that they ought to be treated in every respect as church members, and, of course, if they act in an unchristian manner, a bar ought to be set up in the way of their enjoying Christian privileges. If this be not admitted, we must give up the very first principles of ecclesiastical order and duty. Nor is there, obviously, any thing more incongruous in suspending or excluding from church privileges a young man, or young woman, who has been baptized in infancy, and trained up in the bosom of the church, but has now no regard for religion, than there is in suspending or excommunicating one who has been, for many years, an attendant on the Lord’s table, but has now forsaken the house of God, and has no longer any desire to approach a Christian ordinance. No one would consider it as either incongruous or unreasonable to declare such a person unworthy of Christian fellowship, and excluded from it, though he had no disposition to enjoy it. The very same principle applies in the case now under consideration. It has been supposed, indeed, by some Paedobaptists, that although every baptized child is a regular church member, he is a member only of the general visible church, and not in the ordinary sense, of any particular church; and, therefore, that he is not amenable to ecclesiastical discipline until he formally connects himself with some particular church. This doctrine appears to me subversive of every principle of ecclesiastical order. Every baptized child is, undoubtedly, to be considered as a member of the church in which he received baptism, until he dies, is excommunicated, or regularly dismissed to another church. And if the time shall ever come when all our churches shall act upon this plan; when infant members shall be watched over with unceasing and affectionate moral care; when a baptized young person, of either sex, being not yet what is called a communicant, shall be made the subject of mild but faithful Christian discipline, if he fall into heresy or immorality; when he shall be regularly dismissed, by letter, from the watch and care of one church to another; and when all his spiritual interests shall be guarded, by the church, as well as by his parents, with sacred and affectionate diligence; when this efficient and faithful system shall be acted upon, infant baptism will be universally acknowledged as a blessing, and the church will shine with new and spiritual glory. The truth is, if infant baptism were properly improved; if the profession which it includes, and the obligations which it imposes, were suitably appreciated and followed up, it would have few opponents. I can no more doubt, if this were done, that it would be blessed to the saving conversion of thousands of our young people, than I can doubt the faithfulness of a covenant God. Yes, infant baptism is of God, but the fault lies in the conduct of its advocates. The inconsistency of its friends, has done more to discredit it, than all the arguments of its opposers, a hundred fold. Let us hope that these friends will, one day, arouse from their deplorable lethargy, and show that they are contending for an ordinance as precious as it is scriptural. 10. Another objection, often urged with confidence, against infant membership and baptism, is, that, if they be well founded, then it follows, of course, that every baptized young person, or even child, who feels disposed to do so, has a right to come to the Lord’s table, without inquiry or permission of any one. Upon this principle, say our Baptist brethren, as a large portion of those who are baptized in infancy are manifestly not pious, and many of them become openly profligate; if their caprice or their wickedness should prompt them to go forward, the church would be disgraced by crowds of the most unworthy communicants. This objection is founded on an entire mistake. And a recurrence, for one moment, to the principles of civil society, will at once expose it. Every child is a citizen of the country in which he was born; a plenary citizen: there is no such thing as half-way citizenship in this case. He is a free born citizen in the fullest extent of the term. Yet, until he reach a certain age, and possess certain qualifications, he is not eligible to the most important offices which his country has to confer. And after he has been elected, he cannot take his seat for the discharge of these official functions, until he has taken certain prescribed oaths. It is evident that the State has a right, and finds it essential to her well being, by her constitution and her laws, thus to limit the rights of the citizen. Still no one supposes that he is the less a citizen, or thinks of representing him as only a half-way citizen prior to his compliance with these forms. In like manner every baptized child is a member — a plenary member of the church in which he received the sacramental seal. There his membership is recognized and recorded, and there alone can he regularly receive a certificate of this fact, and a dismission to put himself under the watch and care of any other church. Still the church to which this ecclesiastical minor belongs, in the exercise of that "authority which Christ has given, for edification and not for destruction," will not suffer him, if she does her duty, to come to the Lord’s table, until he has reached an age when he has "knowledge to discern the Lord’s body," and until he shall manifest that exemplary deportment and hopeful piety which become one who claims the privileges of Christian communion. If he manifest an opposite character, it is her duty, as a part of her stated discipline, to prevent his enjoying these privileges; just as it is her duty, in the case of one who has been a communicant for years, when he departs, from the order and purity of a Christian profession, to debar him from the continued enjoyment of his former good standing. In short, the language of the apostle Paul, though originally intended for a different purpose, is strictly applicable to the subject before us: "The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors, until the time appointed of the Father." In a word, in the Church, as well as in the State, there is an order in which privileges are to be enjoyed. As it is not every citizen who is eligible to office; and as not even the qualified have a right to intrude into office uncalled; so youthful church members, like all others, are under the watch and care of the church, and the time and manner in which they shall recognize their baptismal engagements, and come to the enjoyment of plenary privileges, Christ has left his church to decide, on her responsibility to himself. No one, of any age, has a right to come to her communion without the consent of the church. When one, after coming to that communion, has been debarred from it for a time, by regular ecclesiastical authority, he has no right to come again until the interdict is taken off. Of course, by parity of reasoning, one who has never yet come at all, cannot come without asking and obtaining the permission of those who are set to govern in the church. This view of the subject is at once illustrated and confirmed by the uniform practice of the Old Testament church. The children of Jewish parents, though regular church members in virtue of their birth, and recognized as such in virtue of their circumcision, were still not allowed to come to the Passover until they were of a certain age, and not even then, unless they were ceremonially clean. This is so well attested by sacred antiquarians, both Jewish and Christian, that it cannot be reasonably called in question. Calvin remarks, that "the Passover, which has now been succeeded by the sacred Supper, did not admit guests of all descriptions promiscuously; but was rightly eaten only by those who were of sufficient age to be able to inquire into its signification." The same distinct statement is also made by the Rev. Dr. Gill, an eminent commentator of the Baptist denomination. "According to the maxims of the Jews," says he, "persons were not obliged to the duties of the law, or subject to the penalties of it in case of non-performance, until they were, a female, at the age of twelve years and one day, and a male at the age of thirteen years and one day. But then they used to train up their children, and inure them to religious exercises before. They were not properly under the law until they were arrived at the age abovementioned; nor were they reckoned adult church members until then; nor then neither unless worthy persons: for so it is said, “He that is worthy, at thirteen years of age, is called" a "son of the congregation of Israel." {12} The objection, then, before us is of no force. Or rather, the fact which it alleges and deprecates has no existence. It makes no part of the Paedobaptist system. Nay, our system has advantages in respect to this matter, great and radical advantages, which belong to no other. While it regards baptized children as members of the church, and solemnly binds the church, as well as the parents, to see that they be faithfully trained up "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," it recognizes the church as possessing, and as bound to exercise, the power of guarding her communion table from all the profane approaches, even of her own children, and so regulating their Christian culture, and their personal recognition of Christian duty, as shall best serve the great purpose of building up the church as “an habitation of God through the Spirit." II. The last objection which I propose to consider is this: “If baptism," say our opponents, “takes the place of circumcision, and if the church is the same in substance now as when circumcision was the initiating seal, then why is not baptism as universal in the New Testament churchy as circumcision was under the old economy? Why is not every child, under the light of the Gospel, baptized, as every Israelitish child was circumcised." I answer, this, undoubtedly, ought to he the case. That is, all parents, where the Gospel comes, ought to be true believers; ought to be members of the Church of Christ themselves; and ought to dedicate their children to God in holy baptism. The command of God calls for it; and if parents were what they ought to be, they would be all prepared for a proper application of this sacramental seal. Under the Mosaic dispensation, a single nation of the great human family, was called out of an idolatrous world to be the depository of the word and the ordinances of the true God. Then all who belonged to that nation were bound to be holy; and unless they were at least ceremonially clean, the divine direction was, that they should be “cut off from their people." The obligation was universal, and the penalty, in case of delinquency, was universal. Multitudes of parents, no doubt, under that economy, presented their children to God in the sacrament of circumcision, who had no true faith; but they professed to believe; they attended to all the requisitions of ceremonial cleanness, and that rendered the circumcision authorized and regular. So in the New Testament church. This is a body, like the other, called out from the rest of mankind, but not confined to a particular nation. It consists of all those, of every nation, who profess the true religion. Within this spiritual community, baptism ought to be as universal as circumcision was in the old “commonwealth of Israel." Those parents who profess faith in Christ, and obedience to him, and those only, ought to present their children in baptism. There is, indeed, reason to fear that many visible adult members are not sincere. Still, as they are externally regular, their children are entitled to baptism. And were the whole infant population of our land in these circumstances, they might, and ought to be baptized. I have thus endeavored to dispose of the various objections which our Baptist brethren are wont to urge against the cause of infant baptism. I have conscientiously aimed to present them in all their force; and am constrained to believe that neither Scripture, reason, nor ecclesiastical history afford them the least countenance. The longer I reflect on the subject, the deeper is my conviction, that the membership and the baptism of infants rest on grounds which no fair argument can shake or weaken. From the principles implied or established in the foregoing pages, we may deduce the following practical conclusions: 1. We are warranted in returning with renewed confidence to the conclusion stated in advance, in the early part of our first discourse, viz: that the error of our Baptist brethren in rejecting the church membership and the baptism of infants, is a most serious and mischievous error. It is not a mere mistake about a speculative point; but is an error which so directly contravenes the spirit of the whole Bible, and of all Jehovah’s covenants with his people, in every age, that it must be considered as invading some of the most vital interests of the body of Christ, and as adapted to exert a most baneful influence on his spiritual kingdom. On this subject, my friends, my expressions are strong, because my convictions are strong, and my desire to guard every hearer against mischievous error increasingly strong. I am, indeed, by no means disposed to deny either the piety or the honest convictions of our respected Baptist brethren in adopting an opposite opinion from ours. But I am, nevertheless, deeply convinced that their system is not only entirely unscriptural, but also that its native tendency is to place children, who are the hope of the church, in a situation less friendly to the welfare of Zion, and less favorable, by far, to their own salvation, than that in which they are placed by our system; and that its ultimate influence on the rising generation, on family religion, and on the growth of the church, must be deeply injurious. 2. Again; it is evident, from what has been said, that the baptism of our children means much, and involves much solemn tender obligation. We do not, indeed, ascribe to this sacrament that kind of inherent virtue of which some who bear the Christian name have spoken and inferred so much. We do not believe that baptism is regeneration. We consider this as a doctrine having no foundation in the Word of God, and as eminently fitted to deceive and destroy the soul. We do not suppose that the ordinance, whenever legitimately administered, is necessarily accompanied with any physical or moral influence, operating either on the soul or the body of him who receives it. Yet, on the other hand, we do not consider it as a mere unmeaning ceremony. We cannot regard it as the mere giving a name to the child to whom it is dispensed. Multitudes appear to regard it as amounting to little, if any more than one or both of these. And, therefore, they consider the season of its celebration as a kind of ecclesiastical festival or pageant. They would not, on any account, have the baptism of their children neglected; and yet they solicit and receive it for their offspring, with scarcely one serious or appropriate thought; without any enlightened or adequate impression of what it means, or what obligation it imposes on them or their children. A baptism, like a marriage, is regarded by multitudes as an appropriate season for congratulation and feasting, and very little more, in connection with it, seems to occur to their minds. This is deeply to be deplored. The minds of the mass of mankind seem to be ever prone to vibrate from superstition to impiety, and from impiety back to superstition. Those simple, spiritual views of truth, and of Christian ordinances which the Bible every where holds forth, and which alone tend to real benefit, too seldom enlighten and govern the mass of those who bear the Christian name. Now, the truth is, little as it is recollected and laid to heart, few things can be more expressive, more solemn, or more interesting, more touching in its appeals, more deeply comprehensive in its import, or more weighty in the obligations which it involves, than the baptism of an infant. I repeat it — and oh, that the sentence could be made to thrill through every parent’s heart in Christendom — the baptism of a child is one of the solemn transactions pertaining to our holy religion. A human being, just opening its eyes on the world; presented to that God who made it; devoted to that Savior without an interest in whose atoning blood, it had better never have been born; and consecrated to that Holy Spirit, who alone can sanctify and prepare it for heaven; is indeed a spectacle adapted to affect every pious heart. In death, our race is run; worldly hope and expectation are alike extinct; and the destiny of the immortal spirit is forever fixed. But the child presented for baptism, if it reach the ordinary limit of human life, has before it many a trial; and will need all the pardoning mercy, all the sanctifying grace, and all the precious consolations which the blessed Gospel of Christ has to bestow. And even if it die in infancy, it still needs the pardoning mercy and sanctifying grace which are set forth in this ordinance. On either supposition, the transaction is important. A course is commenced which will be a blessing or a curse beyond the power of the human mind to estimate. And the eternal happiness or misery of the young immortal will depend, under God, upon the training it shall receive from the hands of those who offer it. Let those, then, who bring their children to the sacred font to be baptized, ponder well what this ordinance means, and what its reception involves, both in regard to parents and children. Let them remember that in taking this step, we make a solemn profession of belief, that our children, as well as ourselves, are born in sin, and stand in indispensable need of pardoning mercy and sanctifying grace. We formally dedicate them to God, that they may be “washed and justified, and sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." And we take upon ourselves solemn vows to train them up in the knowledge and fear of God; to instruct them, from the earliest dawn of reason, in the principles and duties of our holy religion; to consider and treat them as ingrafted members of the family of Christ; and to do all in our power, by precept and example, by authority and by prayer, to lead them in the ways of truth, of holiness, and of salvation. Is this an ordinance to be engaged in as a mere ceremony, or with convivial levity? Surely if there be a transaction, among all the duties incumbent on us as Christians — if there be a transaction which ought to be engaged in with reverence, and godly fear; with penitence, faith, and love; with bowels of Christian compassion yearning over our beloved offspring; with humble and importunate aspirations to the God of all grace for his blessing on them and ourselves; and with solemn resolutions, in the strength of his grace, that we will be faithful to our vows, — this is that transaction I O how full of meaning! And yet how little thought of by the most of those who engage in it with external decorum! 3. The foregoing discussion will show by whom children ought to be presented in holy baptism. The answer given by the old Waldenses to this question is, undoubtedly, the wisest and best. They say, as before quoted, “Children ought to be presented in baptism by those to whom they are most nearly related, such as their parents, or those whom God hath inspired with such a charity." If parents be living, and be of a suitable character; that is, if they have been baptized themselves, and sustain a regular standing as professing Christians, they, and they alone, ought to present their children in this ordinance. And all introduction of godfathers and godmothers, as sponsors, either instead of the parents, or besides the parents, is regarded by the great majority of Paedobaptist churches, as superstitious, unwarranted, and, of course, mischievous in its tendency. Whatever tends to beget erroneous ideas of the nature and design of a Gospel ordinance; to shift off the responsibility attending it from the proper to improper hands; and to the assumption of solemn engagements by those who can never really fulfill them, and have no intention of doing it, cannot fail of exerting an influence unfriendly to the best interests of the church of God. But if the parents be dead; or, though living, of irreligious character; and if the grand-parents, or any other near relations, of suitable qualifications, be willing to undertake the office of training up children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," it is proper for them to present such children in baptism. Or if deserted, or orphan children be cast in the families of strangers, who are no way related to them according to the flesh, but who are willing to stand in the place of parents, and train them up for God; even these strangers, in short, any and every person, of suitable character, who may be willing to assume the charitable office of giving them a Christian education, may and ought to present such children for Christian baptism. Not only the offspring of Abraham’s body, but “all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money," were commanded to be circumcised. Surely no Christian, who has a child, white or black, placed in his family, and likely to be a permanent member of it, can doubt that it is his duty to give it a faithful Christian education. And as one great object of infant baptism is to secure this point, he will not hesitate to offer it up to God in that ordinance which he has appointed, provided no valid objection in regard to the wishes of the parents of such a child interpose to prevent it. 4. This subject shows how responsible, and how solemn is the situation of those young persons who have been in their infancy dedicated to God in holy baptism! This is a point concerning which both old and young are too often forgetful. It is generally conceded, and extensively felt, that parents, by dedicating their children to God in this ordinance, are brought under very weighty obligations, which cannot be forgotten by them, without incurring great guilt. But young people seldom lay to heart as they ought, that their early reception of the seal of God’s covenant, in consequence of the act of their parents, places them in circumstances of the most solemn and responsible kind. They are too apt to imagine that they are not members of the church, until by some act of profession of their own, they are brought into this relation, and assume its bonds; that their making this profession, or not making it, is a matter of mere choice, left to their own decision; that by omitting it, they violate no tie — contract no guilt; that by refraining, they leave themselves more at liberty; and that the only danger consists in making an insincere profession. This is a view of the subject, which, however common, is totally, and most criminally erroneous. The children of professing Christians are already in the church. They were born members. Their baptism did not make them members. It was a public ratification and recognition of their membership. They were baptized because they were members. They received the seal of the covenant because they were already in covenant by virtue of their birth. This blessed privilege is their "birth-right." Of course, the only question they can ask themselves is, not — shall we enter the church, and profess to be connected with Christ’s family? But — shall we continue in it, or act the part of ungrateful deserters? "Shall we be thankful for this privilege, and gratefully recognize and confirm it by our own act; or shall we renounce our baptism; disown and deny the Savior in whose name we have been enrolled as members of his family; and become open apostates from that family?" This is the real question to be decided; and truly a solemn question it is! Baptized young people! think of this. You have been in the bosom of the church ever since you drew your first breath. The seal of God’s covenant has been placed upon you. You cannot, if you would, escape from the responsibility of this relation. You may forget it; you may hate to think of it; you may despise it; but still the obligation lies upon you; you cannot throw it off. Your situation is solemn beyond expression. On the one hand, to go forward, and to recognize your obligation by a personal profession, without any love to the Savior, is to insult him by a heartless offering; and, on the other, to renounce your allegiance by refusing to acknowledge him, by turning your backs on his ordinances, and by indulging in that course of life by which his religion is dishonored, is certainly, whether you realize it or not, to “deny him before men," and to incur the fearful guilt of apostasy; of "drawing back unto perdition." "According to this representation," I shall be told, "the condition of many of our youth is very deplorable. It is their duty, you say, to profess the name of Christ, and to seal their profession at a sacramental table. This they cannot do; for they are conscious that they do not possess those principles and dispositions which are requisite to render such a profession honest. What course shall they steer? If they do not profess Christ, they live in rebellion against God: if they do, they mock him with a lie. Which side of the alternative shall they embrace? Continue among the profane, and be consistently wicked? Or withdraw from them in appearance, and play the hypocrite?" The case is, indeed, very deplorable. Destruction is on either hand. For “the unbelieving shall have their part in the lake of fire; (Revelation 21:6.) and the hope of. the hypocrite shall perish:" (Job 8:13.) God forbid that we should encourage either a false profession, or a refusal to make one. The duty is to embrace neither side of the alternative. Not to continue with the profane, and not to act the hypocrite; but to receive the Lord Jesus Christ in truth, and to walk in him. “I cannot do it," replies one: and one, it may be, not without moments of serious and tender emotions upon this very point: "I cannot do it.” My soul bleeds for thee, my unhappy! But it must be done, or thou art lost forever. Yet what is the amount of that expression — in the month of some a flaunting excuse, and of others, a bitter complaint — I cannot? Is the inability to believe in Christ different from an inability to perform any other duty? Is there any harder necessity of calling the God of truth a liar; in not believing the record which he hath given of his Son, than of committing any other sin? The inability created, the necessity imposed, by the enmity of the carnal mind against God? (Romans 8:7.) It is the inability of wickedness, and of nothing else. Instead of being an apology,, it is itself the essential crime, and can never become its own vindication. But it is even so. The evil does lie too deep for the reach of human remedies. Yet a remedy there is, and an effectual one. It is here — “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh; and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes; and ye shall keep my judgments and do them. (Ezekiel 36:25-27.) Try this experiment. Go with thy “filthiness," and thine “idols;" go with thy “stony heart," and thy perverse spirit, which are thy real inability, to God upon the throne of grace; spread out before him his "exceeding great and precious promises; importune him as the hearer of prayer, in the name of Jesus, for the accomplishment of it to thyself. Wait for his mercy, it is worth waiting for, and remember his word — Therefore will the Lord wait, that he may be gracious unto you; and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the Lord is a God of judgment; blessed are all they that wait for him. {13} 5. Finally; from the foregoing principles and considerations, it is evident, that the great body of Paedobaptist churches have much to reform in regard to their treatment of baptized children^ and are bound to address themselves to that reform with all speed and fidelity. It has been already observed, that one great end for which the church of God was instituted, was to train up, from age to age, a seed to serve God, and to be faithful witnesses in behalf of the truth and order of his family, in the midst of an unbelieving world. If this be so, then, surely the church, in her ecclesiastical capacity, is bound carefully to watch over the education, and especially, the religious education of her youthful members; nor is there any risk in asserting, that just in proportion as she has been faithful to this part of her trust, she has flourished in orthodoxy, piety, and peace; and that when she has neglected it, her children have grown up in ignorance, and too often in profligacy, and wandered from her fold into every form of error. If the church wishes her baptized youth to be a comfort and a strength to their moral mother; if she wishes them to adhere with intelligence, and with dutiful affection to her distinctive testimony; and to be a generation to the praise of Zion’s King, when their fathers shall have gone to their final account; then let her, by all means, watch over the training of her young people with peculiar diligence and fidelity; and consider a very large part of her duty, as a church, as consisting in constant and faithful attention to the moral and religious culture of the rising generation. What is the reason that so many of the baptized youth, in almost all our Paedobaptist churches, grow up in ignorance and disregard of the religion of their parents? Why are so many of them, when they come to judge and act for themselves, found embracing systems of gross error, if not total infidelity, and wandering, in too many instances, into the paths of degrading profligacy! It is not enough to say, that our children are by nature depraved, and prone to the ways of error and folly. This is, doubtless, true; but it is not the whole truth. It cannot be questioned, that much of the reason lies at the door of the church herself, as well as of the parents of such youth. The church has too often forgotten that baptism is as really a seal to the church, as it is to the parents and the children who receive it. And, therefore, while in many instances, a superstitious regard has been paid to the mere rite of baptism,, a most deplorable neglect of the duties arising from it has been indulged, even by some of our most evangelical churches. Parents, while most vigilantly attentive to the literary, scientific, and ornamental education of their children, have slighted, to a most humiliating degree, their moral and religious training. They have sent them to schools conducted by immoral, heretical, or infidel teachers, who, of course, paid no ^regard to that part of their education which is unspeakably the most important of all; or who rather might be expected to exert in this respect, a most pestiferous influence. And, after this cruel treatment of their offspring, have appeared to be utterly surprised when they turned out profligates! What other result could have been expected? While it is granted that the primary movements in the great work of Christian education, are to be expected from the parents; — indeed, if the work be not begun on the mother’s lap, a most important period has been suffered to pass unimproved; — yet the church has a duty to perform in this matter which is seldom realized. It is hers, by her pastor and eldership, to stimulate and guide parents in this arduous and momentous labor; to see that proper schools for her baptized youth are formed or selected; to put the Bible, and suitable Catechisms, and other compends of religious truth into their hands; to convene them at stated intervals for instruction, exhortation, and prayer; to remind them from time to time, with parental tenderness, of their duty to confess Christ, and recognize their relation to his church, by their own personal act; and, if they fall into gross error, or open immorality, or continue to neglect religion, to exercise toward them, with parental affection, and yet with firmness, that discipline which Christ has appointed expressly for the benefit of all the members, and especially of the youthful members of his covenanted family. If this plan were faithfully pursued with our baptized youth, I am constrained to conpur with the pious Mr. Baxter in believing, that in nineteen cases out of twenty, our children, consecrated to God in their infancy, would grow up dutiful, sober, orderly, and serious, and before they reached mature age, recognize their membership by a personal act, with sincerity and to edification. Happy era! When shall the church of God be blessed with such fidelity, and with such results? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: 01.06. SERMON III. THE MODE OF ADMINSERING BAPTISM ======================================================================== SERMON III. THE MODE OF ADMINISTERING BAPTISM. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized? — Acts 10:47. Writers wish to express the idea of the Holy Spirit being imparted to men, either to sanctify their hearts, or to furnish them with miraculous powers, the figure of "pouring out" is, in almost all cases, adopted, and that of immersion never; but, further, when they use the specific term which expresses the ordinance before us; when they speak of the "baptism of the Spirit," how do they explain it? Hear the explanation by the Master himself. The Savior, after his resurrection, told his disciples, that “John truly baptized with water, but they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost" not many days from that time, (Acts 1:4-5.) and directing them to remain in Jerusalem until this promise should be fulfillled on the day of Pentecost. And how did the Holy Spirit baptize the people then? By immersion? Not at all; but by being "poured out." Accordingly, the apostle Peter, in giving an account to his brethren of what occurred in the house of Cornelius, declares: "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them,, as on us at the beginning, (that is at the beginning of the New Testament economy, on the day of Pentecost.) Then remembered I the words of the Lord, when he said, John, indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 11:15-16.) The baptism of the Holy Ghost, then, consisted in the pouring out or effusion of the Holy Ghost. This was the baptism predicted by the prophets. This was the baptism which our Lord himself promised. And this was the baptism realized on the day of Pentecost. I ask, again, was this immersion? Yet it was baptism. And here^ we may add, is an indubitable example of the word baptism being used in a sense which cannot possibly imply immersion. Surely it is not without design or meaning, that we find language of this kind so generally, I might almost say, so uniformly used. Can a single instance be produced from the Word of God in which the cleansing influences of the Holy Spirit are symbolized by dipping or plunging into water, or into oil or blood? Or can a single example be found in which believers are represented as being dipped or plunged into the Holy Ghost? No such example is recollected. Whenever the inspired writers speak of the Holy Spirit being imparted to the children of men, either in his sanctifying power, or his miraculous gifts, they never represent the benefit under the figure of immersion; but always, unless my memory deceives me, by the figures of "sprinkling," "pouring out," "falling," or "resting upon" from on high. Now, if baptism, so far as it has a symbolical meaning, is intended to represent the cleansing of the Holy Spirit, as all agree; it is evident that no mode of applying the baptismal water can be more strikingly adapted to convey its symbolical meaning, or more strongly expressive of the great benefit which the ordinance is intended to hold forth and seal, than sprinkling or pouring. Nay, is it not manifest that this mode of administering the ordinance, is far more in accordance with Bible language, and Bible allusion, than any other? Surely, then, baptism by sprinkling or affusion, would have been treated with less scorn by our Baptist brethren, if they had recollected that these are, invariably, the favorite figures of the inspired writers when they speak of the richest covenant blessings which the Spirit of God imparts to his beloved people. Surely all attempts to turn this mode of applying the sacramental water in baptism into ridicule, is really nothing less than shameless ridicule of the statements and the language of God’s own word! 3. The circumstances attending the several cases of baptism, recorded in the New Testament, render it highly probable, not to say morally certain, that the immersion of the whole body could not have been the mode of baptism then commonly adopted. The baptism of the three thousand converts made by the instrumentality of Peter’s preaching, on the day of Pentecost, is the first remarkable instance of Christian baptism which occurs in the New Testament history. Christ had promised, before he left his disciples, that he would send to them his Holy Spirit, and the favorite expression by which he was accustomed to designate this gift, was that he would pour out the Holy Spirit upon them. Accordingly, in ten days after his ascension to heaven, he was pleased, in a most extraordinary manner, to fulfill his promise. The spirit was poured out with a power unknown before. And, what is remarkable, the apostle Peter assures the assembled multitude, that what they then witnessed was a fulfillment of the prediction by the prophet Joel, that the Holy Spirit should be imparted in a manner prefigured by the term pouring out, or affusion. Three thousand were converted under the overwhelming impression of divine truth, dispensed in a single sermon; and were all baptized, and "added to the church" in a single day. From the short account given of this wonderful transaction, we gather, that the multitude on whom this impression was made, was convened in some part of the temple. They seem to have come together about the third hour of the day, that is, nine o’clock in the morning, according to the Jewish mode of computing time. At least, when Peter rose to commence his sermon,, that was the hour. Besides the discourse of which we have a sketch in the chapter containing the account, we are told he exhorted and testified with many other words. All these services, together with receiving the confession of three thousand converts, must unavoidably have consumed several hours; leaving only four or five hours, at the utmost, for baptizing the whole number. But they were all baptized that same day. We read nothing, however, of the apostles taking the converts away from “Solomon’s Porch," or wherever else they were assembled, to any river or stream for the sake of baptizing them. Indeed, at that season of the year, there was no river or brook in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem, which would admit of immersing a human being. Besides, is it likely that this great multitude, most of whom were probably strangers in Jerusalem, could have been furnished with such a change of raiment as health and decorum required ^ or that they could have been baptized without clothing altogether; or remained on the ground, through the public exercises, in their wet clothes? Surely all these suppositions are so utterly improbable that they may be confidently rejected But, above all, was it physically possible,, supposing all the apostles to have officiated in the administration of this ordinance, for twelve men to have immersed three thousand persons in four or five hours; which we have seen must have been the case, if, as is evident, the preaching, the examination of candidates, and the baptizing of the whole number took place after nine’ o’clock in the forenoon? Those who have witnessed a series of baptisms by immersion know how arduous and exhausting is the bodily effort which it requires. To immerse a single person, with due decorum and solemnity, will undoubtedly require from five to six minutes. Of course, to immerse one hundred, would consume, at this rate, between nine and ten hours. Now, even if so much time could possibly be assigned to this part of the work, on the same day, which is plainly inadmissible, can we suppose that the twelve apostles stood, for nine or ten hours, themselves, in the water, constantly engaged in a series of efforts among the most severe and exhausting to human strength that can well be undertaken?{14} To imagine this, would be among the most improbable, not to say extravagant imaginations that could be formed on such a subject. Yet even this supposition, unreasonable as it is, falls far short of providing for even one half of the requisite number. The man, therefore, who can believe that the three thousand on the day of Pentecost were baptized by immersion, must have great faith, and a wonderful facility in accommodating his belief to his wishes. With regard to the baptism of John, many of the same remarks are entirely applicable. Our Baptist brethren universally take for granted that John’s baptism was performed by immersion; and on the ground of that assumption, they speak with great confidence of their mode of baptism as the only lawful mode. Now, even if it were certain that the forerunner of Christ had always baptized by immersion, still it would be little to the purpose, since it is plain that John’s baptism was not Christian baptism. Had this been the case, then, it is evident, that a large part of the population of “Jerusalem and Judea, and of the region round about Jordan," would have been professing Christians. But was it so? Every reader of the New Testament history knows it was not; that, on the contrary, it is apparent from the whole narrative, that a great majority of those whom John baptized, continued to stand aloof from the Savior. But what decides this point, beyond the possibility of appeal or cavil, is the statement in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where we are told that some who had received John’s baptism, were afterwards baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Some opponents of this conclusion have suggested that in the narrative given of this transaction, (Acts 19:1-6.) we are to consider the 5th verse, not as the language of the inspired historian, but as a continuation of Paul’s discourse, as recorded in the 4th verse. Professor Stuart, in his remarks on the ’’ Mode of Baptism," in the “Biblical Repository," (No. X. 386.) has shown conclusively that this gloss is wholly inadmissible; and even leads to the most evident absurdity. But there is no evidence, and I will venture to say, no probability, that John ever baptized by immersion. The evangelists informs us that he baptized great multitudes. It appears, as before suggested, that "all Jerusalem, and all Judea, and the region round about Jordan,’’ flocked to his ministry, and “were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Some have supposed that he baptized two millions of people. But suppose the number to be one-twentieth part of this computation. The smallest estimate that we can consider as answering the description of the inspired historians is, that he baptized one hundred thousand individuals. And this, in about one year and a half. That is, he must have immersed nearly two hundred, upon an average, every day, during the whole of the period in question. Now, I ask, is it possible for human strength, day after day, for more than five hundred days together, to undergo such labor? It cannot be imagined. The thing is not merely improbable; it is impossible. To accomplish so much, it would have been necessary that the zealous Baptist should spend the whole of every day standing in the water, for a year and a half, and even this would have failed altogether of being sufficient. I say again, with confidence, it is impossible. But that John baptized by immersion is utterly incredible on another account. Can we imagine that so great a multitude could have been provided on the spot with convenient changes of raiment to admit of their being plunged consistently with their health? Or can we suppose that the greater part of their number, would remain for hours on the ground in their wet clothes? And if not, would decency have permitted multitudes of both sexes to appear, and to undergo the administration of the ordinance in that mode, in a state of entire nakedness? Surely we need not wait for an answer. Neither supposition is admissible. Nor is this reasoning at all invalidated by the statement of one of the evangelists, that John “baptized at Enon, near Salem, because there was much water there;” or, as it is in the original, “because there were many waters there.” For, independently of immersion altogether, plentiful streams of water were absolutely necessary for the constant refreshment and sustenance of the many thousands who were encamped from day to day, to witness the preaching and the baptism of this extraordinary man; together with the beasts employed for their transportation. Only figure to yourselves a large encampment of men, women, and children, consisting almost continually of many thousand souls, continuing together for a number of days in succession; constantly coming and going; and all this in a warm climate, where springs and wells of water were comparatively rare and precious; only figure to yourselves such an assemblage, and such a scene, and you will be at no loss to perceive why it was judged important to convene them near the banks of abundant streams of water. Had not this been done, they must, in a few hours, have either quitted the ground, or suffered real distress. It is evident, then, that often and confidently as the baptism of John has been cited as conclusive, in favor of immersion, it cannot be considered as affording the least solid ground for such a conclusion. There is not the smallest probability that he ever baptized an individual in this manner. As a poor man, who lived in the wilderness; whose raiment was of the meanest kind; and whose food was such alone as the desert afforded; it is not to be supposed that he possessed appropriate vessels for administering baptism to multitudes by pouring or sprinkling. He, therefore, seems to have made use of the neighboring stream of water for this purpose, descending its banks, and setting his feet on its margin, so as to admit of his using a handful, to answer the symbolical purpose intended by the application of water in baptism. The circumstances attending the baptism of our blessed Savior by John, have been often adduced by our Baptist brethren as strongly favoring the practice of immersion; but when they are examined, they will be found to afford no real aid to that cause. In our common translation, indeed, the Evangelist Matthew tells us, (Matthew 3:16.) That Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water, &c.; and the Evangelist Mark tells us, (Mark 1:9-10.) That Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan; and straightway, coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, &c. This is considered by many superficial readers as decisive in establishing the fact that .immersion must have been used on that occasion; but the moment we look into the original, it becomes evident that the language of both the Evangelists imports only that Jesus, after he was baptized, went up from the water, that is, ascended the banks from the river. Nothing more is, unquestionably, imported by the terms used; and this leaves the mode of administering the ordinance altogether undecided. Laying aside his sandals, he might only have stepped a few inches into the river, or he might have gone merely to the water’s edge, without stepping into it at all.{15} The baptism of Paul, by Ananias, is another of the scriptural examples of the administration of the ordinance in question, which yet affords not the smallest hint or presumption in favor of immersion; but rather the contrary. We are told that Paul, the infuriated persecutor, while “breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord," was met on his way to Damascus, and by the mighty power of the Savior whom he persecuted, was stricken down, and fell prostrate and blind to the ground. In this feeble state he was lifted up, and "led by the hand, and carried into Damascus; and he was there three days without sight, and did neither eat nor drink." In these circumstances, Ananias, a servant of God, is directed to go to him, and teach him what to do. "And Ananias," we are told, “went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way, as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales; and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat he was strengthened."{16} The attentive reader will, no doubt, take notice that in this narrative there is not a single turn of expression which looks like baptizing by immersion. There is no hint that Paul changed his raiment; or that he and Ananias went out of the house to a neighboring pond or stream. On the contrary, every part of the statement wears a different aspect. Paul, when Ananias went to him, was evidently extremely feeble. He was sitting or lying in the house, perfectly blind, and having taken no sustenance for three days. Can it be imagined that a wise and humane man, in these circumstances, would have had him carried forth, and plunged into cold water, which, in his exhausted state, would have been equally distressing and dangerous? It cannot be for a moment supposed. Nothing like it is hinted. Ananias simply directs him to “stand up and be baptized." “And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales; and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." It was after the baptism, as we learn, that he received sustenance and was “strengthened." It would really seem as if no impartial reader could receive any other impression from this account, than that Paul stood up, in the apartment, in which Ananias found him, and there received baptism by pouring or sprinkling on him a small quantity of that water which is applied in this ordinance as a symbol of spiritual cleansing. Again, the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, when duly considered, will be found equally remote from affording the smallest countenance to that conclusion in favor of immersion, which has been so often and so confidently drawn from it. The eunuch was travelling on the public high way, when Philip met him. They had been reading and commenting on a prophecy of the Messiah, in which mention is made of his sprinkling many nations. When they came to a rivulet of water, the eunuch said, “See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Philip had, no doubt, been explaining to him the nature, design, and obligation of this ordinance, or he would not have been likely to ask such a question. The servant of God consented to baptize him; and, as they were travelling, and probably destitute of any convenient vessel for dipping up a portion of water from the stream, they both went down to the water, probably no further than to its margin; far enough to take up a small portion of it to sprinkle or pour on the eunuch. The narrative, in the original, ascertains nothing more than that they both went to and from the water. In our translation, indeed, it is said, they both went down into the water, and came up out of the water. But, when we look into the original text, we find the strict meaning of the terms employed, to be, that Philip and the eunuch went down the banks to the water, and coming from the water, reascended the banks again, to the place where the chariot in which they rode had been left. The same form of expression is used as in the case of Peter and the tribute money, (Matthew 17:27.) “Go thou to the sea, and cast an hook," &c. Here we cannot suppose that our Lord meant to command Peter to plunge into the sea, but .only to go to the water’s edge, and cast in a hook. The same form of expression is also employed in many other passages of the New Testament, where immersion is wholly out of the question: As in John 2:12, where it is said, Jesus went down to Capernaum; Acts 7:15, Jacob went down into Egypt; Acts 18:22, He went down to Antioch, &c. Surely, no one will dream of immersion in any of these cases. There is nothing, then, in any of the language here used, which necessarily, or even probably, implies immersion. At any rate, the terms employed apply equally to both. There is the same evidence that Philip was plunged, as that the eunuch was. It is said they both went to the water. Nor can we consider it as at all likely that, in the circumstances in which they were placed as travelers, they were either of them immersed. It is plain, therefore, that all the confidence which our Baptist brethren have so often expressed, that the case of the Ethiopian eunuch is a certain example of immersion, must be regarded as presenting no solid evidence in their favor, and as really amounting to a gross imposition on popular credulity. The next remarkable instance of baptism recorded in the New Testament, is that of Cornelius and his household. Cornelius, a “devout man, who feared God," was directed, in a vision, to send for Peter, the apostle, who should impart to him the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ. Peter, on his arrival, having ascertained wherefore Cornelius had sent for him, unfolded to him, and to all who were convened in his house, the way of salvation. “While he was yet speaking, the Holy Ghost fell upon all of them which heard the word. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." In this passage, there is nothing that has the remotest appearance of immersion. No hint is given of the candidates for baptism being led out of the house, to a river or pool, for the purpose of being dipped. The language of Peter has an entirely different aspect. “Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized?" That is, “Can any man forbid water being brought in a convenient vessel, to be applied by pouring or sprinkling?" He had just spoken of the Holy Ghost being poured out upon them; and what could be more natural than that he should apply water, the emblem of spiritual cleansing, in conformity with the same striking figure? "They were not dipped into the Holy Ghost; but the Holy Ghost was poured upon them. They were not applied to the Holy Ghost; but the Holy Ghost was applied to them. He "fell upon them;" and the introduction of water, to be applied in a corresponding manner, was immediately authorized. The baptism of the jailer and his household, at Philippi, still more decisively leads to the same conclusion. If we examine the circumstances which attended this baptism, they will be found to preclude, not merely the probability, but I may say with confidence, the possibility of its having been performed by immersion. Paul and Silas were closely confined in prison when this solemn service was performed. While they were engaged in “praying and singing praises to God," a great earthquake shook the prison to its foundation, and the bonds of the prisoners were immediately unloosed. The jailer, awaking from his sleep, called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." This whole transaction, you will observe, occurred a little after midnight, and in a prison, that is, in the outer prison, for the jailer seems to have brought them out of the dungeon, or “inner prison," into some other apartment of the edifice. For it was not until next morning, some hours after the baptism, that the magistrates gave the keeper permission to let them out of the prison. He and his family were evidently baptized “the same hour of the night," that is, between midnight, when we are expressly told the earthquake occurred, and day; and while yet in the place of confinement. Now, I ask, how can we imagine it possible that the jailer and his family should be baptized by immersion, in the circumstances in which they were placed? We cannot suppose that there was a river, or a pool of water, or a baptistery within the walls of the prison, adapted to meet an occasion as unexpected as any thing could be, which had never occurred there before, and was never likely to occur, in like circumstances again. He who can believe this, must be ready to adopt any supposition, however extravagant, for the sake of an hypothesis. As little can we imagine that Paul and Silas would be dishonest enough to steal out of the prison by night, and accompany the jailer and his family to the river which runs near the city of Philippi, for the purpose of plunging them; especially as we know, on the one hand, how backward they were, the next morning, to quit the prison, unless brought out by the magistrates who had illegally imprisoned them; and, on the other hand, how much terrified the jailer was at the thought of the prisoners escaping from confinement, and of his being responsible even with his own life, for their safe keeping. In like manner, we might go over all the other cases of baptism recorded in the New Testament, and show that, in no one case, have we any evidence that the ordinance was administered by immersion. Now, as the disciples of Christ baptized such great multitudes — even more, at one period than John; can we imagine, if the constant, or even the common mode of baptizing had been by plunging the whole body under water, and especially, if they had laid great stress on adherence to this mode; can we imagine, I say, that amidst so many cases of baptism, some term of expression, some incidental circumstance would not have occurred, from which the fact of immersion might have been clearly manifested, or irresistibly inferred? One thing is certain. The inspired writers of the New Testament could not possibly have regarded immersion in baptism in the same light in which it is regarded by our Baptist brethren. The latter, consider their mode of applying water, as essential to the ordinance. They dwell upon it with unceasing fondness; introduce it into every discussion; and lose no opportunity of recommending and urging it as that, without which an alleged baptism is a nullity; nay, an offence to the Head of the church. While the former, though speaking, directly or indirectly on the subject, in almost every page of the New Testament, and under a great variety of aspects, have not stated a single fact, or employed a single term, which evinces that they either preferred or practiced immersion in any case. They have stated, indeed, some facts which can scarcely, by possibility, be reconciled with immersion; but in no instance, have they made a representation which is not entirely reconcilable with the practice of perfusion or sprinkling. On the supposition that the doctrine of our Baptist brethren is true, this is a most unaccountable fact! What! not one evangelist or apostle, though taught by the Spirit of God what to say — kind enough, or wise enough, to put this matter beyond a doubt! The unavoidable inference is, that the inspired writers did not deem the mode of applying water in baptism, an essential matter; and did not think it necessary to state it precisely; and, of course, that they differed entirely from our Baptist brethren. 4. Even if it could be proved (which we know it cannot be,) that the mode of baptism adopted in the time of Christ and his apostles, was that of immersion; yet if that method of administering the ordinance were not significant of some truth, which the other modes cannot represent, we are plainly at liberty to regard it as a non-essential circumstance, from which we may depart when expediency requires it, as we are all wont to do in other cases, even with respect to positive institutions. For example, the Lord’s Supper was, no doubt, originally instituted with unleavened bread; and this was, probably, at first, the common custom. But as being leavened or unleavened had nothing to do with the design and scope of the ordinance; as bread of either kind is equally emblematical of that spiritual nourishment which it is intended to represent; most professing Christians, and our Baptist brethren among the rest, feel authorized to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with leavened bread without the smallest scruple. Again: the manner of sitting at the Lord’s Supper, was, in conformity with the then prevailing posture at feasts,, to recline on the elbow on a couch. There can be no doubt that this was the uniform posture at the convivial table, at that time; and in the narratives of the evangelists, we have abundant evidence that the same posture was adopted by our blessed Lord in the institution of the sacramental Supper. But as it was only a circumstance connected with the habits of those days, we do not feel bound; and our Baptist brethren among others, do not feel bound, in administering this ordinance, to conform to the original mode. We consider the sacrament as completely and validly dispensed, if bread and wine be reverently received, in commemoration of the Savior’s death, with any posture of the body. Nay, the example of our Savior himself, plainly shows that, under a change of circumstances, non-essential modes, originally used, may be dispensed with. The prescribed ritual of the Passover required that the lamb should be eaten with shoes on the feet, and with staves in the hand; but this custom was not followed by Him or his disciples, and, perhaps, never was observed after the entrance into Canaan. But was the Passover rendered either less perfect, or less useful, for all practical purposes, by this omission? Surely we need not wait for an answer. Now, unless it can be proved, that plunging the body into water, and lifting it out again, was designed to be emblematical of something which cannot be otherwise expressed, we have full liberty given us by the example of our Lord himself, to consider this mode as an unimportant circumstance. If the cleansing element of water be applied, in any reverential mode, to the human body, the whole symbolical expression of the ordinance is attained, provided convenience and decorum be duly consulted. If the cleansing or purifying quality of the element used, be the idea intended to be set forth in the emblem; and if the greater part, as we have seen, of the typical purifications prescribed under the ceremonial economy were effected by sprinkling; it is plain that the emblem is complete, however the cleansing element may be applied. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: 01.07. SERMON IV. THE MODE OF ADMINISTERING BAPTISM ======================================================================== SERMON IV. THE MODE OF ADMINISTERING BAPTISM. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized? — Acts 10:47. 5. The difficulties attending the administration of baptism by immersion, in many cases, ought to satisfy us that this mode of administering the ordinance cannot be the only valid mode, and is not the most proper and edifying mode. It is perfectly evident, to every reflecting mind, that the obstacles which may be conceived, and which very frequently, in fact, occur, to render baptism by immersion difficult, if not impracticable, are very many, and very serious. It will be sufficient to hint at a few of the more familiar and obvious. It is well known that some very large districts of country, in various parts of our globe, are so parched and dry, and streams of water so rare, or rather, in many cases, so unknown, for many miles together, that the means of immersing a human body, in any natural stream or pool of water, cannot possibly be obtained but with great trouble and expense; a trouble and expense impracticable to a large portion of every community inhabiting those countries. There are other parts of our globe, near the polar regions, where, during the major portion of every year, the constant reign of severe frost, seals up every natural stream and fountain, and renders the immersion of a human body not merely difficult, but impracticable, without great labor and cost. Nor is this all; even in the temperate and well watered latitudes, there are seasons of the year, often of four or five month’s continuance, when baptism by immersion is generally dangerous, and in many cases, highly so, to the health, and even the lives of both those who administer, and those who receive the ordinance. {17} And, finally, at all seasons, persons laboring under disease, can never be baptized in this mode, with safety, at all; and, of course, must be deprived entirely of the privilege of receiving this seal of the Christian covenant, so reasonable in itself, and so gratifying to the pious mind. It is also certain, that Baptist ministers who are aged and infirm, can never safely officiate in baptizing in any case; and when they are men remarkably frail and feeble in body, they can never undertake, without manifest danger, to baptize individuals of large stature, or more than common corpulency. To all which may be added, that the public baptism of females, with all the delicacy and care which can possibly be employed, is certainly, as thousands attest, a practice little in keeping with those religious feelings and impressions with which it is desirable that every Christian solemnity should be attended. Now, contrast all these difficulties, which, surely, form a mass of no small magnitude, with the entire absence of every difficulty in baptizing by sprinkling or affusion. According to our plan, which, we have no doubt, is by far the most scriptural and edifying, baptism may be performed with equal ease and convenience in all countries; at all seasons of the year; in all situations of health or sickness; with equal safety by all ministers, whether young or old, athletic or feeble; and in all circumstances that can well be conceived. How admirably does this accord with the Gospel economy, which is not intended to be confined to any one people, or to any particular climate; but is equally adapted, in all its principles, and in all its rites to every “kindred, and people, and nation, and tongue!" Accordingly, it is a notorious fact, that, in consideration of the difficulties which have been mentioned as attending immersion, a large body of Baptists, in Holland, I mean the Mennonites, who were once warm and uncompromising contenders for this mode of administering baptism, at length gave it up, and, while they still baptize none but adults, have been, for more than a hundred years, in the practice of pouring water on the head of the candidate, through the hand of the administrator. They found that when candidates for baptism were lying on sick beds; or confined in prison; or in a state of peculiarly delicate health; or in various other unusual situations, which may be easily imagined; there was so much difficulty, not to say, in some cases, a total impossibility in baptizing by plunging; that they deliberately, as a denomination, after the death of their first leader, agreed to lay aside, as I said, the practice of immersion, and substituted the plan of affusion. There is one difficulty more, in reference to the mode of baptism by immersion, of which it is not easy to speak, on an occasion like the present, without appearing to intend ridicule of an ordinance so solemn and important. Fidelity to the subject, however, demands that I speak of it; and I trust no one will suspect me of a design to make any other than a perfectly grave and fair use of the matter to which I refer. The circumstance to which I allude is, that in the third, fourth, and immediately following centuries — in the days of Cyprian, Cyril, Athanasius, and Chrysostom — when, as all agree, the mode of baptizing by immersion was the most prevalent method; there is no historical fact more perfectly established, than that whenever baptism was thus administered, the candidate, whether infant or adult, male or female, was entirely divested of all clothing: not merely of outer garments, but, I repeat, of all clothing. No exception was allowed in any case, even when the most timid and delicate female importunately desired it. This fact is established, not only by the most direct and unequivocal statements, and that by a number of writers, but also by the narration of a number of curious particulars connected with this practice. {18} Among the rest, we are told of scenes of indecorum exhibited in the baptisteries of those days, which convinced the friends of religion that the practice ought to be discontinued, and it was finally laid aside. Perhaps it will be asked, whether this fact in the history of Christian baptism is adverted to for the purpose of reflecting odium, in a sinister and indirect manner, on the practice of immersion? I answer, by no means; but simply for the purpose of showing that in tracing the history of baptism by immersion, we have the very same evidence in favor of immersing divested of all clothings that we have for immersing at all; that, so far as the history of the church, subsequent to the apostolic age, informs us, these two practices must stand or fall together; {19} and that an appendage to baptism so revolting, so immoral, and so entirely inadmissible, plainly shows that those who practiced it, must have been chargeable with a superstitious and extravagant adoption of a mere form, which, from its character, we are compelled to believe was a human invention, and took its rise in the rudeness of growing superstition, perhaps from a source still more impure and criminal. Besides, if the principle for which our Baptist brethren contend, be correct; if the immersion of the whole body be essential to Christian baptism, and if the thing signified be the cleansing and purifying of the individual by an ablution which must of necessity extend to the whole person; it would really seem that performing this ceremony, divested of all clothing, is essential to its emblematic meaning. Who ever thought of covering the hands with gloves when they were about to be washed; or expected really to cleanse them through such a covering? No wonder, then, when the principle began to find a place in the church, that the submersion of every part of the body in water; that the literal bathing of the whole person was essential both to the expressiveness and the validity of the emblematical transaction; no wonder, I say, that the obvious consequence should soon be admitted, that the whole body ought to be uncovered, as never fails to be the case, with any member of the body which we wish to be successfully cleansed by bathing. And we have no hesitation in saying, that, if we fully adopted the general principle of our Baptist brethren in relation to this matter, we should no more think of subjecting the body to that process which must, in order to its validity, be strictly emblematical of a complete spiritual bathing, while covered with clothes; than we should think, in common life, of washing the hands or the feet, while carefully covered with the articles of dress with which they are commonly clothed. Whereas, if the principle of Paedobaptists on this subject be adopted, then the solemn application of water to that part of the body which is an epitome of the whole person, and which is always, as a matter of course, uncovered, is amply sufficient to answer every purpose both of emblem and of benefit. Besides, let me appeal to our Baptist brethren, by asking, if they verily believe that the primitive and apostolic mode of administering baptism was by immersion, and that this immersion was performed in a state of entire nakedness; how can they dare, upon their principles, to depart, as to one iota from that mode? Let them not say, that they carefully retain the substance, the essential characters of the plan of immersion. Very true. This is our plea; and it accords very well with what we consider as the correct system; but in the mouth of a Baptist it is altogether inadmissible. The institute in question is a “positive" one; and, according to him, we must not depart one jot or tittle from the original plan. These considerations, my friends, strike me as affording decisive evidence, that a mode of baptism, attended with so many real and formidable difficulties, cannot be of divine appointment; at any rate that it cannot be universally binding on the Church of God; and that laying so much stress upon the completeness of the submersion, is servility and superstition. We may say of this ordinance, as our Lord said of the Sabbath, Baptism was made for man, and not man for baptism. Where a particular mode of complying with a religious observance would be, in many cases, “a yoke of bondage," and one, too, for which no divine warrant could be pleaded, it would surely argue the very slavery of superstition, to enforce that mode of the observance as essential to a regular standing in the visible family of Christ. 6. As a further objection to the doctrine of our Baptist brethren in relation to the mode of baptism, let us examine some of the figurative language of Scripture which refers to this ordinance; and especially certain passages on which they are accustomed to place the greatest reliance for the support of their cause. Perhaps no passages of Scripture have been more frequently and confidently pressed into the service of baptism by immersion than those which are found in Romans 6:3-4, and Colossians 2:12. In the former we find the following: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Corresponding with this, in Colossians 2:12, the following passage occurs: “Buried with him in baptism; wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Now, our Baptist brethren, believing and insisting that baptism and immersion ought to be considered, in all cases, as synonymous terms, take for granted that the expression, “Buried with him in baptism," is intended to refer to the resemblance between the interment of a dead body, and its subsequent resurrection from beneath the surface of the earth; and the immersion of a baptized person entirely under the water, and raising him up again from beneath the surface of the fluid. In a word, our Baptist brethren assure us, that the design of the apostle in these passages is to say, that “the baptized person’s communion with Christ in his death and burial, is represented by his being laid under the water; and his communion with him in his resurrection, by his being raised out of it." In this general interpretation of the figure many Paedobaptists have agreed; and have thus not a little confirmed the confidence of antiPaedobaptists in their cause. I am persuaded, however, that a candid examination of the real import of the figurative language before us, will show that this confidence is entirely unfounded. The aposde, in the preceding part of the Epistle to the Romans, had shown that Christians are justified by faith in the righteousness of Christ. He proceeds in the sixth chapter to obviate the objection, that this doctrine tends to licentiousness. “What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!" He rejects with abhorrence the odious thought. “How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?" He then adverts to the significance of baptism, which, being the ordinance which seals our introduction into the family of Christ, may be considered as exhibiting both the first principles of Gospel truth, and the first elements of Christian character. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?" He then infers, that since baptism has so immediate a reference to the death of Christ, it must, by consequence, be connected also with his resurrection; and that, as in the former view, it teaches the regenerated the abandoning of the old life of sin; so, in the latter, it equally teaches them the pursuit and progress of the new life of righteousness. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." The obvious design of the apostle is to illustrate the character and obligations of believers, from the circumstance, that they are, in a certain respect, conformed to Christ’s death: that as he died /br sin, so they are dead, or are under obligations to be dead, to sin; that is, they are holy, or are, by their profession, obliged to be holy. “So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death." And this is explained by what follows. “In that Christ died, he died unto sin (or on account of sin) once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, (or in respect to sin,) but alive unto God through Jesus Christ." This is what was signified by baptism. And so believers were baptized into Christ’s death: not that baptism was a symbol of death, or the state of the dead; for water, or washing in water, never was a symbol of this. But water, used in ceremonial, whether by washing or sprinkling, and afterwards in Christian baptism, always signified the fact, or the acknowledged necessity of ’purification. Now being dead, or in a state of death to sin, is the same thing as to be spiritually purified, or made holy. And this is the very thing that baptism, coming in the place of absolutions under the former economy, is exactly adapted to signify. Or, to say all in a word, water used in baptism is a sign of that moral purification of believers, which the apostle means to express by their being crucified, dead and conformed to Christ’s death." Their being dead in conformity with Christ, is the expression which contains the metaphor. And baptism, as an appointed token or symbol, denotes what is signified by the metaphor, not the metaphor itself."{20} The sum of the apostle’s illustrations, then, so far as the point before us is concerned, is simply this — That in baptism, as a rite emblematical oi moral purification ^ Christians profess to be baptized into the death of Christ, as well as into (or into the hope of) his resurrection; that they are dead and buried in respect to sin, that is, in a moral and spiritual sense; so that every Christian can say, with Paul — “I am crucified with Christ; I have been made conformable to his death; being dead indeed to sin, and alive to God by Jesus Christ." But besides all this, which is sufficient of itself to show how little reliance is to be placed on the gloss of this passage adopted by our Baptist brethren — the burial of Christ was by no means such as the friends of this exposition commonly suppose. The body of our Savior was never buried in the manner in which we are accustomed to inter human corpses, that is by letting it down into the bosom of the earth, and covering it with earth. It was placed in a tomb hewn out of a rock; not a tomb sunk in the earth, but hollowed out of a rock, above ground, and containing separate cells for the reception of bodies, “as the manner of the Jews was to bury." Even supposing, then, that it were yielded to our Baptist brethren that the design of the apostle is to teach the mode of baptism, by comparing it to the burial of Christ, it would by no means serve their purpose. There was not in fact any such subterranean immersion, if the expression may be allowed, as they imagine. The body of the Savior was evidently laid in a stone cell, above ground, in which no earth came in contact with it, and in which, when the stone which closed up the door was taken away, the body was distinctly visible. In short, the burial of Christ no more resembled the modern interment of a dead body among us, than the depositing such a body, for a time, in an apartment in the basement story of a dwelling house, the floor of which was either not sunk below the surface of the earth at all, or, if any, not more than a few inches; admitting of free ingress and egress as a common inhabited room. The figure in question, then, does not serve the turn of our Baptist brethren; thus affording another proof, that nothing more was intended by its use, than to set forth that, by being baptized into the death of Christ, we profess to be dead and buried in respect to sin, without any reference whatever to the mode in which either the burial or the baptism might be performed. Accordingly, in the verse immediately preceding that before commented on, in the second Epistle to the Colossians, the following passage occurs, evidently intended to teach the same lesson: “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." And in the verse immediately following that in which the burial of Christ is alluded to, the figure of circumcision as an emblem of spiritual cleansing, is still pursued: “And you being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." Here, it is plain, the same general idea is meant to be conveyed, as in the reference to baptism, which has come in the room of circumcision. In both the putting away sin; the “putting off the sins of the flesh," is emblematically represented and sealed: as a man dead and buried is cut off from all temporal connections and indulgences; so the baptized man is really, or at least by profession, dead to sin, and in this way made conformable to the death of Christ, in its great design and efficacy, which are to purify to himself a peculiar people, dead to the world, dead to carnal ambition, and secluded from every unhallowed practice. Another signal example of the figurative language of Scripture applied to baptism, occurs in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2. “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Now, when we turn to the narrative given by Moses, in the fourteenth chapter of Exodus we find that the Red Sea, through which the Israelites passed, was divided before them; that the waters stood up like a wall on each side; and that they passed through ON DRY GROUND. We are also informed, that the cloud by which their line of march was divinely directed, did not even fall upon them in the form of a shower, much less submerge them; but that it alternately went behind them and before them; now hanging in their rear, for the purpose of concealing them from their enemies; and then preceding them in their course, presenting a face of splendor to them, and a face of darkness to their pursuers. In all this, there was evidently nothing like immersion. The utmost that could have happened, in consistency with the inspired narrative, was their being sprinkled by the spray of the sea, or by drops from the miraculous cloud, when it passed over their heads. The last passage of the class under consideration to which I shall advert, is that found in the first Epistle of Peter, 1 Peter 3:20-21 : “The long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The principle implied in this passage is plain; and it affords not the smallest countenance to the doctrine of our Baptist brethren. Every one sees, that in the case of Noah and his family," and of all the animals preserved with them in the ark, there was no immersion in the waters of the flood. Nay, this was the very evil from which the ark preserved them. Of course, whatever else the passage may prove, it is impossible that it should be legitimately considered as favoring baptism by plunging the whole body under water. 7. Further; that immersion is not necessary in baptism; and that to insist upon it, as indispensable, is superstition, appears from the indisputable fact, that both the significance and the effect of baptism are to be considered as depending, not on the physical influence of water, or upon the quantity of it employed, but on its symbolical meaning, and on the blessing of God upon its application as a symbol. There has always been a tendency in human nature to lay more stress than the Bible warrants upon outward forms; and to imagine that external rites have a virtue inherent in themselves, by which their recipients are of course savingly benefited. It is generally granted by enlightened Protestants to be one of the mischievous errors of Popery, that baptism, and the other appointed rites of our religion, when administered by authorized hands, have an inherent efficacy; a sort of self-operating power on those to whom they are administered. This we consider as a superstitious and dangerous error. We believe that no external ordinance has any power in itself; but that its power to benefit those who receive it, depends altogether upon the influence of the Holy Spirit of God, making it effectual; and that this influence may accompany or follow the ordinance, whatever may be the outward form of its administration. If, indeed, we had reason to believe that the benefit of baptism was caused by the physical influence of water on any or every part of the body, and depended upon that influence: if the least intimation of this kind were given us, either by the word of God, or the nature of the case; it would be wise to insist on a rigorous adherence to that form. But as the benefit of the ordinance has no connection, so far as we know, with the operation of water on the animal frame; but is the result, solely, of a divine blessing on a prescribed and striking emblem; and as the word of God has no where informed us of the precise mode in which that emblem shall be applied — we infer that the divine blessing may attend upon any mode of applying it. The language of our blessed Savior, on a memorable occasion, is full of instruction on this subject. In order to give his disciples a striking lesson both of humility and purity, he condescended, on a certain evening, when they were assembled under solemn circumstances, to wash their feet. Simon Peter, when his Master came to him, like too many at the present day, misunderstanding the nature and significance of the symbolical action, at first strongly objected, and said, “Thou shalt never wash my feet." Jesus answered, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in me." To which Peter, in the fullness of his fervent zeal, replied, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.” Jesus, however, meaning to convey the idea that the whole action was symbolical, and that the application of water to any part of the body was abundantly sufficient, rejoins to Peter, “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit:" as much as to say, “It is not the physical ablution, but the symbolical meaning, to which I now wish to call your attention; and for this purpose the application of water to the feet only, carries with it all the fullness of meaning, and all the richness of benefit, that could have resulted from the most plentiful application of it to the whole frame." 8. Another, and in my view, conclusive reason for believing that our Baptist brethren are in error, in insisting that no baptism unless by immersion is valid, is, that the native tendency of this doctrine is to superstition and abuse. The tendency here alleged has been often observed and lamented by serious people, as likely to be connected with a false hope, and to destroy the souls of multitudes. Facts in support of this remark have fallen under my own painful observation. I have known many Baptists, who appeared to feel as if there was some inherent efficacy in being “buried under the water," and that those who submitted to that "self-denying" rite, were, of course, real Christians. They have evidently appeared to think that that was the great step in religion; and that, having taken it, all was secure. Now, I contend, that this is the natural tendency of the Baptist doctrine; that their laying so much stress upon “going under the water," and holding it up, with unceasing zeal, to the popular view, as the great, distinguishing, and indispensable badge of discipleship, is, unavoidably, adapted to betray "unwary souls" into a delusive confidence. There is no disposition in depraved human nature more deeply inwrought, or more incessantly operative, than the disposition to rely upon something done by us for securing the divine favor. It is this disposition which has led to all that enormous mass of superstitious observances, which distinguishes the Papal system, and which we have every reason to believe is built upon by millions, as the foundation of hope, instead of Christ. Whenever, therefore, any external rite becomes the grand distinction of a sect, and the object of something approaching to sectarian idolatry, we may be sure there exists not only the danger, but the actual commencement, to some extent, of that superstitious reliance, which he who has not learned to fear, “knows nothing of the human heart yet as he ought to know." That this suggestion has something more than mere fancy on which to rest, is evident from facts of recent and ’ most mournful occurrence. A large and daily increasing sect has arisen, within a few years, in the bosom of the Baptist denomination, which maintains the delusive and destructive doctrine, that baptism is regeneration; that no man can be regenerated who is not immersed; and that all, without exception, who have a historical faith, and are immersed, are, of course, in a state of salvation. This pernicious heresy, so contrary to the plainest principles and facts of the word of God, and so manifestly adapted to destroy the souls of all who believe it, has been propagated to a melancholy extent, by a plausible, reckless, and impious demagogue, and is supposed to embrace one half of the Baptist body in the western country, besides many in the east. In short, the Baptist churches, in large districts of country, are so rent in pieces, and deluded by the miserable impostor referred to, that their prospects, for many years to come, are not only gloomy, but, without a special interposition of the King of Zion in their favour, altogether desperate. Now I maintain that this wretched delusion is by no means an unnatural result of the doctrine and practice of our Baptist brethren, in regard to the baptismal rite. Multitudes of them, I know, reject and abhor the heresy in question as much as any of us. But have they duly considered, that it seems naturally to have grown out of their own theory and practice in regard to baptism; their attaching such a disproportioned importance to the mode of administering that ordinance; often, very often, directing the attention of the people more to the river than the cross; excluding all from Christian communion, however pious, who have not been immersed; and making representations which, whether so intended or not, naturally lead the weak and the uninformed to consider immersion as a kind of talisman, always connected with a saving blessing? This I sincerely believe, is the native tendency of the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, although they, I am equally confident, neither perceive nor admit this to be the case. If pious Christians who have not been immersed, cannot be admitted to communion in the church below, there would seem to be still more reason for excluding them from the purer church above. And so far as this principle is received and cherished, though far from being alike mischievous in all cases, it can scarcely fail of predisposing many minds in favor of that awful delusion, by which we have reason to believe that not a few, under its higher workings, have been blinded, betrayed, and lost. 9. Finally; that immersion cannot be considered, to say the least, as essential to a valid baptism, is plain from the history of this ordinance. It is not denied that, for the first few centuries after Christ, the most common mode of administering baptism was by immersion. But it is maintained, that affusion and sprinkling were also practiced, and when used, were considered as perfectly valid and sufficient. Of this the proof is so complete and indubitable, that no one really acquainted with the early history of the church, will think, for a moment, of calling it in question. The learned Wall, whose “History of Infant Baptism" is generally considered, by competent judges, as one of the most profound and faithful works extant, on the subject before us; after showing conclusively that Paedobaptists ought not to refuse the admission, that baptism by dipping, was the most prevalent mode, even in the western church, for a number of centuries after Christ; goes on to remark that, on the other hand, the AntiPaedobaptists will be quite as unfair in their turn, if they do not grant, that in cases of sickness, weakliness, haste, want of a sufficient quantity of water, or any such extraordinary occasion, baptism by the affusion of water on the face, was, by the ancients, counted sufficient baptism. Of the testimony which he offers in support of this statement, a specimen will be presented. {21} Eusebius states, (Book 6. chapter 43.) on the authority of preceding writers, that Novatian being sick, and near death, as was supposed, was baptized on his bed by affusion. He, however, recovered, and was afterwards ordained to the work of the ministry. And although some questioned, whether a man who had been brought to make a profession of religion only on a sick bed, and when he considered himself as about to die, ought to be made a minister; yet this doubt arose, we are assured, not from any apprehension that the baptism itself was incomplete; but on the principle, that he who came to the faith not voluntarily, but from necessity, ought not to be made a priest, unless his subsequent diligence and faith should be distinguished and highly commendable. Of the character of Cyprian, who flourished in the former part of the third century, enough has been said in a preceding discourse. A certain Magnus, a country minister, consulted him on the question, whether those who had been introduced into the Christian church, by baptism, on their sick beds, and, of course, by affusion, or sprinkling, ought to be baptized again, if they recovered? Cyprian’s answer to this question is as follows: "You inquire, my dear son, what I think of such as attain grace in time of sickness and infirmity: whether they are to be accounted lawful Christians, because they have not been washed all over with the water of salvation, but have only had some of it poured on them. In which matter I would use so much modesty and humility, as not to prescribe so positively, but that every one should enjoy the freedom of his own thought, and do as he thinks best. I do, however, according to the best of my mean capacity, judge thus: That the divine favors can in no wise be mutilated or weakened, so that any thing less than the whole of them is conveyed, where the benefit of them is received with a full and complete faith, on the part both of the giver and receiver. For, in the sacrament of salvation, the contagion of sin is not washed off in the same manner as the filth of the body is in a carnal and secular bath. It is entirely in a different way that the heart of a believer — it is after another fashion that the mind of man is by faith cleansed. In the sacraments of salvation, through the indulgence of God, when necessity compels, the shortest way of transacting divine matters, conveys the whole benefit to those who believe. Nor let any be moved by the fact, that the sick, when they are baptized, are only perfused or sprinkled, since the Scripture says, by the prophet Ezekiel, (Ezekiel 36:25; Ezekiel 36:36.) "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you; a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you." It is also said in the book of Numbers, (Numbers 19:1-22) “And the man which shall be unclean until the evening, shall be purified on the third day, and on the seventh day, and he shall be clean. But if he shall not be purified on the third day, and on the seventh day, he shall not be clean, and that soul shall be cut oflf from Israel, because the water of aspersion hath not been sprinkled upon him." And again, the Lord spake unto Moses, in the book of Numbers, (Numbers 8:1-26) “Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them; and thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them; sprinkle water of purifying upon them." And again, “the water of aspersion is purification." From which it appears that sprinkling is sufficient instead of immersion; and whensoever it is done, if there be a sound faith, on the part both of the giver and receiver, it is perfect and complete." From these passages, as well as from a number of others, which might be quoted, found in the works of Cyprian, it is evident, that, in a little more than one hundred and fifty years from the death of the last apostle, cases of baptism by perfusion or sprinkling had notoriously, and in repeated instances, occurred; that such examples were found among the heretics, as well as in the orthodox church; that a man so learned and pious as the venerable Cyprian, was decisively of the opinion that they were to be justified; and, finally, that he considered this as a point concerning which Christians were at liberty to entertain their own opinion, and to do as they judged best. Plainly implying that he did not consider it at all as an essential matter. Origen was contemporary with Cyprian. He wrote in the Greek language. It was his vernacular tongue; and he was, probably, the most learned man of the century in which he lived. This venerable Christian father, commenting on 1 Kings 18:33, in which we read of Elijah’s ordering water to be poured on the burnt sacrifice, tells us that he baptized the wood on the altar. Was not Origen a good judge of the meaning of a Greek word? Can we imagine that he would have used the word baptize in this sense, if he had regarded immersion as its exclusive meaning? When Laurentius, a Roman deacon, about the middle of the third century, was brought to the stake to suffer martyrdom, a soldier who had been employed to be one of his executioners, professed to be converted, and requested baptism from the hands of him whom he had been engaged to assist in burning. For this purpose, pitcher of water was brought, and the soldier baptized at the place of execution. In circumstances so solemn as these, surely no conscientious man would have sported with a divine ordinance, or subjected it to any essential mutilation. It was, doubtless, deemed a sufficient mode of administering baptism. {22} Gennadius, a distinguished ecclesiastic of Marseilles, in the fifth century, speaks of baptism as administered in the French church indifferently, by either immersion or affusion, or sprinkling. For having said, “We believe the way of salvation to be open only to baptized persons;” he adds, "except only in the case of martyrdom, in which all the sacraments of baptism are completed." Then, to show how martyrdom has all in it that baptism has, he says, “The person to be baptized, owns his faith before the priest; and when the interrogatories are put to him, makes his answer. The same does a martyr before the heathen judge. He also owns his faith; and when the question is put to him, makes answer. The one, after his confession, is either wetted with the water, or else plunged into it; and the other, is either wetted with his own blood, or plunged into the fire." This language plainly evinces that, in the time of Gennadius, both modes of baptism were in use and deemed equally valid. Thomas Aquinas, and Bonaventura, are well known as two learned ecclesiastics of the twelfth century. In their time it is evident that both plunging and affusion were used in the churches of Italy, in the administration of baptism. Aquinas, in writing on the subject, expresses himself thus: “Baptism may be given not only by immersion, but also by affusion of water, or by sprinkling with it. But it is the safer way to baptize by immersion, because that is the most common custom." On the other hand, his contemporary, Bonaventura, observes, “The way of affusion in baptism was probably used by the apostles, and was, in his time, used in the churches of France, and some others;" but remarks, “The method of dipping into the water is the more common, and therefore the fitter and safer." The Synod of Angiers, A. D. 1275, speaks of dipping and pouring as indifferently used; and blames some ignorant priests, because they dipped, or poured on water, but once; and at the same time declaring that the general custom of the church was to dip, or to pour on water three times. The Synod of Langres, A. D. 1404, speaks of pouring or perfusion only. “Let the priest make three pourings or sprinklings of water on the infants head," &c. The Council of Cologne, in 1536, evidently intimate that both modes were constantly practiced. Their language is, “The child is thrice either dipped, or wetted with water." Fifteen years afterwards, in the Agenda of the church of Mentz, published by Sebastian, there is found the following direction: “Then let the priest take the child on his left arm, and holding him over the font, let him, with his right hand, three several times, take water out of the font, and pour it on the child’s head, so that the water may wet its head and shoulders." Then they give a note to this purpose; that immersion, once or thrice, or pouring of water may be used, and have been used, in the church; that this variety does not alter the nature of baptism; and that a man would do ill to break the custom of the church for either of them. But they add, that it is better, if the church will allow, to use pouring on of water. “For suppose," say they, “the priest be old and feeble, or have the palsy in his hands; or the weather be very cold; or the child be very infirm; or too big to be dipped in the font; then it is much fitter to use affusion of the water." Then they bring the instance of the apostles baptizing three thousand at a time; and the instance of Laurentius, the Roman deacon, before spoken of — and add, “That, therefore, there may not be one way for the sick, and another for the healthy; one for children, and another for bigger persons; it is better that the administrator of this sacrament do observe the safest way, which is, to pour water thrice; unless the custom be to the contrary."{23} One more historical record, which, though apparently inconsiderable in itself, is, in my view, decisive, shall close the present list of testimonies. It is one referred to in a former discourse, when speaking of Infant baptism. I mean the undoubted fact, that the Waldenses, those farfamed and devoted witnesses of the truth, who maintained, during the darkness and desolation of the Papacy, “the testimony of Jesus," very soon after the Reformation opened, approached, with the most cordial friendliness, the Reformed churches of Geneva and France; recognized them as sisters in the Lord; received ministers from them; and maintained with them the most affectionate communion. Now it is certain that, at that time, in the churches of both Geneva and France, the baptism of infants, and the administration of the ordinance by sprinkling, were in constant use. On such an incontestable fact, the argument is this: The Waldenses either baptized by sprinkling or by immersion. If by sprinkling, an important testimony is gained in favor of that mode, from ecclesiastical history. If by immersion, they plainly laid no such stress upon the mode as our Baptist brethren now do; since they were willing to commune with, and to receive ministers from, churches which were in the habit of using sprinkling only. In my view, as I said, this argument is decisive. We know that the Waldenses habitually baptized infants; but in what mode they administered the ordinance is not quite so certain. But one thing is unquestionable; and that is, that those pious witnesses for Christ, even if they did immerse, did not consider the mode as essential, but were ready to hold the most unreserved communion with those who practiced aspersion. These testimonies, and many more to the same purpose, which might be presented if it were necessary, must, it appears to me, satisfy every impartial mind, that, from the days of the apostles, down to the Reformation, affusion and sprinkling in baptism, as well as immersion, have been in constant use; that some of the gravest and most soberminded writers have firmly defended the two former, as well as the latter; that the strong arguments in favor of affusion or sprinkling, as the preferable mode, have been, in all ages, distinctly appreciated; and that it has ever been considered as a part of Christian liberty to use either mode, as may be conscientiously preferred. Suffer me now to close this discussion by presenting two or three practical inferences from the view which has been given of this latter part of the subject. And, 1. If our statement of evidence as to the mode of baptism be correct, then the conduct of our Baptist brethren, in not only denying to the infant seed of believers all right to membership in the church, but also making immersion indispensable to a valid baptism, are chargeable with taking ground which is plainly unscriptural, and with dividing the body of Christ, for a mere uncommanded circumstance; a circumstance in regard to which all reasoning, and all history are, on the whole, against them. We do not deny that the baptisms of these brethren are valid; but we do deny that they rest upon any more solid ground than ours; and we are persuaded that, without the least authority, they lay on the recipients of baptism “a yoke of bondage," which has no warrant from the Word of God; and which the whole genius of the Gospel forbids. Surely, if the inspired writers had regarded immersion in the same light with our Baptist brethren, we should have had some explicit statements on this subject in the instructions given to the churches in the infancy of their New Testament course. And, surely, the attempt to lay burdens which the Spirit of God has no where authorized, is to incur the guilt imputed to those who "add to" the things which are contained in the book of life. On this subject I feel that it is no longer our duty to content ourselves with standing on the defensive. Our opponents in this controversy, I verily believe, are chargeable with “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men;" and, of course, I consider them as equally sinning against the Head of the church, and against “the generation of the righteous." 2. These things being so, we may see how the conduct of some of our Baptist brethren, in particular states of the church, ought to be regarded by the friends of Zion. The conduct to which I refer is, their having so often intruded into churches in which some religious attention has existed, and in which scarcely a family of their own denomination was to be found; and when the minds of many individuals were anxious respecting their eternal interest, immediately broaching the controversy respecting infant baptism, and immersion, and distressing the consciences of serious inquirers — not with the great and momentous question, “what they shall do to be saved?" but — before their minds are at all settled as to their personal hope in Christ, or their fitness for any sacramental seal; perplexing them with the controversy about an external rite, which they themselves grant is not essential to salvation. I have personally known such proceedings to occur, with a frequency as wonderful as it was revolting; and with an obtrusive zeal worthy of a better cause. Young and timid consciences have been distressed, if not with the direct assertion, at least by the artful insinuation, that their particular mode of baptism was all in all; that there could be no safe Christianity without it. The river, the river, really seemed, by some, to be placed in the room of the Savior! There is something in all this so deeply offensive to every enlightened and judicious Christian; which involves so much meanness; and which manifests so much more concern for the enlargement of a sect, than the salvation of souls, that it is difficult to speak of it in terms of as strong reprobation as it deserves, without infringing on the limits of Christian decorum and respectfulness. It is conduct of which no candid and generous mind, actuated by the spirit of Christ, will ever be guilty. And, I am happy to add, it is conduct in which many belonging to the denomination to which I allude, have souls too enlarged and elevated to allow themselves to indulge. 3. Once more; let us all be careful, my Christian friends, as a practical deduction from what has been said, to forbear “returning evil for evil," on this, or any other point of ecclesiastical controversy. However other denominations may treat us; let us never be chargeable with treating them in an unchristian manner. We are conscientiously compelled to differ from our Baptist brethren. We believe them to be in error; in important and highly mischievous error. But what then? They are still brethren in Christ. Let us, therefore, love them, and, however they may treat us, treat them with fraternal respectfulness, and seek their welfare. Let us never indulge a spirit of unhallowed proselytism. Let us never employ any other weapons against them than those of candid argument, and fervent prayer. Instead of “doting about questions, and strifes of words, whereof come envy, railings, evil surmisings, and corrupt disputings;" let us follow after patience, forbearance and charity; ever remembering that all who really belong to Christ, however they may differ in externals, are “one body in Him, and members one of another." May we all be deeply imbued with the spirit which ought to flow from this precious truth; and may all that we do be done with charity! Amen! ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: 01.08. ADDITIONAL NOTES: NOTE A. GIVING A NAME IN BAPTISM ======================================================================== (Note A.) Giving a Name in baptism. In administering the rite of circumcision, it was customary to give a name to the child. This is evident from the circumstances attending the circumcision of John the Baptist, as related in the Gospel according to Luke 1:59-64; and also those attending the circumcision of our blessed Savior, as found recorded in the next chapter of the same Gospel. The same practice probably existed, from the earliest period of the New Testament church, in the administration of baptism. It makes, however, no necessary, or even important, part of the rite. A baptism administered without a name, would, of course, be just as valid as if one were announced. And there is nothing in the essential nature of the case, which would forbid a name given to a child in baptism being reconsidered and altered afterwards. Yet, inasmuch as a child, when baptized, is announced to the church as a new member, subject to its maternal watch and care, it ought, in common, for obvious reasons, to be introduced and known under some name, so that each child may be distinguished, and may receive its appropriate treatment. To introduce a nameless member into any society, would be both unreasonable and inconvenient. Moreover, it is of great consequence, both to civil and religious society, that the birth and baptism of every child be recorded in regular church books. The formation of this record requires, it is evident, the use of a name; and after the name is adopted and recorded in this public register, it is plain that frequent alterations of the name, and tampering, in a corresponding manner, with the public register, would lead to endless confusion and mischief. Thus we are conducted, by a very obvious train of reasoning, to the conclusion that the name announced in baptism, ought, in general, to be carefully retained, without subtraction or addition. Sometimes, indeed, the civil law requires such registers to be made and preserved, in regard to every birth and baptism. "Where this is the case, there is, evidently, an additional reason for adhering strictly to the name announced in baptism, recorded in the appropriate register, and thus brought under official notice, and recorded as the property of the state. See a number of curious questions proposed and resolved, concerning the names imposed in baptism, in the Politics Ecclesiasticse of the learned Gisbertus Voetius. Tom. I. p. 714-724. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: 01.09. ADDITIONAL NOTES: NOTE B. BAPTISMAL REGENERATION ======================================================================== (Note B.) Baptismal Regeneration. This unscriptural and pernicious doctrine is not confined to the Roman Catholics, in whose system it may without impropriety be said to be indigenous; but is also frequently found in the pulpits and the manuals of some Protestants^ in the midst of whose general principles, it ought to be regarded as a poisonous exotic. I. The doctrine referred to, as held by some Protestants, in its most objectionable form, appears to be this: — that the spiritual change which the Scriptures designate by the term regeneration, is always attendant upon, and effected by, the rite of baptism, when duly administered; that, on the one hand, every person, infant or adult, who has been baptized by an authorized minister, is a regenerated person; and that, on the other, every person who has not been baptized, however deep or mature his penitence and faith, is still unregenerate. In short, the position is, that the inward grace of regeneration always accompanies the outward sign of baptism; that they are inseparable; that the one cannot exist without the other; that he who has been thus regenerated, if he die without falling from grace, is certainly saved; that baptism is essential to salvation; and that to call by the name of regeneration any moral change, from the love of sin to the love of holiness, which takes place either before or after baptism, is unscriptural and absurd. This, as I understand them, is the doctrine maintained by Bishop Tomline, Bishop Marsh, Bishop Mant, and a number of other writers, of equal conspicuity, in the church of England, and by not a few divines of the Protestant Episcopal church in our own country. This doctrine, I apprehend, is contrary to Scripture; contrary to experience; contrary to the declared opinion of the most wise, pious, and venerated divines even of the Episcopal denomination; and adapted to generate the most dangerous errors with regard to Christian character, and the Gospel plan of salvation. 1. It is contrary to Scripture. Without regeneration, the Scriptures declare, it is impossible to enter into the kingdom of heaven. But the penitent malefactor on the cross undoubtedly entered into the kingdom of heaven, if we are to credit our Lord’s express declaration. Yet this penitent, believing malefactor was never baptized, therefore he was regenerated without baptism; and, of course, regeneration and baptism are not inseparably connected. Again; Simon Magus received the outward and visible ordinance of baptism, with unquestionable regularity, by an authorized administrator; yet who will venture to say, that he received the “inward and invisible grace" signified and represented in that ordinance? He was evidently from the beginning a hypocrite, and remained, after baptism, as before “in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.*’ Therefore the outward and sensible sign, and the inward and invisible grace are not in all cases, or necessarily, connected. Again; it is evident that the apostle Paul, Lydia, the Ethiopian Eunuch, the Philippian Jailor, who “believed with the heart," and were, consequently, brought into a state of acceptance with God before they were baptized. But we are told (John 1:12-13.) that as many as believe have been “born of God," and made the “sons of God." Of course, regeneration may take place, in the case of adults, ought to take place, and in these cases, did take place, before baptism; and, consequently, is not the same thing with baptism, or inseparably connected with that rite. Once more; we are assured in Scripture, that “he who is born of God, or regenerated, doth not commit sin, (that is, deliberately or habitually,) for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God;" and farther, that “every one that loveth is ’ born of God’ and knoweth God;" and that “whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." But can it be said that this character belongs to all who are baptized? Or, that none who are unbaptized manifest that they possess it? Surely no one in his senses will venture to make the assertion. Therefore a man may be “born of God" before he is baptized, and, consequently, the administration of the outward ordinance, and that work of the Holy Spirit, called in the word of God regeneration, are not always connected. 2. The doctrine before us is as contrary to experience as it is to Scripture. “It is asserted," says an eminent divine of the church of England, now living — “It is asserted, that the spiritual change of heart called regeneration invariably takes place in the precise article of baptism. If this assertion be well founded, the spiritual change in question will invariably take place in every adult at the identical moment when he is baptized; that is to say, at the very instant when the hand of the priest brings his body in contact with the baptismal water; at that precise instant, his understanding begins to be illuminated, his will to be reformed, and his affections to be purified. Hitherto he has walked in darkness; but now, to use the scriptural phrase, he has passed from darkness to light. Hitherto he has been wrapped in a death-like sleep of trespasses and sins; but now he awakes, and rises from the dead, Christ himself giving him life. Hitherto he has been a chaos of vice, and ignorance, and spiritual confusion; the natural man receiving not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: but now he is created after God in righteousness and true holiness; being in Christ he is a “new creature;” having become spiritual, the things of the Spirit of God are no longer foolishness to him; he knows them because they are spiritually discerned. Such are the emphatic terms in which regeneration is described by the inspired writers. What we have to do, therefore, I apprehend, is forthwith to inquire, whether every baptized adult, without a single exception, is invariably found to declare, that, in the precise article of baptism, his soul experienced a change analogous to that which is so unequivocally set forth in the above-mentioned texts of Scripture." {24} We need not dwell long on the inquiry. The fact is notoriously not so. Nor does it diminish the difficulty, in admitting the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, to say, as the Arminian advocates of this doctrine invariably do say, that those who are once regenerated may fall from grace, and manifest a most unhallowed temper. This is not the question. The question is, does experience evince, that every subject of baptism, who has reached an age capable of manifesting the Christian character, does, at the moment of receiving the baptismal water, show that he is the subject of that regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, by which “old things are passed away, and all things become new in the Lord?" No one who has a particle of intelligence or candor can imagine that any such fact exists; but if it do not, then the doctrine under consideration falls of course. 3. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is contrary to the declared opinion of the most pious, judicious, and venerable Protestant divines, including those of the very highest authority in the church of England. Nothing can be more certain than that the mass of the English reformers distinctly taught that baptism is a sign only of regeneration, and that the thing signified might or might not accompany the administration of the outward ordinance, according as it was received worthily or otherwise. In support of this assertion, the most explicit quotations might be presented from the writings of those distinguished martyrs and prelates, Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and Hooper; and after them from the writings of the eminent bishops, Jewell, Davenant, Hall, Usher, Reynolds, Leighton, Hopkins, Tillotson, Beveridge, Burnet, Seeker, and a host of other divines of the English church, of whose elevated character it would be little less than an insult to any intelligent reader to attempt to offer testimony. All these men declare in the most solemn manner, against the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, in the sense which we are now considering. Indeed, I cannot call to mind a single writer of that church, from the time of Archbishop Cranmer to the present hour, who had the least claim to the character of an evangelical man, who did not repudiate the doctrine which I am now opposing; and not a few of them denounce it as Popish, and adapted to subvert the whole system of vital and spiritual religion. 4. The last argument which I shall urge against the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, is, that is it adapted to generate the most fatal errors with regard to the Gospel plan of salvation. So far as this doctrine is believed, its native tendency is, to beget a superstitious and unwarranted reliance on an external ordinance; to lower our estimate of that inward spiritual sanctification which constitutes the essence of the Christian character; in fact, to supersede the necessity of that spiritual change of heart, of which the Scriptures speak so much, and for which the most holy and eminent servants of Christ have, in all ages, contended. The truth is, the doctrine now under consideration is the very same, in substance, with the doctrine of the opus operatum of the Papists, which all evangelical Protestants have been opposing for more than three hundred years, as a mischievous delusion. Accordingly, the Popish character and fatal tendency of this error have been unreservedly acknowledged by many bishops, and other pious divines of the church of England, as well as by many of the same denomination in this country. Further; if regeneration, which is the commencement of holiness in the soul, is always communicated in baptism, then it follows, as, indeed, those who entertain this doctrine distinctly avow,— that baptism invariably places its subject in a state of salvation; so that every baptized person who dies immediately after the administration of this sacrament, is infallibly sure of entering the kingdom of heaven. If this doctrine were fully believed, would not every thinking, anxious parent refrain from having his child baptized in infancy, and reserve the ordinance for an hour of extremity, such as the approach of death, that it might serve as an unfailing passport to glory? Would it not be wise in every adult who may be brought to a knowledge of the Savior, from Paganism, or from the world, to put off his baptism to the last hour of his life, that he might be sure of departing in safety? This is well known to have been one of the actual corruptions of the fourth century, growing out of the very error which I am now opposing. “It was the custom of many," says Dr. Mosheim, “in that century, to put off their baptism till the last hour; that thus immediately after receiving by this rite the remission of their sins, they might ascend pure and spotless to the mansions of life and immortality." This is no far-fetched or strange conceit. It is the native fruit of the doctrine before us. Nay, if we suppose this pernicious theory to take full possession of the mind, would it not be natural that a tender parent should anxiously desire his child to die immediately after baptism; or even, in a desperate case, to compass its death, as infallibly for its eternal benefit? And, on the same principle, might we not pray for the death of every adult, immediately after he had received baptism, believing that then “to die would certainly be gain?" In fine, I see not, if the doctrine be true, that a regenerating and saving efficacy attends every regular baptism — I see not how we can avoid the conclusion, that every Pagan, whether child or adult, that can be seized by force, and, however thoughtless, reluctant or profane, made to submit to the rite of baptism, is thereby infallibly made “a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven!" These consequences, which appear to me demonstrably to flow from the theory in question, afford sufficient evidence that it is an unscriptural and pernicious error, even if no other means of refutation could be found. It is not forgotten that language which seems, at first view, to countenance the doctrine which I am opposing, is found in some of the early Fathers. Some of them do employ terms which would imply, if interpreted literally, that baptism and regeneration were the same thing. But the reason of this is obvious. The Jews were accustomed to call the converts to their religion from the Gentiles, little children, and their introduction into the Jewish church, a new birth, because they were brought, as it were, into a new moral world. Accordingly, circumcision is repeatedly called in Scripture “the covenant,” because it was the sign of the covenant. Afterwards, when baptism, as a Christian ordinance, became identified with the reception of the Gospel, the early writers and preachers began to call this ordinance regeneration, and sometimes illumination, because every adult who was baptized, professed to be born of God, illuminated by the Holy Spirit. By a common figure of speech, they called the sign by the name of the thing signified. In the truly primitive times this language was harmless, and well understood: but as superstition increased, it gradually led to mischievous error, and became the parent of complicated and deplorable delusions. II. But there is another view of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which is sometimes taken, and which, though less pernicious than that which has been examined, is still, I apprehend, fitted to mislead, and, of course, to do essential mischief. It is this: That baptism is that rite which marks and ratifies the introduction of its subject into the visible kingdom of Christ; that in this ordinance the baptized person is brought into a new state or relation to Christ, and his sacred family; and that this new state or relation is designated in Scripture by the term regeneration, being intended to express an ecclesiastical birth, that is, being “born" into the visible kingdom of the Redeemer. Those who entertain this opinion do not deny, that there is a great moral change, wrought by the Spirit of God, which must pass upon every one, before he can be in a state of salvation. This they call conversion, renovation, &c.; but they tell us that the term “regeneration’’^ ought not to be applied to this spiritual change; that it ought to be confined to that change of state and of relation to the visible kingdom of Christ which is constituted by baptism; so that a person, according to them, may be regenerated, that is, regularly introduced into the visible church, without being really born of the Spirit. This theory, though by no means so fatal in its tendency as the preceding, still appears to me liable to the following serious objections. 1. It makes an unauthorized use of an important theological term. It is vain to say, that, after giving fair notice of the sense in which we use a term, no misapprehension or harm can result from the constant use of it in that sense. The plea is insufficient. If the sense in question be an unusual, and especially an unscriptural one, no one can estimate the mischief which may result from the use of it in that sense. Names are so closely connected with things^ that it is of the utmost importance to preserve the nomenclature of theology from perversion and abuse. If the sense of the word *’ regeneration" which is embraced in this theory, were now by common consent admitted, it would give an entirely new aspect to all those passages of Scripture in which either regeneration or baptism is mentioned, making some of them unmeaning, and others ridiculous; and render unintelligible, and in a great measure useless, if not delusive, nine-tenths of the best works on the subject of practical religion that have ever been written. 2. But there is a more serious objection. If men be told that every one who is baptized, is thereby regenerated — "born of God," — "born of the Spirit," — made a "newcreature in Christ," — will not the mass of mankind, in spite of every precaution and explanation that can be employed, be likely to mistake on a fundamantal point; to imagine that the disease of our nature is trivial, and that a trivial remedy for it will answer; to lay more stress than they ought upon an external rite; and to make a much lower estimate than they ought of the nature and necessity of that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord? After all, however, although the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, in the first and most objectionable sense, is known to be rejected by all the truly evangelical divines of the church of England, and by the same class in the Protestant Episcopal church in this country; yet it cannot be denied that something, to say the least, very like this doctrine is embodied in the baptismal service of that denomination on both sides of the Atlantic. The following specimens of its language will at once illustrate and confirm my meaning: “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning." And again: “We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant by thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy church," &c. The same language is also repeated in the baptismal service for “those of riper years." They are represented as being “regenerated;" as being "born again," and "made heirs of salvation;" and as having “put on Christ." This language is differently interpreted, by the Episcopal ministers who employ it, according to the opinion which they adopt with regard to baptism. Those who coincide in opinion with Bishop Mant, and others of similar sentiments, make no scruple of avowing, that these expressions literally import, what they fully believe, that every one who is duly baptized, is, in and by that rite, born of the Spirit, and brought into a state of grace and salvation. A second class of interpreters, however, consider this language of the Liturgy as merely importing that the person baptized is brought into a new state, or a new relation to the visible church. While a third class, although they acknowledge that the language before us, literally interpreted, does certainly express more than a mere visible relation, even the participation of truly spiritual and saving blessings; yet say, that they can conscientiously employ it, because a Liturgy intended for general use, ought to be, and must be, constructed upon the principle, that those who come to receive its offices are all to be considered as sincere, and as having a right, in the sight of God, to the ordinance for which they apply! And thus it happens, that those who reject as Popish and delusive, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, as taught by Mant, and those who concur with him, feel no difficulty in publicly and solemnly repeating this language, every time they administer the ordinance of baptism. It is not for one of another communion to interpose between the consciences of Episcopal ministers, and the import of their public formularies. In fidelity to my own principles, however, and as a warning to those of my own church who may be assailed by the proselyting efforts of some of this denomination, I may be permitted to say, that if I believed with Bishop Mant, and his associates in sentiment, the language of the baptismal service would be entirely to my taste; but if not, I could not, on any account, conscientiously employ it. It would not satisfy me to be told, that the language of one of the Thirty-nine Articles, and some of the language found in the Book of Homilies, bears a different aspect. This is, no doubt, true. Still this does not remove or alter the language of the baptismal service. There it stands, a distress and a snare to thousands of good men, who acknowledge that they could wish it otherwise, but dare not modify it in the smallest jot or tittle.” {25} Had I no other objection to ministering in the church of England, or in the corresponding denomination in this country — this part of the Liturgy would alone be an insurmountable one. I could not consent continually to employ language, which, however explained or counteracted, is so directly adapted to deceive in a most vital point of practical religion. I could not allow myself to sanction by adoption and use, language which, however explained and counteracted in ray own ministry, I knew to be presented and urged by many around me in its literal import, and declared to be the only true doctrine of the church. As to the plea, that a Liturgy must necessarily be constructed upon the principle that all who come to its offices must be presumed to be sincere, and be solemnly assured, in the name of God, that they are so, nothing can be more delusive. Cannot scriptural truth be as plainly stated, and as wisely guarded in a liturgical composition as in any other? Our Methodist brethren have a prescribed form for baptism; and so far as I recollect its language, they have succeeded, without apparent difficulty, in making it at once instructive, solemn, appropriate, and unexceptionable. And I have heard Presbyterian ministers a thousand times tell their hearers, with as much distinctness in administering sacraments, as in ordinary preaching, that “the sacraments become effectual to salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.” But it may be asked, what kind or degree of efficacy do Presbyterians consider as connected with baptism? Do they suppose that there is any beneficial influence, physical or moral, in all cases, connected with the due administration of this sacrament? I answer, none at all. They suppose that the washing with water in this ordinance is an emblem and a sign of precious benefits; that it holds forth certain great truths, which are the glory of the Christian covenant, and the joy of the Christian’s heart; that it is a seal affixed by God to his covenant with his people, whereby he certifies his pm-poses of grace, and pledges his blessing to all who receive it with a living faith; nay, that it is the seal of valuable outward privileges, even to those who are not then, or at any other time, “born of the Spirit;" that, as a solemn rite appointed by Christ, it is adapted to make a solemn impression on the serious mind; but that when it is administered to the persons, or the offspring of those who are entirely destitute of faith, there is no pledge or certainty that it will be accompanied with any blessing. They receive the water, but not the Spirit. They are engrafted into the visible church, but not into the spiritual body of Christ, and are, after baptism, just as they were before, like Simon the Sorcerer, “in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: 01.10. ADDITIONAL NOTES: NOTE C. SPONSORS IN BAPTISM. ======================================================================== (Note C.) Sponsors in Baptism. It is well known that the Presbyterian church differs from the Episcopal in regard to the subject announced at the head of this note. We differ in two respects. First, in not requiring or encouraging the appearance of any other sponsors, in the baptism of children, than the parents, when they are living and qualified to present themselves in this character: and, secondly, in not requiring, or even admitting any sponsors at all in cases of adult baptism. My object in the remarks which I am about to make on this subject, is, not to impugn either the principles or practice of our Episcopal brethren; but simply to state, for the instruction of the members of our own church, why we cannot think or act with them in relation to this matter. It is curious to observe the several steps by which the use of sponsors, as now established in the Romish and some Protestant churches, reached its present form. Within the first five or six hundred years after Christ, there is no evidence that children were ever presented for baptism by any other persons than their parents, provided those parents were living, and were professing Christians. When some persons, in the time of Augustine, who flourished toward the close of the fourth, and beginning of the fifth century, contended that it was not lawful, in any case, for any excepting their natural parents to offer children in baptism; that learned and pious Father opposed them, and gave it as his opinion, that, in extraordinary cases, as, for example, when the parents were dead; when they were not professing Christians; when they cruelly forsook and exposed their offspring; and when masters had young slaves committed to their charge; in these cases, (and the pious Father mentions no others,) he maintains that any professing Christians, who should be willing to undertake the benevolent charge, might, with propriety, take these children, offer them in baptism, and become responsible for their Christian education. This, every one will perceive, is in strict conformity with the principles maintained in the foregoing essay, and with the doctrine and habits of the Presbyterian church. The learned Bingham, an Episcopal divine of great learning, seems to have taken unwearied pains, in his “Ecclesiastical Antiquities," to collect every scrap of testimony within his reach, in favor of the early origin of sponsors. But he utterly fails of producing even plausible evidence to that amount; and at length candidly acknowledges that in the early ages, parents were, in all ordinary cases, the presenters and sureties for their own children; and that children were presented by others only in extraordinary cases, such as those already alluded to. It is true, indeed, that some writers, more sanguine than discriminating, have quoted Dionysius, Tertullian, and Cyril of Alexandria, as affording countenance to the use of sponsors in early times. Not one of those writers, however, has written a sentence which favors the use of any other sponsors than parents, when they were in life, and of a proper character to offer their children for the sacramental seal in question. Even Dionysius, whose language has, at first view, some appearance of favoring such sponsors; yet, when carefully examined, will be found to speak only of sponsors who undertook to train up in the Christian religion some of the children of Pagans, who were delivered, for this purpose, into the hands of these benevolent sureties, by their unbelieving parents. But this, surely, is not inconsistent with what has been said. And, after all, the writings of this very Dionysius are given up by the learned Wall, and by the still more learned and illustrious Archbishop Usher, as a “gross and impudent forgery," unworthy of the least credit. It was not until the council of Mentz, in the ninth century, that the church of Rome forbade the appearance of parents as sponsors for their own children, and required that this service be surrendered to other hands. Mention is made, by Cyril, in the fifth century, and by Fulgentius in the sixths of sponsors in some peculiar cases of adult baptism. When adults, about to be baptized, were dumb, or under the power of delirium, through disease, and of course unable to speak for themselves, or to make the usual profession; in such cases it was customary for some friend or friends to answer for them, and to bear testimony to their good character, and to the fact of their having before expressed a desire to be baptized. For this, there was, undoubtedly, some reason; and the same thing might, with propriety, in conceivable circumstances be done now. From this, however, there was a transition soon made to the use of sponsors in all cases of adult baptism. This latter, however, was upon a different principle from the former. When adults had the gifts of speech and reason, and were able to answer for themselves, the sponsors provided for such never answered or professed for them. This was invariably done by the adult himself. Their only business, as it would appear, was to be a kind of curators or guardians of the spiritual life of the persons baptized. This office was generally fulfillled, in each church, by the deacons, when adult males were baptized; and by the deaconesses, when females came forward to receive this ordinance. Among the pious Waldenses and Albigenses, in the middle ages, no other sponsors than parents seem to have been in common use. In one of their catechisms, as preserved by Perrin, and Morland, they ask, “By whom ought children to be presented in baptism?" Answer, “By their parents, or by any others who may be inspired with this charity;" which is evidently intended to mean, as other documents respecting them show, that where the parents were dead, or absent, or could not act, other pious professors of religion might take their places. According to one of the canons of the church of England, “parents are not to be urged to he present when their children are baptized, nor to be permitted to stand as sponsors for their own children." In the Protestant Episcopal church in this country, parents “may be admitted as sponsors if it be desired." But in both countries it is required that there be sponsors for all adults, as well as for infants. The baptismal service of the Methodist church in the United States, for infants, does not recognise the use of any sponsors at all, excepting the parents, or whatever other “friends" may present them. It is plain, then, that the early history of the church, as well as the Word of God, abundantly sustains the doctrine and practice of the Presbyterian church in this matter. We maintain, that as the right of the children of believers to baptism, flows from the membership and faith of their parents according to the flesh; so those parents, if living, are the only proper persons to present them for the reception of this covenant seal. If, however, their proper parents, on any account, cannot do this, they may, upon our principles, with propriety, be presented by any professed believers, who, quoad hoc, adopt them as their children, and are willing to engage, as parents, to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." If, indeed, nothing else were contended for in this case, than that, when believing parents have pious and peculiar friends who are willing to unite with them in engagements to educate their children in the true religion, such friends might be permitted to stand with them; there might not be so much to condemn. Even then the solemn question might be asked; “Who hath required this at your hands?" But when the system is, to set aside parents; to require that others take their places, and make engagements which they alone, for the most part, are qualified to make; and when, in pursuance of this system, thousands are daily making engagements which they never think of fulfillling, and in most cases, notoriously have it not in their power to fulfill, and, indeed, feel no special obligation to fulfill; we are constrained to regard it as a human invention, having no warrant whatever, either, from the Word of God or primitive usage; and as adapted, on a variety of accounts, to generate evil, much evil, rather than good. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11: 01.11. ADDITIONAL NOTES: NOTE D. CONFIRMATION ======================================================================== (Note D.) Confirmation. In the apostolic church, there was no such rite as that which under this name has been long established in the Romish communion as a sacrament, and adopted in some Protestant churches as a solemnity, in their view, if not commanded, yet as both expressive and edifying. It is not intended in this note to record a sentence condemnatory of those who think proper to employ the rite in question: but only to state with brevity some of the reasons why the fathers of the Presbyterian Church, thought proper to exclude it from their ritual; and why their sons, to the present hour, have persisted in the same course. 1. We find no foundation for this rite in the Word of G od. Indeed our Episcopal brethren, and other Protestants who employ it, do not pretend to find any direct warrant for it in Scripture. All they have to allege, which bears the least resemblance to any such practice, is the statement recorded in Acts 8:14-17 : Now when the Apostles, which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. That there is here a reference to the extraordinary or miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, and these conferred by extraordinary officers, is so perfectly apparent, that it is no wonder the advocates of Confirmation do not press it as proof of their point. The only wonder is, that they ever mention it as affording the most remote countenance to their practice. The diligent reader of Scripture will find four kinds, or occasions of laying on hands recounted in the New Testament. The first, by Christ himself, to express an authoritative benediction. Matthew 19:1-30, Mark 10:16; the second, in the healing of diseases, Mark 16:18. Acts 28:8; the third, in conferring the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6; and the fourth, in setting apart persons to sacred office. Acts 6:6. Acts 13:3. 1 Timothy 4:14. The venerable Dr. Owen, in his commentary on Hebrews 6:2, expresses the opinion, that the laying on of hands there spoken of, is to be considered as belonging to the third class of cases, and, of course, as referring to the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. Others have supposed that it rather belongs to the fourth example above enumerated, and therefore applies to the ordination of ministers. But there is not a syllable or hint in the whole New Testament which looks like such a laying on of hands as that for which the advocates of Confirmation contend. 2. Quite as little support for Confirmation can be found in the purest and best periods of uninspired antiquity. Towards the close of the second century, several uncommanded and superstitious additions had been made to the ordinance of baptism. Among these were anointing with nil, in avowed imitation of the Jewish manner of consecration; administering to the baptized individual a mixture of milk and honey, as the symbol of his childhood in a new life, and as a pledge of that heavenly Canaan, with all its advantages and happiness, to which the hopes of the baptized were directed; the laying on of the hands of the minister officiating in baptism, for imparting the Holy Spirit; to all which may be added, that immediately after the close of this century, we find the practice oi exorcism introduced as a preliminary to baptism, and as a means of expelling all evil spirits from the candidate for this ordinance. These superstitious additions were made to succeed each other in the following order; exorcism, confession; renunciation; baptism; chrismation, or anointing with oil, which was done in the form of a cross; and finally, the laying on of hands, or confirmation, which immediately followed the anointing with oil, and the administration of the simple element above mentioned. “As soon as we are baptized," says Tertullian, “we are anointed with the blessed unction." And he adds, "This unction is according to the Jewish dispensation, wherein the high priest was anointed with oil out of a horn." The laying on of hands, or confirmation, immediately followed the unction. “As soon as we come from the baptismal laver," says Tertiullian, “We are anointed, and then hands are imposed." This was considered as essential to the completion of the ordinance. "We do not receive the Holy Ghost," says the same father, “in baptism, but being purified by the water, we are prepared for the Holy Ghost, and at the laying on of hands, the soul is illuminated by the Spirit." The exorcism, then, the anointing with oil, the sign of the cross, the imposition of hands for conveying the Holy Spirit, and the administration of milk and honey to the candidate, were all human additions to baptism, which came in about the same time, and ought, in our opinion, to be regarded very much in the same light with a great variety of other additions to the institutions of Christ, which, though well meant, and not destitute of expressiveness, are yet wholly unauthorized by the King and Head of the Church. 3. When the practice of the laying on of hands, as an ordinary part of the baptismal service, was added, by human invention, to that ordinance, it always immediately followed the application of water, and the anointing with oil. “As soon as we come from the baptismal laver," says Tertullian “we are anointed, and then hands are laid on." And it is further acknowledged by all, that every one who was competent to baptize, was equally competent to lay on hands. The two things always went together; or rather formed parts of the baptismal ordinance, which was not thought to be consummated without the imposition of hands by him who had applied the water and the unction. And this continued to be the case, throughout the greater part of the church, for the first three hundred years. Then the term bishop signified the pastor or overseer of a flock or congregation. Every pastor was a bishop, as had been the case in Apostolic times. And then, in ordinary cases, none but the bishop, or pastor of each church, administered baptism. Of course, he only laid on hands. But afterwards, in the progress of corruption, when Prelacy was gradually brought in, it became customary, for the sake of doing greater honor to the prelates, to reserve this imposition of hands to them, as a part of their official prerogative. Jerome (Dialog. Adv. Lucifer.) expressly declares, that the committing this benediction wholly to the bishop;?, was done “rather in honor of the priesthood, than from necessity imposed by any law." Even now, throughout the Greek Church, this rite is administered, for the most part, in close connection with baptism, and is dispensed by any priest who is empowered to baptize. In like manner, in the Lutheran and other German churches, in wiiich confirmation is retained, it is administered by every pastor. Still, even when confined to prelates, this imposition of hands was not, in ordinary cases, long separated from the baptism: for the children were commonly carried to the bishop to have his hands laid upon them as soon as convenient. After a while, however, it became customary to separate the two things much more widely. Confirmation, or the laying on of the bishop’s hands, began to be postponed for a number of years, according to circumstances; until, at length, it was often left till the arrival of adult age, and even, in some cases, till the decline of life. All these progressive steps evidently marked a mere human invention, for which there is no divine appointment or warrant whatever. 4. The rite of confirmation is superfluous. As it was plainly a human invention, so it is unnecessary and answers no purpose which is not quite as well, to say the least, provided for in the Presbyterian Church, which rejects it. Is it said to be desirable that there should be some transaction or solemnity by which young people who have been baptized in their infancy, may be called to recognize their religious obligations, and, as it were, to take upon themselves the profession and the vows made on their behalf in baptism? Granted. There can be no doubt that such a solemnity is both reasonable in itself, and edifying in its tendency. But have we not just such a solemnity in the Lord’s Supper; an ordinance divinely instituted; an ordinance on which all are qualified to attend, and ought to attend, who are qualified to take on themselves, in any scriptural or rational sense, their baptismal obligations; an ordinance, in fact, specifically intended, among other things, to answer this very purpose, viz. the purpose of making a personal acknowledgement and profession of the truth, the service, and the hopes of Christ: — have we not, I say, in the Sacramental Supper just such a solemnity as we need for the end in question — simple, rational, scriptural, and to which all our children may come, just as soon as they are prepared in any form to confess Christ before men? We do not need confirmation, then, for the purpose for which it is professed to be desired. We have something better, because appointed of God; quite as expressive; more solemn; and free from certain objectionable features which are now to be mentioned. 5. Finally; we reject the rite of confirmation in our Church, because, in addition to all the reasons which have been mentioned, we consider the formula prescribed for its administration in the Church of England, and substantially adopted by the Episcopal Church in this country, as liable to the most serious objections. We do not think it a duty in any form, to practice a rite which the Savior never appointed; but our repugnance is greatly increased by the language with which the rite in question is administered by those who employ it. In the “Order of Confirmation," as prescribed and used in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, the following language occurs. Before the act of laying on hands, the officiating bishop, in his prayer, repeats the following language: “Almighty and ever living God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants, by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their sins," &;c. &lq. And again, in another prayer, after the act of confirmation is completed, he speaks to the Searcher of hearts thus — “We make our bumble supplications unto thee for these thy servants, upon whom, after the example of thy holy Apostles, Ave have now laid our hands; to certify them by this sign of thy favor and gracious goodness towards them," &c. And also, in the act of laying on hands, assuming that all who are kneeling before him already have the holy sanctifying spirit of Christ, he prays that they “may all daily increase in this Holy Spirit more and more." Such is the language addressed to large circles of young people of both sexes, many of whom there is every reason to fear, are very far from having been “born of the Spirit," in the Bible sense of that phrase; nay, some of whom manifest so little seriousness, that any pastor of enlightened piety would be pained to see them at a communion table: yet the bishop pronounces them all — and he appeals to heaven for the truth of his sentence — he pronounces them all regenerate, not only by water, but also by the Holy Ghost; certifies to them, in the name of God, that they are objects of the divine favor and declares that, being already in a state of grace and favor with God, they are called to “grow in grace;" to "increase in the Holy Spirit more and more." There are many who have long regarded, and who now regard this language not only with regret, but with shuddering! as adapted to cherish false hopes, nay, to deceive and destroy souls by wholesale! I must again say, that if there were no other obstacle to my consenting to minister in the Protestant Episcopal church, this alone would be an insurmountable one. For it must come home to the conscience and the feelings, not of the bishop only, but of every pastor in that church who has, from time to time, a circle of beloved youth to present for confirmation. It is vain to say, that the church presumes that all who come are sincere, and of course born of the Spirit, and in a state of favor with God. This is the very point of objection. She so presumes, and undertakes to “certify” them of it. Presbyterian ministers do not, dare not, use such language. They do not, and dare not, undertake to “certify" to any number of the most mature and exemplary communicants that ever gathered round a sacramental table, that they are all in a state of grace and salvation, and that they have nothing to do but to "follow on," and "increase in the Holy Spirit." Nor is it a sufficient answer, I repeat, to say, that a liturgy, being a fixed composition, cannot be so constructed as to discriminate between different characters. This is denied. Every enlightened and faithful ministry of whatever denomination, who is at liberty to employ such language as he approves, knows how to express himself, both in prayer and preaching, in discriminating and impressive terms; and how to avoid modes of expression adapted to deceive and betray unwary souls. It is surely not impracticable to address the largest and most promiscuous assembly in a manner which, though not adapted to the precise case of every individual, shall be at least free from error, free from every thing of a deceptive and ensnaring character. Our Methodist brethren, it was before remarked, have a prescribed liturgical form for baptism; which they have rendered sufficiently discriminating, and at the same time unexceptionably safe. And, what is not unworthy of notice in this place, though the liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal church is evidently the model which, to a certain extent, they have kept before them in constructing their own, they have wisely discarded altogether the ceremony of confirmation from their ritual. The advocates of confirmation, as a separate ecclesiastical rite, seldom fail of quoting Calvin as expressing an opinion decisively in favor of it. This is doing great injustice to that illustrious man. Calvin directly and warmly opposes the idea of confirmation being considered as a distinct ordinance, claiming divine authority in the Church of God. This he reprobates; and especially the practice of confining the administration of it to prelates; but adds, “that he has no objection to parents bringing their children to their minister, at the close of childhood, or the commencement of adolescence, to be examined according to the catechism in common use, and then, for the sake of greater dignity and reverence, closing the ceremony by the imposition of hands. “Such imposition of hands, therefore, says he, as is simply connected with benediction, I highly approve, and wish it were now restored to its primitive use, uncorrupted by superstition." (Institutiones. Lib. IV. cap. 19:§ 4.) But what serves to throw light on Calvin’s real sentiments on this whole subject is that, in commenting on Acts 8:17, he reproaches the Papists for pressing that passage into the support of their sacrament of confirmation; and not only asserts, but proves, that the laying on of hands there spoken of, relates, not at all to the ordinary and sanctifying, but to the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, which have long since ceased in the church; and, of course, that the passage in question ought never to be quoted in favor of confirmation, or of any other permanent rite in the Christian Church. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 12: 01.12. ADDITIONAL NOTES: NOTE E. VOTE OF THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. ======================================================================== (Note E.) Vote of the Westminster Assembly respecting Baptism. It has been sometimes ignorantly, and most erroneously asserted, that the Westminster Assembly of divines, in putting to vote, whether baptism should be performed by sprinkling or immersion, carried it in favor of sprinkling, by a majority of one only. This is wholly incorrect. The facts were these. When the committee who had been charged with preparing a “Directory for the worship of God," brought in their report, they had spoken of the mode of baptism thus: "IT is lawful and sufficient to sprinkle the children. To this Dr. Lightfoot, among others, objected; not because he doubted of the entire sufficiency of sprinkling; for he decidedly preferred sprinkling to immersion; but because he thought there was an impropriety in pronouncing that mode lawful only, when no one present had any doubts of its being so, and when almost all preferred it. Others seemed to think, that by saying nothing about dipping, that mode was meant to be excluded, as not a lawful mode. This they did not wish to pronounce. When, therefore, the clause, as originally reported, was put to vote, there were twenty-five votes in favor of it, and twenty -four against it. After this vote, a motion was made and carried, that it be recommitted. The next day, when the committee reported, and when some of the members still seemed unwilling to exclude all mention of dipping, Dr. Lightfoot remarked, that to say that pouring or sprinkling was lawful, would be “all one as saying, that it was lawful to use bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper." He, therefore, moved that the clause in the "Directory" respecting the mode of baptism, be expressed thus: "Then the minister is to demand the name of the child, which being told him, he is to say (calling the child by his name) — "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." "As he pronounceth these words, he is to baptize the child with water, which, for the manner of doing it, is not only lawful but sufficient, and most expedient to be, by pouring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child, without adding any other ceremony." This was carried. See Lightfoot’s Life, prefixed to the first volume of his Works, (folio edition,) p. 4; compared with Neal’s History of the Puritans, Vol. 11. p. 106, 107, compared with the Appendix, No. II. (quarto edition,) where the “Directory," as finally passed, is given at full length. We do not learn, precisely, either from Lightfoot’s biographer, (who was no other than the indefatigable Strype,) or from Neal, by what vote the clause, as moved by Lightfoot, was finally adopted; but Neal expressly tells us, that “the Directory passed the Assembly with great unanimity.” From this statement, it is evident, that the question which was carried in the Assembly, by a majority of one, was, not whether affusion or sprinkling was a lawful mode of baptism; but whether all mention of dipping, as one of the lawful modes should be omitted. This, in an early stage of the discussion, was carried, by a majority of one in the affirmative. But it would seem that the clause, as finally adopted, which certainly was far more decisive in favor of sprinkling or affusion, was passed “with great unanimity.” At any rate, nothing can be more evident, than that the clause as it originally stood, being carried by one vote only, and afterwards, when recommitted, and so altered as to be much stronger in favor of sprinkling, and then adopted without difficulty, the common statement of this matter by our Baptist brethren is an entire misrepresentation. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 13: 01.13. FOOTNOES ======================================================================== FOOTNOTES {1} It is worthy of notice that this interpretation of the passage is adopted, and decisively maintained by Augustine, one of the most pious and learned divines of the fourth century. De Sermone Domini in Monte, ch. 27 {2} Essays on the Church of God, by Dr. J. M. Mason. Christian’s Magazine, 2:49, 50. {3} Homil. VIII. in Leviticus ch. 12. {4} Homil. in Luke 14:1-35. {5} Comment, in Epist. ad Romanos. Lib. 5. {6} Cyprian. Epist. 66. {7} Inquiry into the Constitution, «fec. Part II. Chap. 3. {8} Homil. 40. in Genesin, {9} See Wall’s History, Part. I. ch. 15—19. {10} See John Paul Perrin’s account of the Doctrine and Order of the Waldenses and Albigenses; Sir Samuel Morland’s do.; and also Leger’s Histoire Generale des Eglises Vaudoises, Mr. William Jones, a Baptist, in a work entitled, a History of the Waldenses, in two volumes octavo, professes to give a full account of the Faith and Order of these pious witnesses of the truth; but, so far as I have observed, carefully leaves out of all their public formularies and other documents, every thing which would disclose their Paedobaptist principles and practice! On this artifice comment is unnecessary. {11} A grave and respectable Baptist minister, in the course of an argument on this subject, candidly acknowledged that the administration of circumcision to an infant eight days old, would have appeared to him a useless, and even a silly rite! An honest, and certainly a very natural confession! {12} Gill’s Commentary on Luke 2:42. {13} The two preceding paragraphs are from the powerful and eloquent pen of the late Rev. J. M Mason, D. D. See Christian’s Magazine, Vol. II. p. 414-416. {14} “A gentleman of veracity told the writer, that he was once present when forty-seven were dipped in one day, in the usual way. The first operator began, and went through the ceremony, until he had dipped twenty-five persons; when he was so fatigued, that he was compelled to give it up to the other, who with great apparent difficulty dipped the other twenty-two. Both appeared completely exhausted, and went off the ground into a house hard by, to change their clothes and refresh themselves." Scripture Directory for Baptism by a Layman, 14. {15} See a very luminous and satisfactory view of the record of this baptism, by Professor Stuart, of Andover, in the Biblical Repository, No. X. p. 319, 320. {16} Acts 9:1-43; Acts 22:1-30 compared. {17} The Rev, Dr. Austin, in his answer to Mr. Merrill, speaks thus — “In besieged cities, where there are thousands, and hundreds of thousands of people; in sandy deserts, like those of Africa, Arabia, and Palestine; in the northern regions, where the streams, if there be any, are shut up with impenetrable ice; and in severe and extensive droughts, like that which took place in the time of Ahab; sufficiency of water for animal subsistence is scarcely to be procured. Now, suppose God should, according to his predictions, pour out plentiful effusions of his Spirit, so that all the inhabitants of one of these regions or cities, should be born in a day. Upon the Baptist hypothesis, there is an absolute impossibility that they should be baptized, while there is this scarcity of water; and this may last as long as they live." p. 41. So also, Mr. Walker, in his “Doctrine of Baptisms," (chapter 10) speaks of a Jew, who, while travelling with Christians, in the time of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, about sixty or seventy years after the apostles, was converted, fell sick, and desired baptism. Not having water, they sprinkled him thrice with sand, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He recovered, and his case was reported to the bishop, (or pastor, there being no prelates then) who decided that the man was baptized, {si modo aqua denuo perfunderatur) if he only had water poured on him again. This record shows, not merely that the “difficulties" referred to, are far from being ideal; but also that when the defect of the baptism by sand was attempted to be supplied, it was not by any sort of immersion, but only by the pouring on of water. {18} The zealous Baptist, Robert Robinson, bears, on this subject, the following testimony: “The primitive Christians baptized naked. Nothing is easier than to give proof of this by quotations from the authentic writings of the men who administered baptism, and who certainly knew in what way they themselves performed it. There is no ancient historical fact better authenticated than this. The evidence does not go on the evidence of the single word, naked; for then a reader might suspect allegory; but on facts reported, and many reasons assigned for the practice." History of Baptism, p. 85. He then quotes several examples dated in the fourth century. {19} The learned Wall speaks on the subject thus: "The ancient Christians, when they were baptized by immersion, were all baptized naked; whether they were men, women or children. The proofs of this, I shall omit, because it is a clear case. The English AntiPaedobaptists need not have made so great an outcry against Mr. Baxter for his saying that they baptized naked; for if they had, it would have been no more than the primitive Christians did. They thought it better represented the putting off the old man, of imitating Christ on the cross. Moreover, as baptism is a washing, they judged it should be the washing of the body, not of the clothes." Wall, Chapter 15, Part II. {20} See Dr. Woods’ Lectures on Infant Baptism, p. 188, 189. See this interpretation of Romans 6:3-4, and the corresponding passage in Colossians 2:12, well illustrated in the Essay on Baptism, by Greville Ewing, D. D. of Glasgow, and also in a Dissertation on Infant Baptism, by Ralph Wardlaw, D. D. of Glasgow; and still more recently, by Professor Stuart, in the Biblical Repository, p. 327. 332. {21} Wall, Part II. chapter ix. p. 352, &c. {22} Walfridius Strabo, De Rebus Ecclesiast. as quoted by Wall. {23} Wall, Part II. chapter ix. p. 360, 361. {24} Faber’s Sermons, Vol. I. p. 145, 146. {25} An evangelical and deeply conscientious minister of the Episcopal church, who, after struggling for some time with the most distressing scruples, as to this very feature in the baptismal service, ventured to alter a few words, was forthwith, by his diocesan, dismissed from the ministry. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 14: 02.00. OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS ======================================================================== of Creeds and Confessions by Samuel Miller Arguments in Favor of Creeds Creeds and confessions defined; the need to maintain unity in the church; the Church’s responsibility as a witness for the truth; the candor which each church owes to both other churches and the world; the obligation to study Christian doctrine; the historic necessity of creeds; the opponents of creeds generally latitudinarians and heretics; creeds inevitably employed by their opponents. Answers for Objections to Creeds The objection that creeds supercede the Bible as a standard of faith; the objection that creeds interfere with the rights of conscience; the objection that creeds discourage free inquiry; the objection that creeds fail to achieve their purpose; the objection that creeds promote discord and strife. The Extent of Creeds Whether the creeds of the Church may, or should, include articles other than those which are fundamen tal; the importance of doctrines respecting church government and the sacraments. Concluding Remarks Creeds not to be feared as instruments of oppression; subscription of creeds a solemn transaction; the obligations which rest upon men who have subscribed a creed; a warning: how a single unsound minister can produce extensive harm in the Church; the duty of members, and ministers, of the Presbyterian Church to spread a knowledge of the doctrinal standards; the mistake of those who wish to abandon all creeds and confessions. Adherence to Our Doctrinal Standards by Samuel Miller Letter 1 Extremes to avoid; the meaning of public subscription to the Confession of Faith; minor differences among the Westminster divines; the Calvinistic system of the Confession; the difference between the essential nature of Christian doctrine, and different modes of expounding it; the exclusion of Pelagians, Arminians, and other heretics; false subscription a solemn perjury; evasive subscription a base deception; Pelagian philosophy a dangerous and corrupting influence; the duty of church courts to guard against loose subscription. Letter 2 The lack of adherence to the doctrinal standards in some presbyteries; the scriptural priority of doctrinal purity; examples of erroneous teachings: denial of original sin, denial of human depravity, belief in free will, denial of human inability, denial of sovereign grace; false subscription; Pelagian and Arminian heresies discussed and refuted; the biblical doctrine of salvation; the foolish claim that these systemic differences are merely a dispute over terminology; the Presbyterian Church a Calvinistic church; Pelagian and Arminian errors poisonous to genuine spirituality. Letter 3 Doubtful practices within church judicatories: presbyteries formed upon the principle of "elective affinity," licensing candidates previously disapproved by another presbytery; the presbyterial right, and responsibility, to judge the qualifications of candidates for the ministry; fraternal relations between Presby terians and Congregationalists; Congregationalist approval of men previously disapproved by a presbytery; the impropriety of allowing fraternal delegates to vote in church judicatories; a concluding admonition to preserve truth and oppose error ­ to maintain the confessional standards of the Presbyterian church. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 15: 02.01. THE UTILITY AND IMPORTANCE OF CREEDS AND CONFESSION ======================================================================== The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confession Samuel Miller The character and situation of one who is preparing for the sacred office are interesting beyond the power of language to express. Such a one, like the Master whom he professes to love and serve, is "set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel" (Luke 2:34). In all that he is, and in all that he does, the temporal and eternal welfare not only of himself, but of thousands, may be involved. On every side he is beset with perils. Whatever may be his talents and learning, if he has not genuine piety, he will probably be a curse instead of a blessing to the church. But this is not the only danger to which he is exposed. He may have unfeigned piety, as well as talents and learning; and yet, from habitual indiscretion; from a defect in that sobriety of mind, which is so precious to all men, but especially to every one who occupies a public station; from a fondness for novelty and innovation, or from that love of distinction which is so natural to men; after all, instead of edifying the "body of Christ," he may become a disturber of its peace, and a corrupter of its purity; so that we might almost say, whatever may be the result with respect to himself, "it had been good for the church if he had never been born" (cf. Matthew 26:24). Hence it is, that every part of the character of him who is coming forward to the holy ministry ­ his opinions, his temper, his attainments, his infirmities, and above all, his character as a practical Christian ­ are of inestimable importance to the ecclesiastical community of which he is destined to be a minister. Nothing that pertains to him is uninteresting. If it were possible for him, strictly speaking, to "live to himself," or to "die to himself" (cf. Romans 14:7), the case would be different. But it is not possible. His defects as well as his excellencies, his gifts and graces, as well as the weak points of his character, must and will all have their appropriate effect on everything that he touches. Can you wonder, then, that employed to conduct the education of candidates for this high and holy office, we see ourselves placed under a solemn, nay, an awful responsibility? Can you wonder that, having advanced a little before you in our experience in relation to this office, we cherish the deepest solicitude at every step you take? Can you wonder, that we daily exhort you to "take heed to yourselves and your doctrine" (cf. 1 Timothy 4:16), and that we cease not to entreat you, and to pray for you that you give all diligence to approve yourselves to God and his church able and faithful servants? Independently of all official obligation, did we not feel and act thus, we should manifest an insensibility to the interests of the church, as well as to your true welfare, equally inexcusable and degrading. It is in consequence of this deep solicitude for your improvement in every kind of ministerial furniture, that we not only endeavor to conduct the regular course of your instruction in such a manner as we think best adapted to promote the great end of all your studies; but that we also seize the opportunity which the general Lecture (introductory to each session) affords us, of calling your attention to a series of subjects which do not fall within the ordinary course of our instruction. A subject of this nature will engage our attention on the present occasion: namely, the importance of creeds and confessions for maintaining the unity and purity of the visible church. This is a subject which, though it properly belongs to the department of Church Government, has always been, for want of time, omitted in the Lectures usually delivered on that division of our studies. And I am induced now to call your attention to it, because, as I said, it properly belongs to the department committed to me; because it is in itself a subject highly interesting and important; because it has been for a number of years past, and still is, the object of much severe animadversion on the part of latitudinarians and heretics; and because, though abundantly justified by reason, scripture, and universal experience, the spontaneous feelings of many, especially under the free government which it is our happiness to enjoy, rise up in arms against what they deem, and are sometimes pleased to call, the excessive "rigor" and even "tyranny" of exacting subscription to articles of faith. It is my design, first, to offer some remarks on the utility and importance of written creeds; and secondly, to obviate some of the more common and plausible objections which have been urged against them by their adversaries. Arguments in Favor of Creeds I. By a creed, or confession of faith, I mean an exhibition, in human language, of those great doctrines which are believed by the framers of it to be taught in the holy scriptures; and which are drawn out in regular order, for the purpose of ascertaining how far those who wish to unite in church fellowship are really agreed in the fundamental principles of Christianity. Creeds and confessions do not claim to be in themselves laws of Christ’s house, or legislative enactments, by which any set of opinions are constituted truths, and which require, on that account, to be received as truths among the members of his family. They only profess to be summaries, extracted from the scriptures, of a few of those great gospel doctrines which are taught by Christ himself; and which those who make the summary in each particular case concur in deeming important, and agree to make the test of their religious union. They have no idea that, in forming this summary, they make anything truth that was not truth before; or that they thereby contract an obligation to believe what they were not bound by the authority of Christ to believe before. But they simply consider it as a list of the leading truths which the Bible teaches, which, of course, all men ought to believe, because the Bible does teach them; and which a certain portion of the visible church catholic agree in considering as a formula, by means of which they may know and understand one another. Now, I affirm that the adoption of such a creed is not only lawful and expedient, but also indispensably necessary to the harmony and purity of the visible church. For the establishment of this position, let me request your attention to the following considerations. 1. Without a creed explicitly adopted, it is not easy to see how the ministers and members of any particular church, and more especially a large denomination of Christians, can maintain unity among themselves. If every Christian were a mere insulated individual, who inquired, felt, and acted for himself alone, no creed of human formation would be necessary for his advancement in knowledge, comfort, or holiness. With the Bible in his closet, and with his eyes opened to see the "wondrous things" which it contains (Ps. 199:18), he would have all that was needful for his edification. But the case is far otherwise. The church is a society: a society which, however extended, is "one body in Christ," and all who compose it, "members one of another" (Romans 12:5). Nor is this society merely required to be one in name, or to recognize a mere theoretical union; but also carefully to maintain "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). They are exhorted to "stand fast in one spirit, with one mind" (Php 1:27). They are commanded all to "speak the same thing," and to be "of one accord, of one mind’’ (1 Corinthians 1:10; Php 2:2). And this "unity of spirit" is as essential to the comfort and edification of those who are joined together in church fellowship, as it is to a compliance with the command of their Master. "How can two walk together unless they be agreed? (cf. Amos 3:3). Can a body of worshippers, composed of Calvinists, Arminians, Pelagians, Arians, and Socinians, all pray, and preach, and commune together profitably and comfortably, each retaining the sentiments, feelings, and language appropriate to his denomination? This would indeed make the house of God a miserable Babel. What! can those who believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be God, equal with the Father, and worship him accordingly, and those who consider all such worship as abominable idolatry; those who cordially renounce all dependence on their own works or merit for justification before God, relying entirely on his rich grace, "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:24), and those who pronounce all such reliance fanatical, and man’s own righteousness the sole ground of hope; can persons who cherish these irreconcilably opposite sentiments and feelings on the most important of all subjects, unite with edification in the same prayers, listen from sabbath to sabbath to the same instructions, and sit together in comfort at the same sacramental table? As well might Jews and Christians worship together in the same temple. They must either be perfectly indifferent to the great subjects on which they are thus divided, or all their intercourse must be productive of jarring and distress. Such a discordant assembly might talk about church fellowship; but that they should really enjoy that fellowship which the Bible describes as so precious, and which the pious so much delight to cultivate, is impossible ­ just as impossible as "that righteousness should have fellowship with unrighteousness," or "light hold communion with darkness, or Christ maintain concord with Belial" (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:14-14). Holding these things to be self-evident, how, I ask, is any church to guard itself from that baleful discord, that perpetual strife of feeling, if not of words and conduct, which must ensue, when it is made up of such heterogeneous materials? Nay, how is a church to avoid the guilt of harboring in its bosom, and of countenancing by its fellowship, the worst heresies that ever disgraced the Christian name? It is not enough, for attaining this object, that all who are admitted profess to agree in receiving the Bible; for many who call themselves Christians, and profess to take the Bible for their guide, hold opinions, and speak a language as foreign, nay, as opposite, to the opinions and language of many others, who equally claim to be Christians, and equally profess to receive the Bible, as the east is to the west. Of those who agree in this general profession, the greater part acknowledge as of divine authority the whole sacred canon, as we receive it; while others would throw out whole chapters, and some a number of entire books from the volume of God’s revealed will. The orthodox maintain the plenary inspiration of the scriptures; while some who insist that they are Christians, deny their inspiration altogether. In short, there are multitudes who, professing to believe the Bible, and to take it for their guide, reject every fundamental doctrine which it contains. So it was in the beginning as well as now. An inspired apostle declares, that some in his day ­ who not only professed to believe the scriptures, but even to "preach Christ" (Php 1:15-16) ­ did really preach "another gospel," the teachers of which he charges those to whom he wrote to hold "accursed" (Galatians 1:6-9); and he assures them that there are some "heresies" so deep and radical that they are to be accounted "damnable" (2 Peter 2:1). Surely those who maintain the true gospel cannot "walk together" in "church fellowship" with those who are "accursed" for preaching "another gospel," and who espouse "damnable heresies," the advocates of which the disciples of Christ are not permitted even to "receive into their houses," or to "bid God speed!" (cf. 2 John 1:10). How, then, I ask again, are the members of a church, to take care that they be, according to the divine command, "of one mind," and "of one way?" They may require all who enter their communion to profess a belief in the Bible; nay, they may require this profession to be repeated every day, and yet may be corrupted and divided by every form of the grossest error. Such a profession, it is manifest, ascertains no agreement; is a bond of no real union, a pledge of no spiritual fellowship. It leaves every thing within the range of nominal Christianity, as perfectly undefined, and as much exposed to total discord as before. But perhaps it will be proposed as a more efficient remedy, that there be a private understanding, vigilantly acted upon, that no ministers or members be admitted, but those who are known, by private conversation with them, substantially to agree with the original body, with regard both to doctrine and order. In this way, some allege, discord may be banished, and a church kept pure and peaceful, without an odious array of creeds and confessions. To this proposal, I answer, in the first place, it is, to all intents and purposes, exhibiting a creed, and requiring subscription to it, while the contrary is insinuated and professed. It is making use of a religious test, in the most rigorous manner, without having the honesty or the manliness to avow it. For what matter is it, as to the real spirit of the proceeding, whether the creed be reduced to writing, or be registered only in the minds of the church members, and applied by them as a body, if it equally excludes applicants who are not approved! But to this proposed remedy, I answer, in the second place, the question, "What is soundness in the faith?" however explicitly agreed upon by the members of the church among themselves, cannot be safely left to the understanding and recollection of each individual belonging to the body in question. As well might the civil constitution of a state, instead of being committed to writing, be left to the vague and ever varying impressions of the individual citizens who live under it. In such a constitution, every one sees there could be neither certainty nor stability. Scarcely any two retailers of its articles would perfectly agree; and the same persons would expound it differently at different times, as their interests or their passions might happen to bear sway. Quite as unreasonable and unsafe, to say the least, would it be to leave the instrument of a church’s fellowship on a similar footing. Such a nuncupative creed, when most needed as a means of quieting disturbances, or of excluding corruption, would be rendered doubtful, and, of course, useless, by having its most important provisions called in question on every side: a case in which, if it were made operative at all, it would be far more likely to be perverted into an instrument of popular oppression, than to be employed as a means of sober and wholesome government. The inference, then, plainly is that no church can hope to maintain a homogeneous character; no church can be secure either of purity or peace, for a single year; nay, no church can effectually guard against the highest degrees of corruption and strife, without some test of truth, explicitly agreed upon, and adopted by her in her ecclesiastical capacity: something recorded, something publicly known, something capable of being referred to when most needed, which not merely this or that private member supposes to have been received, but to which the church as such has agreed to adhere, as a bond of union. In other words, a church, in order to maintain the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and love" (cf. Ephesians 4:2-3), must have a creed ­ a written creed ­ to which she has formally given her assent, and to a conformity to which her ministrations are pledged. As long as such a test is faithfully applied, she cannot fail of being in some good degree united and harmonious. And when nothing of the kind is employed, I see not how she can be expected, without a miracle, to escape all the evils of discord and corruption. 2. The necessity and importance of creeds and confessions appear from the consideration, that one great design of establishing a church in our world was that she might be, in all ages, a depository, a guardian, and a witness of the truth. Christians, collectively as well as individually, are represented in scripture as witnesses for God. They are commanded to maintain his truth, and to "hold forth the word of life" (cf. Php 2:16), in all its purity and luster before a perverse generation, that others may be enlightened and converted. They are exhorted to "buy the truth, and not to sell it" (Proverbs 23:23); to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints" (cf. Jude 1:3); to "hold fast the form of sound words which they have received" (cf. 2 Timothy 1:14); and to "strive together for the faith of the gospel" (cf. Php 1:27). These, and many other commands of similar import, plainly make it the duty of every Christian church to detect and expose prevailing heresies; to exclude all such as embrace radical heresy from their communion; and to "lift up a standard" for truth, whenever "the enemy comes in like a flood" (cf. Isaiah 59:19; Isaiah 62:10). But does not all this imply taking effectual measures to distinguish between truth and error? Does not all this necessarily infer the duty of drawing, and publicly manifesting, a line between those who, while they profess in general to believe the Bible, really deny all its essential doctrines, and those who simply and humbly receive "the truth as it is in Jesus?" (cf. Ephesians 4:21). But how is this distinction to be made, seeing those who embrace the essential doctrines of the gospel, equally profess to receive the Bible? It can only be done by carefully ascertaining and explicitly declaring how the church herself, and how those whom she suspects of being in error, understand and interpret the Bible: that is, by extracting certain articles of faith from the scriptures, according to her understanding of them, and comparing these articles with the professed belief of those whom she supposes to be heretics. And what is this but extracting from the scriptures a confession of faith ­ a creed ­ and applying it as a test of sound principles? It does really appear to me that those orthodox brethren who admit that the church is bound to raise her voice against error, and to "contend earnestly" for the truth (cf. Jude 1:3), and yet denounce creeds and confessions, are, in the highest degree, inconsistent with themselves. They acknowledge the obligation and importance of a great duty; and yet reject the only means by which it can be performed. Quite as unreasonable, I am constrained to say, as the "taskmasters of Egypt" (Exodus 5:6-19), they require work to be done, without allowing the materials necessary to its accomplishment. Before the church, as such, can detect heretics, and cast them out from her bosom ­ before she can raise her voice, in "a day of rebuke and of blasphemy" (cf. Isaiah 37:3; 2 Kings 19:3), against prevailing errors ­ her governors and members must be agreed what is truth. And, unless they would give themselves up, in their official judgments, to all the caprice and feverish effervescence of occasional feeling, they must have some accredited, permanent document, exhibiting what they have agreed to consider as truth. There is really no feasible alternative. They must either have such "a form of sound words" (cf. 2 Timothy 1:13), which they have voluntarily adopted, and pledged themselves to one another to "hold fast;" or they can have no security that any two or more successive decisions concerning soundness in the faith will be alike. In other words, they cannot attain, in anything like a steady, uniform, consistent manner, one of the great purposes for which the visible church was established. It surely will not be said, by any considerate person, that the church, or any of her individual members, can sufficiently fulfill the duty in question, by simply proclaiming from time to time, in the midst of surrounding error, her adherence and her attachment to the Bible. Everyone must see that this would be, in fact, doing nothing as "witnesses of the truth" (cf. John 18:37); because it would be doing nothing peculiar, nothing distinguishing, nothing which every heretic in Christendom is not ready to do, or rather is not daily doing, as loudly, and as frequently as the most orthodox church. The very idea of "bearing testimony to the truth," and of separating from those who are so corrupt that Christian communion cannot be maintained with them, necessarily implies some public discriminating act, in which the church agrees upon, and expresses her belief in, the great doctrines of Christianity, in contradistinction from those who believe erroneously. Now to suppose that anything of this kind can be accomplished, by making a profession, the very same in every respect with that which the worst heretics make, is too palpably absurd to satisfy any sober inquirer. Of what value, let me ask, had the Waldenses and Albigenses been, as witnesses of the truth ­ as lights in the world, amidst the darkness of surrounding corruption ­ especially of what value had they been to the church in succeeding times, and to us at the present day, if they had not formed, and transmitted to posterity, those celebrated confessions of faith, as precious as they are memorable, which we read in their history, and which stand as so many monumental testimonies to the true "gospel of the grace of God?" (Acts 20:24). Without these, how should we ever have known in what manner they interpreted the Bible; or wherein they differed from the grossest heretics, who lived at the same time, and professed to receive the same Bible? Without these, how should we ever have seen so clearly and satisfactorily as we do, that they maintained the truth and the order of Christ’s house, amidst all the wasting desolations of the "man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2:3); and thus fulfilled his promise that there shall always be "a seed to serve him, who shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation?" (cf. Psalms 22:20). 3. The adoption and publication of a creed is a tribute to truth and candor, which every Christian church owes to the other churches, and to the world around her. Every wise man will wish to be united, in religious duty and privilege, with those who most nearly agree with himself in their views of doctrine and order ­ with those in intercourse with whom he can be most happy, and best edified. Of course, he will be desirous, before he joins any church, to know something of its faith, government, and general character. I will suppose a pious and ingenuous individual about to form his religious connections for life. He looks round on the churches to which he has most access, and is desirous of deciding with which of them he can be most comfortable. I will suppose that, in this survey, he turns his eyes towards the truly scriptural and primitive church to which it is our happiness to belong. He is anxious to know the doctrine as well as the order which he may expect to find in connection with our body. How is he to know this? Certainly not by going from church to church throughout our whole bounds, and learning the creed of every individual minister from his own lips. This would be physically impossible, without bestowing on the task a degree of time and toil which scarcely any man could afford. He could not actually hear for himself the doctrines taught in a twentieth part of our pulpits. And if he could, he would still be unable to decide, from this source alone, how far what he heard might be regarded as the uniform and universal, and especially as the permanent character of the church, and not rather as an accidental exhibition. But when such an inquirer finds that we have a published creed, declaring how we understand the scriptures ­ and explicitly stating, in detail, the great truths which we have agreed to unite in maintaining ­ he can ascertain in a few hours, and without leaving his own dwelling, what we profess to believe and to practice, and how far he may hope to be at home in our communion. And while he is enabled thus to understand the system to which we profess to adhere, he enables us to understand his views, by ascertaining how far they accord with our published creed. Further, what is thus due to ingenuous individuals, who wish to know the real character of our church, is also due to neighboring churches,who may have no less desire to ascertain the principles which we embrace. It is delightful for ecclesiastical communities, who approach near to each other in faith and order, to manifest their affection for one another, by cherishing some degree of Christian intercourse. But what church, which valued the preservation of its own purity and peace, would venture on such intercourse with a body which had no defined system ­ either of doctrine or government, to which it stood pledged ­ and which might, therefore, prove a source of pollution and disorder to every other church with which it had the smallest interchange of services? One of the ministers of such a denomination, when invited into the pulpit of an orthodox brother, might give entire satisfaction; while the very next to whom a similar mark of Christian affection and confidence was shown, might preach the most corrupt heresy. Creeds and confessions, then, so far from having a tendency to "alienate" and "embitter" those Christian denominations which think nearly alike, and ought to maintain fraternal intercourse, really tend to make them acquainted with each other; to lay a foundation for regular and cordial intercourse; to beget mutual confidence; and thus to promote the harmony of the church of God. I scruple not, therefore, to affirm, that, as every individual minister owes to all around him a frank avowal of his Christian faith, when any desire to know it; so every church owes it to her sister churches to be equally frank and explicit in publicly declaring her principles. She, no doubt, believes those principles to be purely scriptural. In publicly avowing them, therefore, she performs the double duty of bearing testimony to the truth, and of endeavoring to draw from less pure denominations, and from the surrounding world new support to what she conscientiously believes to be more correct sentiments than theirs. She may be erroneous in this estimate; but still she does what she can, and what she unfeignedly believes to be right ­ and what, of course, as long as this conviction continues, she is bound to perform. And I have no hesitation in further maintaining that, in all ages, those Christian churches which have been most honorably distinguished for their piety their zeal, and their adherence to the simplicity of the gospel, have been not only most remarkable for their care in forming, but also for their frankness in avowing, their doctrinal creed, and their disposition to let all around them distinctly understand what they professed to regard as the fundamental doctrines of our holy religion. 4. Another argument in favor of creeds, publicly adopted and maintained, is that they are friendly to the study of Christian doctrine, and, of course, to the prevalence of Christian knowledge. It is the general principle of the enemies of creeds, that all who profess to believe the Bible, ought, without further inquiry, to unite; to maintain ecclesiastical communion; and to live together in peace. But is it not manifest, that the only way in which those who essentially differ from each other concerning the fundamental doctrines of the gospel can live together in perfectly harmonious ecclesiastical fellowship is by becoming indifferent to truth: in other words, by becoming persuaded that modes of faith are of little or no practical importance to the church, and are, therefore, not worth contending for; that clear and discriminating views of Christian doctrine are wholly unnecessary, and of little use in the formation of Christian character? But in proportion as professing Christians are indifferent to truth, will they not be apt to neglect the study of it? And if the study of it be generally neglected, will not gross and deplorable ignorance of it eventually and generally prevail? The fact is, when men love gospel truth well enough to study it with care, they will soon learn to estimate its value; they will soon be disposed to "contend for it" against its enemies (cf. Jude 1:3), who are numerous in every age; and this will inevitably lead them to adopt and defend that "form of sound words" (2 Timothy 1:13) which they think they find in the sacred scriptures. On the other hand, let any man imbibe the notion that creeds and confessions are unscriptural, and of course unlawful, and he will naturally and speedily pass to the conclusion, that all contending for doctrines is useless, and even criminal. From this the transition is easy to the abandonment of the study of doctrine, or, at least, the zealous and diligent study of it. Thus it is, that laying aside all creeds naturally tends to make professing Christians indifferent to the study of Christian truths, comparatively uninterested in the attainment of religious knowledge; and, finally, regardless, and, of course, ignorant of "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). I would by no means, indeed, be understood to assert that no heretics have ever been zealous in publishing and defending their corrupt opinions. The pages of ecclesiastical history abundantly show that many of the advocates of error, both in ancient and modern times, have contended not only pertinaciously, but even fiercely, for their peculiar doctrines. But my position is that the enemies of all creeds and confessions usually assume a principle which, if carried out to its legitimate consequences, would discourage all zeal in maintaining the peculiar doctrines of the gospel; that if all zeal in maintaining peculiar doctrines were laid aside, all ardor and diligence in studying them would be likely to be laid aside also; and that, if this were the case, a state of things more unfriendly to the growth and prevalence of Christian knowledge could scarcely be imagined. Look at the loose, vague, indecisive character of the preaching heard in nine-tenths of the Unitarian, and other latitudinarian pulpits in the United States, and, as I suppose, throughout Christendom. If the occupants of those pulpits had it for their distinct and main object to render their hearers indifferent about understanding, and, of course, indifferent about studying the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, they could scarcely adopt a plan more directly calculated to attain their end, than that which they actually pursue. Their incessant cry is, "matters of opinion are between God and a man’s own conscience. No one else has a right to meddle with them." Hence, in pursuance of this maxim, they do, indeed, take care to meddle very little with the distinguishing doctrines of the gospel. We conjecture what their doctrinal opinions are, in general, not so much from what they say, as from what they do not say. And the truth is, that if this character of preaching was to become universal, all discriminating views of gospel truth would, in thirty years, be banished from the church. If the friends of orthodoxy and piety, then, really desire to cherish and maintain a love for the discriminat ing study of Christian doctrine; a taste for religious knowledge; a spirit of zeal for the truth, in opposition to that miserable indifference to articles of faith,which is so replete with mischief to every Christian community in which it is found; then let them be careful to present, and diligent to keep before the eyes of one another, and the eye of the public, that "good confession" which they are commanded to "profess before many witnesses" (cf. 1 Timothy 6:12-13). If they fail to do this; if, under the guise of adherence to that great Protestant maxim, that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and manners (a precious all important truth which, properly understood, cannot be too often repeated), they speak and act as if all who profess to receive the Bible were standing upon equally solid and safe ground; if, in a word, they consider it as unnecessary, and even criminal, to select from the mass of scriptural truth, and to defend, as such, the fundamental doctrines of the gospel; then, nothing short of miracle can prevent them from sinking into that coldness and sloth with respect to the study of doctrine, and finally into the deplorable "lack of knowledge" by which millions are constantly "destroyed" (Hosea 4:6). 5. It is an argument of no small weight, in favor of creeds, that the experience of all ages has found them indispensably necessary. Even in the days of the apostles, when all their inspiration and all their miraculous powers were insufficient to deter heretics from spreading their poison, men, calling themselves Christians, and professing to preach the religion of Christ, perverted his truth, and brought "another gospel" (Galatians 1:6), which he had not taught. In this exigency, how did the churches proceed? An inspired apostle directed them not to be contented with a general profession of belief in the religion of Christ on the part of those who came to them as Christian teachers; but to examine and try them, and to ascertain whether their teachings were agreeable to the "form of sound words" (2 Timothy 1:13) which they had been taught by him. And he adds with awful solemnity: "If any man bring any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (cf. Galatians 1:9). Here was, in effect, an instance, and that by divine warrant, of employing a creed as a test of orthodoxy: that is, men making a general profession of Christianity are expressly directed by an inspired apostle to be brought to the test, in what sense they understood that gospel ­ of which, in general terms, they declared their reception ­ and how they explained its leading doctrines. It would seem, indeed, that the confession of faith then required was very short and simple. This, the peculiar circumstances of the times, and the no less peculiar administration of the church, rendered entirely sufficient. Still, whether the confession were long or short, whether it consisted of three articles or of thirty, the principle was the same. In the second century, in the writings of Irenaeus; and, in the third, in the writings of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Lucian, the martyr; we find a number of creeds and confessions more formally drawn out, more minute, and more extensive than those of earlier date. They were intended to bear testimony against the various forms of error which had arisen; and plainly show that, as the arts and corruptions of heretics increased, the orthodox church found more attention to the adoption and maintenance of these formularies indispensable necessary. In the fourth century, when the church was still more agitated by the prevalence of heresy, there was a still louder demand for accredited tests, by which the heretics were to be tried and detected. Of this demand there never was a more striking instance than in the Council of Nicea, when the heresy of Arius was under the consideration of that far-famed assembly. When the Council entered on the examination of the subject, it was found extremely difficult to obtain from Arius any satisfactory explanation ofhis views. He was not only as ready, as the most orthodox divine present, to profess that he believed the Bible; but he also declared himself willing to adopt, as his own, all the language of the scriptures, in detail, concerning the person and character of the blessed Redeemer. But when the members of the Council wished to ascertain in what sense he understood this language, he discovered a disposition to evade and equivocate, and actually, for a consider able time, baffled the attempts of the most ingenious of the orthodox to specify his errors, and to bring them to light. He declared that he was perfectly willing to employ the popular language on the subject in controversy; and wished to have it believed that he differed very little from the body of the church. Accordingly the orthodox went over the various titles of Christ plainly expressive of Divinity ­ such as "God," "the true God," the "express image of God," etc. (Titus 2:13; 1 John 5:20; cf. Hebrews 1:3) ­ to every one of which Arius and his followers most readily subscribed, claiming a right, however, to put their own construction on the scriptural titles in question. After employing much time and ingenuity in vain, in endeavoring to drag this artful chief from his lurking places, and to obtain from him an explanation of his views, the Council found it would be impossible to accomplish their object as long as they permitted him to entrench himself behind a mere general profession of belief in the Bible. They therefore did what common sense, as well as the word of God, had taught the church to do in all preceding times, and what alone can enable her to detect the artful advocate of error. They expressed, in their own language, what they supposed to be the doctrine of scripture concerning the Divinity of the Saviour: in other words, they drew up a confession of faith on this subject, which they called upon Arius and his disciples to subscribe. This the heretics refused; and were thus virtually brought to the acknowledgment that they did not understand the scriptures as the rest of the Council understood them, and, of course, that the charge against them was correct. The same course was taken by all the pious witnesses of the truth in the dark ages when, amidst the surrounding corruption and desolation, they found themselves called upon to bear "witness to the truth" (cf. John 18:37). They all professed their belief in the Bible, and their love to it; they constantly appealed to it as the only infallible rule of faith and practice; and they studied it with incomparably more veneration and diligence than any of the errorists around them. This all history plainly evinces. But at the same time, they saw the futility of doing nothing more than proclaim, in general, their adherence to the sacred volume. This would have been no distinction, and, of course, no testimony at all. It would have been nothing more than the bitterest enemies of the truth were proclaiming busily, and even clamorously, every day. They, therefore, did what the friends of orthodoxy had been in the habit of doing from the earliest ages. They framed creeds, from time to time, as the exigencies of the church demanded, by means of which they were enabled to bear their testimony for God: to vindicate his truth, and to transmit the memorials of their fidelity to distant generations. And finally, at the glorious Reformation from Popery ­ by which the great Head of the church may be said again to have "set his people free" (cf. John 8:32, John 8:36), and the memory of which shall never die ­ in drawing the line between "the precious and the vile" (cf. Jeremiah 15:19), the friends of truth followed the same course. They, with one accord, formed their creeds and confessions, which served, at once, as a plea for the truth, and a barrier against heresy. And it is not, perhaps, too much to say, that the volume which contains the collection of these creeds is one of the most precious and imperishable monuments of the piety, wisdom, and zeal of the sixteenth century. What, now, is the inference, from all this experience of the church of God, so universal and so uniform? It cannot be misunderstood. It speaks volumes. When the friends of truth in all ages and situations, even those who were most tenacious of the rights of private judgment, and most happy in the enjoyment of Christian liberty, have invariably found it necessary to resort to the adoption of creeds, in order to ascertain for themselves, as a social body, and to communicate to others, for their benefit, their sense of the holy scriptures; we are naturally led to conclude, not only that the resort is neither so "unreasonable" nor so "baneful"as many would persuade us to believe; but that there is really no other practicable method of maintaining unity and purity in the church of Christ. 6. A further argument in favor of creeds and Confessions may be drawn from the remarkable fact that their most zealous opposers have generally been latitudinarians and heretics. I do not affirm that the use of creeds has never been opposed by individuals substantially orthodox, and even by orthodox churches: for it is believed that a few rare cases of this anomaly have occurred, under the influence of strong prejudice, or very peculiar circumstances. Yet, so far as I can recollect, we have no example of it among the ancients. Such cases are the growth of very modern times. Nor, on the other hand, is it my purpose to deny that heretics have sometimes been extremely zealous in forming and maintaining the most corrupt creeds. For of this the early history of the church abounds with examples, and its later periods have not been wholly without them. But what I venture to assert is that, as a general fact, the most ardent and noisy opponents of creeds have been those who held corrupt opinions; that none, calling themselves Christians, have been so bitter in reviling them, in modern times, as the friends of Unitarianism, and those who were leaning toward that awful gulf; and that the most consistent and zealous advocates of truth have been, everywhere and at all times, distinguished by their friendship to such formularies. Nor has this been by any means a fortuitous occur rence; but precisely what might have been calculated, on principle, as likely to be realized. It is an invariable characteristic of the orthodox that they lay great stress on the knowledge and reception of truth; that they consider it as necessary to holiness; that they deem an essential part of fidelity to their Master in heaven to consist in contending for it, and maintaining it in opposition to all the forms of error. On the contrary, it is almost as invariable a characteristic of modern heretics, and more especially of those who fall under the general denomination of Unitarians, that they profess lightly to esteem modes of faith; that they manifest a marked indifference to truth; that they, for the most part, maintain, in so many words, the innocence of error; and hence very naturally reprobate, and even vilify, all faithful attempts to oppose heresy, and to separate heretics from the church. From those, then, who have either far departed or at least begun to depart, from "the faith once delivered to the saints" (cf. Jude 1:3), almost exclusively, do we hear of the "oppression," and the "mischief" of creeds and confessions. And is it any marvel that those who maintain the innocence of error should be unwilling to raise fences for keeping it out of the church? Is it any marvel that the Arian, the Socinian, the Pelagian, and such as are verging toward those fatal errors, should exceedingly dislike all the evangelical formularies which tend to make visible the line of distinction between the friends and the enemies of the redeemer? No; "men," as has been often well observed, "men are seldom opposed to creeds, until creeds have become opposed to them." That they should dislike and oppose them, in these circumstances, is just as natural as that a culprit arraigned before a civil tribunal, should equally dislike the law, its officer, and its sanction. Accordingly, if we look a little into the interior of church history, especially within the last century, we shall find these remarks often and strikingly exemplified. We shall find, with few exceptions, that whenever a group of men began to slide, with respect to orthodoxy, they generally attempted to break, if not to conceal, their fall, by declaiming against creeds and confessions. They have seldom failed, indeed, to protest in the beginning, that they had no objections to the doctrines themselves of the confession which they had subscribed, but to the principle of subscribing confessions at all. Soon, however, was the melancholy fact gradually unfolded, that disaffection to the doctrines which they once appeared to love had more influence in directing their course than even they themselves imagined, and that they were receding further and further from the "good way" (Jeremiah 6:16) in which they formerly seemed to rejoice. Truly that cause is of a most suspicious character to which latitudinarians and heretics, at least in modern times, almost as a matter of course, yield their support; and which they defend with a zeal, in general, strictly proportioned to their hatred of orthodoxy! 7. The only further argument in support of creeds on which I shall dwell is that their most zealous opposers do themselves virtually employ them in all ecclesiastical proceedings. The favorite maxim, with the opposers of creeds, that all who acknowledge the Bible, ought, without hesitation, to be received, not only to Christian, but also to ministerial communion, is invariably abandoned by those who urge it, the moment a case turns up which really brings it to the test. Did any one ever hear of a Unitarian congregation engaging as their pastor a preacher of Calvinism, knowing him to be such? But why not, on the principle adopted, or at least professed, by Unitarians? The Calvinist surely comes with his Bible in his hand, and professes to believe it as cordially as they. Why is not that enough? Yet we know that, in fact, it is not enough for these advocates of unbounded liberality. Before they will consent to receive him as their spiritual guide, they must be explicitly informed how he interprets the Bible: in other words, what is his particular creed; whether it is substantially the same with their own or not; and if they are not satisfied that this is the case, all other professions and protestations will be in vain. He will be inexorably rejected. Here, then, we have, in all its extent, the principle of demanding subscription to a creed ­ and a principle carried out into practice as rigorously as ever it was by the most high-toned advocate of orthodoxy. We have before seen that the friends of truth, in all ages, have found, in their sad experience, that a general profession of belief in the Bible was altogether insufficient, either as a bond of union, or as a fence against the inroads of error. And here we find the warmest advocates of a contrary doctrine, and with a contrary language in their mouths, when they come to act, pursuing precisely the same course with the friends of creeds, with only this difference: that the creed which they apply as a test, instead of being a written and tangible document, is hidden in the bosoms of those who expound and employ it, and, of course, may be applied in the most capricious as well as tyrannical manner, without appeal; and further, that, while they really act upon this principle, they disavow it, and would persuade the world that they proceed upon an entirely different plan. Can there be a more conclusive fact than this? The enemies of creeds themselves cannot get along a day without them. It is in vain to say, that in their case no creed is imposed, but that all is voluntary, and left entirely to the choice of the parties concerned. It will be seen hereafter that the same may be with equal truth asserted, in all those cases of subscription to articles, for which I contend, without any exception. No less vain is it to say, again, that in their case the articles insisted on are few and simple, and by no means so liable to exception as the long and detailed creed which some churches have adopted. It is the principle of subscription to creeds which is now under consideration. If the lawfulness and even the necessity of acting upon this principle can be established, our cause is gained. The extent to which we ought to go in multiplying articles is a secondary question, the answer to which must depend on the exigencies of the church framing the creed. Now the adversaries of creeds, while they totally reject the expediency, and even the lawfulness, of the general principle, yet show that they cannot proceed a step without adopting it in practice. This is enough. Their conduct is sounder than their reasoning. And no wonder. Their conduct is dictated by good sense and practical experience, nay, imposed upon them by the evident necessity of the case: while their reasoning is a theory, derived, as I must believe, from a source far less enlightened, and less safe. Several other arguments might be urged in favor of written creeds, did not the limits to which I am confined in this Lecture, forbid me further to enlarge. It is easy to show that confessions of faith, judiciously drawn, and solemnly adopted by particular churches, are not only invaluable as bonds of union, and fences against error; but that they also serve an important purpose, as accredited manuals of Christian doctrine, well fitted for the instruction of those private members of churches, who have neither leisure nor habits of thinking sufficiently close, to draw from the sacred writings themselves a consistent system of truth. It is of incalculable use to the individual who has but little time for reading, and but little acquaintance with books, to be furnished with a clear and well arranged compend of doctrine, which he is authorized to regard, not as the work of a single, enlightened, and pious divine; but as drawn out and adopted by the collected wisdom of the church to which he belongs. There is often a satisfaction, to plain, unsophisticated minds, not to be described, in going over such a compend, article by article; examining the proofs adduced from the word of God in support of each; and "searching the scriptures daily to see whether these things which it teaches are so or not" (cf. Acts 17:11). It might also be further shown that sound and scriptural confessions of faith are of great value for transmitting to posterity a knowledge of what is done by the church, at particular times, in behalf of the truth. Every such confession that is formed or adopted by the followers of Christ in one age is a precious legacy transmitted to their children, and to all that may come after them, in a succeeding age, not only bearing their testimony in support of the true doctrine of Jesus Christ, but also pouring more or less light on those doctrines, for the instruction of all to whom that testimony may come. Answers for Objections to Creeds But while we attend to the principal arguments in favour of written creeds, justice to the subject requires that we, II. Examine some of the principal objections which have been made to creeds by their adversaries. 1. And the first which I shall mention is that forming a creed, and requiring subscription to it as a religious test, is superceding the Bible, and making a human composition instead of it a standard of faith. "The Bible," say those who urge this objection, "is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. It is so complete, that it needs no human addition, and so easily understood, that it requires no human explanation. Why, then, should we desire any other ecclesiastical standard? Why subscribe ourselves, orcall upon others to subscribe, any other creed than this plain, inspired, and perfect one? Every time we do this we offer a public indignity to the sacred volume, as we virtually declare, either that it is not infallible, or not sufficient." This objection is the most specious one in the whole catalogue. And although it is believed that a sufficient answer has been furnished by some principles already laid down; yet the confidence with which it is every day repeated renders a formal attention to it expedient; more especially as it bears, at first view, so much the appearance of peculiar veneration for the scriptures, that many are captivated by its plausible aspect, and consider it as decisive. The whole argument which this objection presents is founded on a false assumption. No Protestant ever professed to regard his creed, considered as a human composition, as of equal authority with the scriptures, and far less of paramount authority. Every principle of this kind is, with one voice, disclaimed, by all the creeds, and defenses of creeds, that I have ever read. And whether, notwithstanding this, the constant repetition of the charge ought to be considered as fair argument, or gross calumny, the impartial will judge. A church creed professes to be, as was before observed, merely an epitome, or summary exhibition of what the scriptures teach. It professes to be deduced from the scriptures, and to refer to the scriptures for the whole of its authority. Of course, when any one subscribes it, he is so far from dishonoring the Bible, that he does public homage to it. He simply declares, by a solemn act, how he understands the Bible ­ in other words, what doctrines he considers it as containing. In short, the language of an orthodox believer, in subscribing his ecclesiastical creed, is simply of the following import: "While the Socinian professes to believe the Bible, and to understand it as teaching the mere humanity of Christ; while the Arian professes to receive the same Bible, and to find in it the Saviour represented as the most exalted of all creatures, but still a creature; while the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian make a similar profession of their general belief in the scriptures, and interpret them as teaching a doctrine far more favorable to human nature, and far less honorable to the grace of God, than they appear to me really to teach; I beg the privilege of declaring, for myself, that, while I believe with all my heart that the Bible is the word of God, the only perfect rule of faith and manners, and the only ultimate test in all controversies; it plainly teaches, as I read and believe, the deplorable and total depravity of human nature; the essential divinity of the Saviour; a Trinity of persons in the Godhead; justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ; and regeneration and sanctification by the Holy Spirit, as indispensable to prepare the soul for heaven. These I believe to be the radical truths which God has revealed in his word; and while they are denied by some, and frittered away or perverted by others who profess to believe that blessed word, I am verily persuaded they are the fundamental principles of the plan of salvation." Now, I ask, is there in all this language, any thing dishonorable to the Bible? Any thing that tends to supersede its authority; or to introduce a rule, or a tribunal of paramount authority? Is there not, on the contrary, in the whole language and spirit of such a declaration, an acknowledgment of God’s word as of ultimate and supreme authority; and an expression of belief in certain doctrines, simply and only because they are believed to be revealed in that word? Truly, if this is dishonoring the scriptures, or setting up a standard above them, there is an end of all meaning either of words or actions. But still it is asked, "Where is the need of any definitive declaration of what we understand the scriptures to teach? Are they not intelligible enough in themselves? Can we make them plainer than their Author has done? Why hold a candle to the sun? Why make an attempt to frame a more explicit test than he who gave the Bible has thought proper to frame ­ an attempt, as vain as it is presumptuous?" To this plea it is sufficient to answer that, although the scriptures are undoubtedly simple and plain ­ so plain that " he who runs may read" (cf. Habakkuk 2:2) ­ yet it is equally certain that thousands do, in fact, mistake and misinterpret them. This cannot possibly be denied, because thousands interpret them (and that on points confessedly fundamental) not only in different, but in directly opposite ways. Of course all cannot be equally right. Can it be wrong, then, for a pious and orthodox man ­ or for a pious church ­ to exhibit, and endeavor to recommend to others, their mode of interpreting the sacred volume? As the world is acknowledged, on all hands, to be, in fact, full of mistake and error as to the true meaning of the holy scriptures, can it be thought a superfluous task for those who have more light and more correct opinions, to hold them up to view, as a testimony to the truth, and as a guide to such as may be in error? Surely it cannot. Yet this is neither more nor less than precisely that formation and maintenance of a scriptural confessions of faith for which I am pleading. Still, however, it may be asked, what right has any man, or set of men, to interpose their authority and undertake to deal out the sense of scripture for others? Is it not both impious in itself, and an improper assumption over the minds of our fellow men? I answer, this reasoning would prove too much, and therefore proves nothing. For, if admitted, it would prove that all preaching of the gospel is presumptuous and criminal; because preaching always consisted in explaining and enforcing scripture, and that, for the most part, in the words of the preacher himself. Indeed, if the objection before us were valid, it would prove that all the pious writings of the most eminent divines, in all ages, who have had for their object to elucidate and apply the word of God, were profane and arrogant attempts to mend his revelation, and make it better fitted than it is to promote its great design. Nay, further; upon the principle of this objection, it not only follows, that no minister of the gospel ought ever do more in the pulpit than simply to read or repeat the very words of scripture; but it is equally evident that he must read or repeat scripture to his hearers only in the languages in which they were given to the church. For, as has been often observed, it cannot be said that the words of any translation of the Bible are the very words of the Holy Spirit. They are only the words which uninspired men have chosen, in which to express, as nearly as they were able, the sense of the original. If, therefore, the objection before us be admitted, no man is at liberty to teach the great truths of revelation in any other way than by literally repeating the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, in the hearing of the people. So extreme is the absurdity to which an erroneous principle will not fail to lead those who are weak enough, or bold enough, to follow it to its legitimate consequences! But, after all, what language do facts speak on this subject? Are those individuals or churches, who have been most distinguished for their attachment and adherence to creeds, more regardless of the Bible than other professing Christians? Do they appear to esteem the Bible less? Do they read it less? Do they appeal to it less frequently, as their grand and ultimate authority? Do they quote it more rarely, or with less respect in their preaching? Where they once refer to their creeds or catechisms, for either authority or illustration, in the pulpit, do they not, notoriously, refer to the Bible a thousand times? Do they take less pains than others to impress the contents of the sacred volume on the minds of their children, and to hold it forth as the unceasing object of study to all? Look at the Reformed churches of Scotland and Holland, of France and Geneva, in their best state, when their confessions of faith were most venerated, and had most power, and then say, whether any churches, since the days of the apostles, ever discovered more reverence for the scriptures, or treated them with more devout regard, as the only perfect standard of faith and practice, than they? Nay, am I not warranted in making a similar appeal with respect to those churches in our land which have been most distinguished for their attachment to creeds? Are not their ministers, in general, quite as remarkable for very rarely quoting their own ecclesiastical formularies, for either proof or illustration, as they are for their constant and abundant quotations from scripture for both purposes? Can the same incessant and devout recurrence to the sacred oracles be ascribed with equal truth to the great body of the opposers of creeds, in ancient,or modern times? I will not press this comparison into further detail; but have no apprehension that even the bitterest enemy of creeds, who has a tolerable acquaintance with facts, and the smallest portion of candor, will venture to say that the result, fairly deduced, is in favor of his cause. 2. Another objection frequently made to church creeds is that they interfere with the rights of conscience, and naturally lead to oppression. "What right," say those who urge this objection, "has any church, or body of churches, to impose a creed on me, or dictate to me what I shall believe? To attempt such dictation is tyranny; to submit to it is to surrender the right of private judgment." There would be some ground for this objection, if a creed were, in any case, imposed by the civil government, or by an established church; if any were obliged to receive it, under heavy pains and disabilities, whether they approved it or not. But as such a case does not, and, happily, cannot exist in our favored country, the objection is surely as illegitimate in reasoning, as it is false in fact. One is tempted to suspect that those who urge such an objection among us have found it manufactured to their hands, by persons living under civil governments and ecclesiastical establishments of an oppressive character; and viewing it as a weapon which might be wielded with much popular effect, they have taken it into their service, and thenceforward refused to abandon it; though proved a thousand times to have no more application to any creed or church in the United States, than to the inhabitants of another planet. It will not, surely, be denied by anyone, that a body of Christians have a right, in every free country, to associate and walk together upon such principles as they may choose to agree upon, not inconsistent with public order. They have a right to agree and declare how they understand the scriptures; what articles found in scripture they concur in considering as fundamental; and in what manner they will have their public preaching and polity conducted, for the edification of themselves and their children. They have no right, indeed, to decide or to judge for others, nor can they compel any man to join them. But it is surely their privilege to judge for themselves, to agree upon the plan of their own association, to determine upon what principles they will receive other members into their brotherhood, and to form a set of rules which will exclude from their body those with whom they cannot walk in harmony. The question is not whether they make, in all cases, a wise and scriptural use of this right to follow the dictates of conscience, but whether they possess the right at all? They are, indeed, accountable for the use which they make of it, and solemnly accountable to their Master in heaven; but to man they surely cannot, and ought not, to be compelled to give any account. It is their own concern. Their fellow men have nothing to do with it, as long as they commit no offense against the public peace. To decide otherwise would indeed be an outrage on the right of private judgment. If the principles of civil and religious liberty generally prevalent in our happy country are correct, demonstration itself cannot be more incontrovertible than these positions. But if a body of professing Christians have a natural right thus to associate, to extract their own creed from the scriptures, and to agree upon the principles by which others may afterwards be admitted into their number; is it not equally manifest that they have the same right to refuse admittance to those with whom, they believe, they cannot be comfortably connected? Let us suppose a church to be actually associated upon the principle laid down, its creed and other articles adopted, and published for the information of all who may wish to be informed and its members walking together in harmony and love. Suppose, while things are in this situation, a person comes to them, and addresses them thus: "I demand admittance into your body, though I can neither believe the doctrines which you profess to embrace, nor consent to be governed by the rules which you have agreed to adopt." What answer would they be apt to give him? They would certainly reply: "Your demand is very unreasonable. Our union is a voluntary one, for our mutual spiritual benefit. We have not solicited you to join us; and you cannot possibly have a right to force yourself into our body. The whole world is before you. Go where you please. We cannot agree to receive you, unless you are willing to walk with us upon our own principles." Such an answer would undoubtedly be deemed a proper one by every reasonable person. Suppose, however, this applicant were still to urge his demand; to claim admission as a right; and, upon being finally refused, to complain that the society had "persecuted" and "injured" him? Would anyone think him possessed of common sense? Nay, would not the society in question, if they could be compelled to receive such an applicant, instead of being oppressors of others, cease to be free themselves? The same principle would still more strongly apply, in case of a clergyman offering himself to such a church, as a candidate for the station of pastor among them. Suppose, when he appeared to make a tender of his services, they were to present him with a copy of that creed, and of that form of government and of worship which they had unanimously adopted, and to say,"This is what we believe. We pretend not to prescribe to others; ’but so we have learned Christ’ (cf. Ephesians 2:20); so we understand the scriptures; and thus we wish ourselves, our children, and all who look up to us for guidance, to be instructed. Can you subscribe to these formularies? Are you willing to come among us upon these principles, and, as our pastor, thus to break to us, and our little ones, what we deem ’the bread of life?’ " (cf. John 8:35, John 8:48). Could the candidate complain of such a demand? Many speak as if the church, in putting him to this test, undertook to "judge for him." But nothing can be more remote from the truth. They only undertake to judge for themselves. If the candidate cannot, or will not, accept of the test, he will be, of course, rejected. But, in this case, no judgment is passed on his state toward God; no ecclesiastical censure, not even the smallest, is inflicted upon him. The churches only claim a right to be served in the ministerial office by a man who is of the same religion with themselves. And is this an unreasonable demand? Are not the rights of conscience reciprocal? Or do they demand, that while a church shall be prohibited from "oppressing" an individual, an individual shall be allowed to "oppress" a church? Surely it cannot be necessary to wait for an answer. Accordingly, the transactions of secular life furnish every day a practical refutation of the objection which I am now considering. Does the head of a family, when a person applies to be received as a resident under his roof, ever doubt that he has a right to inquire whether the applicant is willing to conform to the rules of his family or not; and if he declines this conformity, to refuse him admission? And even after he has been received and tried, for awhile, if he proves an uncomfortable inmate, does not every one consider the master of the family as at liberty to exclude him? Has not every parent, and, of course, every voluntary association of parents, an acknowledged right to determine what qualifications they will require in a preceptor for their children; and, if so, to bring all candidates to the test agreed on, and to reject those who do not correspond with it? And if a candidate who fell totally short of the qualifications required, and who, of course, was rejected, should make a great outcry that he was "wantonly" and "tyrannically" deprived of the place to which he aspired, would not every one think him insane, or worse than insane? The same principle applies to every voluntary association, for moral, literary, or other lawful purposes. If the members have not a right to agree on what principles they will associate, and to refuse membership to those who are known to be entirely hostile to the great object of the association, there is an end of all liberty. Of the self evident truth of all this, no one doubts. But where is the essential difference between any one of these rights, and the right of any community of professing Christians to agree upon what they deem the scriptural principles of their own union; and to refuse admission into their body of those whom they consider as unfriendly to the great purposes of truth and edification, for the promotion of which they associated? To deny them this right, would be to make them slaves indeed! It will probably, however, be alleged that a church cannot, properly speaking, be considered as a voluntary association; that it is a community instituted by the authority of Christ; that its laws are given by Him, as its sovereign Head and Lord; and that its rulers are in fact only stewards, bound to conform themselves in all that they do to his will; that, if the church were their own, they would have a right to shut out from it whom they pleased; but as it is Christ’s, they must find some other rule of proceeding than their own volitions. This is, doubtless, all true. The church of Christ certainly cannot be regarded as a mere voluntary association, in the same sense in which many other societies are so called. It is the property of Christ. His will is the basis and the law of its establishment, and, of course, none can be either admitted or excluded but upon principles which his own word prescribes. This, however, it is conceived, does not alter, "one jot or tittle," the spirit of the foregoing reasoning. The union of Christians in a church state must, still, from the nature of things, be a voluntary act; for if it were not so, it would not be a moral act at all. But if the union is voluntary, then those who form it must certainly be supposed to have a right to follow their own convictions as to what their Divine Master has revealed and enjoined respecting the laws of their union. If they are not to judge in this matter, who, I ask, is to judge for them? Has the Head of the church, then, prescribed any qualifications as necessary for private membership, or for admission to the ministerial office, in his church? If so, what are they? Will any degree of departure from the purity of faith or practice be sufficient to exclude a man? If it will, to whom has our Lord committed the task of applying his law, and judging in any particular ease? to the applicants or delinquents themselves; or to the church in which membership is desired? If to the latter, on what principle is she bound to proceed? As her members have voluntarily associated for their mutual instruction and edification in spiritual things, have they not a right to be satisfied that the individual who applies to be received among them, either as a private member or minister, entertains opinions, and bears a character, which will be consistent with the great object which they seek? Can any such individual reasonably refuse to satisfy them as to the accordance of his religious sentiments with theirs, if they think that both the law of Christ, and the nature of the case, render such accordance necessary to Christian fellowship? If he could not reasonably refuse to give satisfaction verbally on this subject, could he, with any more reason, refuse to state his own sentiments in writing, and subscribe his name to that written statements? Surely to decline this, while he consented to give a verbal exhibition of his creed, would wear the appearance of singular caprice or perverseness. But if no rational objection could be made to his subscribing a declaration, drawn up with his own hand, would it not be exactly the same thing, as to the spirit of the transaction, if ­ with a view, simply to ascertain the fact of his belief, not to dictate laws to his conscience ­ a statement, previously drawn up by the church herself, should be presented for his voluntary signature? What is required of an individual in such case is not that he shall believe what the church believes; but simply that he shall declare, as a matter of fact, whether he does possess that belief which, from his voluntary application to be received into Christian fellowship with that church, he may be fairly presumed to possess. Again, I ask, is it possible to deny a church this right, without striking at the root of all that is sacred in the convictions of conscience, and of all that is precious in the enjoyment of Christian communion? I fully grant, indeed, that, as her authority rests entirely on the declared will of Christ, she has no right, in the sight of God, to propose to a candidate, any other than a sound orthodox creed. She cannot possibly be considered as having a right, on this principle, to require his assent to anti-scriptural principles. Still, however, as the rights of conscience are unalienable; and as every church must be considered, of course, as verily believing that she is acting according to her Master’s will, we must concede to her the plenary right, in the sight of man, to require from those who would join her, a solemn assent to her formularies. But, perhaps, it will be asked, when a man has already become a member, or minister of a church, in virtue of a voluntary and honest subscription to her articles, and afterwards alters his mind; if he is excluded from her communion as a private member, or deposed from office as a minister, is not here "oppression?" Is it not inflicting on a man a "heavy penalty" for his "opinions," "punishing" him for his "sincere, conscientious convictions?" I answer, if the Lord Jesus Christ has not only authorized, but solemnly commanded his church to cast the heretical, as well as immoral, out of her communion, and wholly to withdraw her countenance from those who preach "another gospel" (Galatians 1:6); then it is manifest that the church, in acting on this authority, does no one any injury. In excluding a private member from the communion of a church, or deposing a minister from office in the regular and scriptural exercise of discipline, she deprives neither of any natural right. It is only withdrawing that which was voluntarily asked, and voluntarily bestowed, and which might have been, without injustice, withheld. It is only practically saying, "You can no longer, consistently with our views, either of obedience to Christ, or of Christian edification, be a minister or a member with us. You may be as happy and as useful as you can in any other connection; but we must take away that authority and those privileges which we once gave you, and of which your further exercise among us would be subversive of those principles which we are solemnly pledged to support." Is this language unreasonable? Is the measure which it contemplates oppressive? Would it be more just in itself, or more favorable to the rights of conscience, if any individual could retain his place as a teacher and guide in a church, contrary to its wishes; to the subversion of its faith; to the disturbance of its peace; and finally to the endangering of its existence; and all this contrary to his own solemn engagements, and to the distinct understanding of its members, when he joined them? Surely every friend of religious liberty would indignantly answer, "No!" Such a church would be the oppressed party, and such a member, the tyrant. The conclusion, then, is that when a church makes use of a creed in the manner that has been described ­ as a bond of union, as a barrier against what it deems heresy, and in conformity with what it conscientiously believes to be the will of Christ ­ it is so far from encroaching on the "rights" of others; so far from being chargeable with "oppression;" that it is really, in the most enlightened manner, and on the largest scale, maintaining the rights of conscience; and that for such a church, instead of doing this, to give up its own testimony to the truth and order of God’s house; to surrender its own comfort, peace, and edification, for the sake of complying with the unreasonable demands of a corrupt individual, would be to subject itself to the worst of slavery. What is the subjugation of the many, with all their interests, rights, and happiness to the dictation of one, or a few, but the essence of tyranny? 3. A third objection often urged against subscription to creeds and confessions is that it is unfriendly to free inquiry. "When a man," say the enemies of creeds, "has once subscribed a public formulary, and taken his ecclesiastical stand with a church which requires it, he must continue so to believe to the end of life or resign his place; new light in abundance may offer itself to his view; but he must close his eyes against it. Now, can it be right," say they, "for anyone voluntarily to place himself in circumstances of so much temptation; willingly to place himself within the reach of strong inducements to tamper with conscience, and to resist conviction?" In answer to this objection, my first remark is that when a man takes on himself the solemn and highly responsible office of a public instructor of others, we must presume that he has examined the most important of the various creeds (called Christian) with all the deliberation, sincerity, and prayer, of which he is capable, and that he has made up his mind with respect to the leading doctrines of scripture. To suppose anyone capable of entering in the duties of the ministerial office while he is wavering and unsettled, and liable to be "carried about by every wind of doctrine" (cf. Ephesians 4:14), is to suppose him both weak and criminal to a very great degree. I know, indeed, that some ardent opposers of creeds consider a state of entire indecision, with regard even to leading theological doctrines, as the most laudable and desirable state of mind. They wish every man not only to feel himself a learner to the end of life, which is undoubtedly right, but also, if possible, to keep himself in that equilibrium of mind with respect to the most important doctrinal opinions, which shall amount to perfect indifference whether he retains or relinquishes his present sentiments. This they eulogize, as "openness to conviction," "freedom from prejudice," etc. Without stopping to combat this sentiment at large, I hesitate not to pronounce it unreasonable in itself, contrary to scripture, and an enemy to all Christian stability and comfort. We know what is said in the word of God, of those who are "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:7). I repeat it; we must suppose him who undertakes to be a teacher of others to be himself, as the apostle expresses it, "grounded and settled in the faith" (cf. Colossians 1:23). We ought to be considered, then, as having all the security that the nature of the case admits, that he who comes forward as one of the lights and leaders of a religious community is firm in the principles which he has professed, and will not be very apt, essentially, to alter his creed. But further, the same objection might be urged, with quite as much force, against a man’s making any public declaration of his sentiments, either by preaching, or by writing, and printing; lest he should afterwards obtain more light, and yet be tempted to adhere, contrary to his conscience, to what he had before so publicly espoused. But does any honest minister of the gospel think it his duty to forbear to preach, or otherwise to express his opinions, because it is possible he may afterwards change them? We know that if the preacher of a Unitarian congregation should alter his views, and become orthodox, he must quit his place, give up his salary, and seek employment among his new connections. The same thing would happen if a change the converse of this were to occur, and an orthodox preacher become a Unitarian. What then? Because an honest man, when he changes his mind on the subject of religion, will always hold himself in readiness to change his situation, and to make every necessary sacrifice, shall he, therefore, never venture to take any public station, lest he should not always think as he does at present? Nay, this objection, if it proves anything, will be found to prove by far too much, even for our opponents themselves. The adversaries of creeds acknowledge, with one consent, that every one ought to be ready to profess his belief in the Bible. But is not even this profession just as liable to the charge of being "unfriendly to free inquiry" as any other? Suppose anyone, after solemnly declaring his belief in the Bible, should cease to believe it? Would he be bound to consider his old subscription as still binding, and as precluding further examination? Or would it be reasonable in any man to decline any profession of belief in the Bible, lest he should, one day, alter his mind, and feel himself embarrassed by his profession? There can be no doubt that every public act by which a man pledges himself, even as a private member, to any particular denomination of Christians, interposes some obstacle in the way of his afterwards deserting that denomination, and uniting himself with another. And, perhaps, it may be said, the more delicate and honorable his mind, the more reluctant and slow he will be to abandon his old connections, and choose new ones. So that such an one will really labor under a temptation to resist light, and remain where he is. But because this is so, shall a man therefore, never join any church; never take one step that will, directly or indirectly, pledge his religious creed or character, lest he should afterwards alter his mind, and be constrained to transfer his relation to a different body, and thus be liable to find himself embarrassed by his former steps? Upon this principle, we must go further, and adopt the doctrine, equally absurd and heathenish, that no parent ought ever to instruct his child in what he deems the most precious truths of the gospel, lest he should fill his mind with prejudices, and present an obstacle to free and unshackled inquiry afterwards. For there can be no doubt that early parental instruction does present more or less obstacle, in the way of a subsequent change of opinion, on those subjects which that instruction embraced. Yet our Father in heaven has expressly commanded us to instruct our children and to endeavor to pre-occupy their minds with everything that is excellent both in principle and practice. In short, if the objection before us is valid, then no one ought ever to go forward in the discharge of any duty; for he may one day cease to think it a duty; in other words, he ought habitually, and upon principle, to disobey some of the plainest commands of God, lest he should afterwards entertain different views of those commands, from those which he at present entertains. Nay, if this be so, then every book a man reads, and every careful, deep inquiry he makes concerning the subject of it, must be considered as tending to influence the mind, and to interfere with perfect impartiality in any subsequent inquiry on the same subject; and, therefore, ought to be forborne! Surely no man in his senses judges or acts thus. Especially, no Christian allows himself thus to reason or act. In the path of what appears to be present duty, he feels bound to go forward, leaving future things with God. If subscription to a correct creed is really agreeable to the will of God; if it is necessary, both to the purity and harmony of the church; and, therefore, in itself a duty; then no man ought any more to hesitate about discharging this duty, than about discharging any of those duties which have been mentioned, or any others which may be supposed. There is no station in life in which its occupant does not find some peculiar temptation. But if he is a man of a right spirit, he will meet it with Christian integrity, and overcome it with Christian courage. If he is a truly honest man, he will be faithful to his God, and faithful to his own conscience, at all hazards; and if he is not honest, he will not be very likely to benefit the church by his discoveries and speculations. Accordingly, the voice of history confirms this reasoning. On the one hand, how many thousand instances have the last two centuries afforded of men who were willing to incur not only obloquy and reproach, but also beggary, imprisonment, and even death itself, in their most frightful forms, rather than abandon the truth, and subscribe to formularies which they could not conscientiously adopt! On the other hand, how many instances have occurred, within the last fifty years, of unprincipled men, after solemnly subscribing orthodox creeds, disregarding their vows, and opposing the spirit of those creeds, and still retaining their ecclesiastical stations, without reserve! It is plain, then, that this whole objection, though specious, has not the least solidity. Truly upright and pious men will always follow their convictions; while, with regard to those of an opposite character, their light, whether they remain or depart, will be found to be of no value, either to themselves, or the church of God. 4. A fourth objection frequently brought against creeds is that they have altogether failed of answering the purpose professed to be intended by them. "Churches," it is said, "which have creeds the most carefully drawn, and of the most rigid character, are as far from being united in doctrinal opinions, as some which either have never had any creeds at all, or have long since professedly omitted to enforce subscription to them. To mention only two examples: the Church of England, for nearly three centuries, has had a set of articles decisively Calvinistic, to which all her candidates for the ministry are required to subscribe; but we know that more than a hundred and fifty years have passed away, since Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian tenets began to pollute that important branch of the reformed church; and that within the last seventy-five or eighty years, almost every form of heresy has lurked under subscription to her orthodox Articles. And even the Church of Scotland, which has had, for nearly two centuries, the most rigidly and minutely orthodox confession on earth, is generally supposed, at this hour, to have a ministry far from being unanimous in loving and honoring her public standards. Now, if creeds have not, in fact, been productive of the great benefit intended by them, even in some of the most favorable cases that can be produced, why be perplexed and burdened with them at all?" This objection evidently proceeds on the principle, that a remedy which does not accomplish everything, is worth nothing. Because creeds have not completely banished dissension and discord from the churches which have adopted them, therefore they have been of no use. But is this sound reasoning? Does it accord even with common sense, or with the dictates of experience in any walk of life? Because the Constitution of the United States has not completely defended our country from all political animosity and strife, is it, therefore, worthless? Or should we have been more united and harmonious without any constitutional provision at all? Because the system of public law does not annihilate all crime, should we, of course, be as well without it? No one will say this. Nay, may not the objection be retorted on those who urge it? They contend that creeds are unnecessary; that the Bible is amply sufficient for all purposes, as a test of truth. But has the Bible banished dissension and discord from the church? No one will pretend that it has. Yet why not? Surely not on account of any error or defect in itself; but on account of the folly and perverseness of depraved man, who, amidst all the provisions of infinite wisdom and goodness, is continually warring against the peace of the world. But I go further, and maintain that the history of the practical influence of creeds is strongly in their favor. Though they have not done everything that could have been desired, they have done much; and much in those very churches which have been most frequently selected as examples of their entire want of efficacy. The Calvinistic articles of the Church of England were the means of keeping her doctrinally pure, to a very remarkable degree, for the greater part of a hundred years. In the reign of James I, very few opponents of Calvinism dared publicly to avow their opinions; and of those who did avow them, numbers were severely disciplined, and others saved themselves from similar treatment by subsequent silence and discretion. The inroads of error, therefore, were very powerfully checked, and its triumph greatly retarded by those public standards. In fact, the great body of the bishops and clergy professed to be doctrinal Calvinists, until a number of years after the Synod of Dort, when, chiefly by the influence of Archbishop Laud, and his creatures, Arminianism was gradually and guardedly brought in, in consequence of which the faithful application of the thirty-nine articles, as a test of orthodoxy, and of admission to the ministry, was discontinued. The articles continued to speak as before, and to be solemnly subscribed; but the spirit of the administration under them was no longer the same. It became predominantly Arminian. We may truly say, then, that the creed of the Church of England continued to operate effectually as a bond of union, and a barrier against the encroach ments of heresy, as long as it continued to be faithfully applied, agreeably to its known original purport. When it ceased to be thus applied, it ceased to produce its wonted effect. But can this be reasonably wondered at? As well might we wonder that a medicine, when its use was, laid aside, should no longer heal. The very same representation, in substance, may be made concerning the Church of Scotland. Her preeminently excellent creed was the means, under God, of keeping her united and pure, as long as that creed continued to be honestly employed as a test, according to its true intent and spirit. When this ceased to be the case, it would have been strange, indeed, if the state of things had remained as before. It did not so remain. With lax and dishonest subscription, heresy came in: at first, with reserve and caution, but afterwards, more openly. But even to the present day, as all know who are acquainted with the state of that church, the movements of heresy within her bosom are held in most salutary check; and her condition is incomparably more favorable than it could have been, had her public standards been long ago abolished. Nor have the creeds of those national churches of Great Britain yet accomplished all the benefits to the cause of truth and righteousness which they are destined to confer. Though their genuine spirit has been long since forgotten by many, this is by no means the case with all. There has constantly been, in both those churches, a body of faithful witnesses to the truth. This body, thanks to the Almighty and all-gracious King of Zion! is increasing. Their "good confessions" (cf. 1 Timothy 6:13) form a rallying point, around which numbers are now gathering; and those far-famed formularies, the favorable influence of which has been supposed by many to be long since exhausted, and more than exhausted, will again become, there is every reason to believe, an "ensign to the people" (cf. Isaiah 11:10), to which there shall be a flocking of those who love the "simplicity that is in Christ" (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3), more extensive and more glorious than ever before. Nor are we without significant attestations to the efficacy of creeds, and to the mischief of being without them, in our own country. Of the former, the Presbyterian Church in the United States, is one of the most signal examples. Conflicts she has, indeed, had; but they have been such as were incident to every community, ecclesiastical or civil, administered by the counsels of imperfect men. Amidst them all, she has, by the favor of her Divine Head, held on her way, substantially true to her system of doctrine and order; and though constituted, originally, by members from different countries, and of different habits, she has remained united to a degree, considering all things, truly wonderful. Of the latter, the Congregational churches of Massachusetts, furnish a melancholy memorial. Though originally formed by a people far more homogeneous in their character and habits, and far more united in their opinions; yet, being destitute of any efficient bond of union, and equally destitute of the means of maintaining it, if it had been possessed, they have fallen a prey to dissension and error, to a degree equally instructive and mournful. 5. The last objection which I shall consider is that subscription to creeds has not only failed entirely of producing the benefits contemplated by their friends, but has rather been found to produce the opposite evils, to generate discord and strife. "Creeds," say some, "instead of tending to compose differences, and to bind the members of churches more closely together, have rather proved a bone of contention, and a means of exciting mutual charges of heresy, and a thousand ill feelings, among those who might have been otherwise perfectly harmonious." In reply to this objection, my first remark is that the alleged fact, which it takes for granted, is utterly denied. It is not true that creeds have generated contention and strife in the bosom of those churches which have adopted them. On the contrary, it would be easy to show, by an extended induction of facts, that in those churches in which creeds and confessions have been most esteemed and most regarded, there union and peace have most remarkably reigned. In truth, it has ever been the want of faithful regard to such formularies that has led to division and strife in the church of Christ. I doubt whether any denomination of Christians ever existed, for half a century together, destitute of a public creed, however united and harmonious it might have been, at the commencement of this period, without exhibiting, before the end of it, either that stillness of death, which is the result of cold indifference to the truth, or that miserable scene of discord, in which "parting asunder" (cf. Acts 15:39) was the only means of escaping from open violence. My next remark is that, even if it were shown that orthodox public creeds are often indirectly connected with conflict and contention in the church, it would form no solid argument against them. Ardent attachment to what they deemed truth is the principle, in all ages, which has led Christian communities to adopt creeds and confessions of faith. The same attachment to truth will naturally lead them to watch with care against everything that is hostile to it; and to "contend earnestly" (cf. Jude 1:3) in its defense, when it is attacked. In this case, a creed, supposing it to be a sound and scriptural one, is no more the cause of conflict and division, than a wholesome medicine is the cause of that disease which it is intended to cure. The word of God commands us to "contend," and to "contend earnestly, for the faith once delivered to the saints," and to hold him "accursed" who preaches "another gospel" than that which the scriptures reveal (Galatians 1:6-9). But when such "contention" becomes necessary, who is to blame for it? Surely not truth, or its advocates, but those who patronize error, and thus endeavor to corrupt the body of Christ ­ and, of course, render contention for the truth a duty. It is granted, indeed, that, in this conflict, much unhallowed temper may be manifested: not only on the part of the advocates of error, but also, in some degree, on the part of the friends of truth. They may contend, even for the truth, with bigotry and bitterness. Still, this does not render the truth itself less precious; or the duty of contending for it less imperative; or those summaries of it which Christians have been led to form less valuable, as testimonies for God. Before Christianity was preached in the Roman empire, the different classes of Pagans lived together in peace. The foundation of this peace was the opinion that error was innocent; and that all classes of religionists were equally safe. But when the religion of Jesus Christ was preached; when his ministers proclaimed that there was no other system either true or safe; that there was no other foundation of hope; that all false religions were not only highly criminal, but also eternally destructive; and that the followers of Christ could not possibly countenance any of them; then a scene of the most shocking persecution and violence, on the part of the Pagans, commenced. But on what, or on whom, are we to throw the blame for these scenes of violence? No one, surely, will say, on Christianity. We are rather to impute it to the corruption of human nature, and to the blindness and violence of Pagan malice. If the primitive Christians had been willing to give up the precious truth committed to them, and to act upon the principle that all modes of faith were equally safe they might have escaped much, if not the whole of the dreadful persecution which they were called to endure. The only additional remark, therefore, which I have to make, on the objection before us, is that it can have no force, excepting upon the principle that error ought to be left unassailed, and that contention for the truth is not a duty; for all defense of the truth, against its active opposers ­ all "contending for the truth" (cf. Jude 1:3) ­ must, of course, disturb that cold and death-like tranquility which indifference to the purity of faith tends to introduce. We are commanded, "if it be possible, as much as lies in us, to live peaceably with all men" (cf. Romans 12:18). But it is not "possible" to be at peace with some men. We must not be at peace with error or wickedness. The Divine authority makes it our duty to oppose them to the utmost at our peril. And if, in the discharge of this duty, the peace of the church is, for a time, disturbed, the sin lies at the door of those who rendered the conflict necessary. Those summaries of truth, which particular occasions make it important to embody and to publish, are no more to blame for the struggle, than the wise and wholesome law of the land is to blame for that agitation which necessarily attends the seizure, the trial, and the execution of a malefactor. The Extent of Creeds But admitting creeds to be lawful and necessary, it has often been asked by some who profess to be their friends, whether they ought ever to contain any other articles than those few which are strictly fundamental: in other words, whether we ought ever to insert among the members of a creed, intended to be subscribed by all candidates for office in a church, any more than some half a dozen articles, the reception of which is generally considered as absolutely essential to Christian character? This is a question of real importance, which certainly deserves grave consideration, and a candid answer. And for one, I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion,church creeds not only lawfully may, but always ought, to contain a number of articles besides those which are fundamental. And to establish this, as it appears to me, no other proof is necessary than simply to remark that there are many points confessedly not fundamental, concerning which, nevertheless, it is of the utmost importance to Christian peace and edification that the members, and especially the ministers, of every church should be harmonious in their views and practice. As long as the visible church of Christ continues to be divided into different sections or denominations, the several creeds which they employ, if they are to answer any effectual purpose at all, must be so constructed as to exclude from each those teachers whom it conscientiously believes to be unscriptural and corrupt; and whom, as long as it retains this belief, it ought to exclude. To exemplify my meaning: the Presbyterian Church, and most other denominations who have a regular system of government, believe that the Christian ministry is a divine ordinance, and that none but those who have been regularly authorized to discharge its functions ought, by any means, to attempt to preach the gospel, or administer the sacraments of the church. Yet there are very pious, excellent men who have adopted the sentiments of some high-toned Independents, who verily think that every "gifted brother," whether ordained or not, has as good a right to preach as any man; and, if invited by the church to do it, to administer the sacraments. Now, no sober-minded Presbyterian will consider this as a fundamental question. Fundamental, indeed, it is, to ecclesiastical order; but to the existence of Christian character, it is not. Men may differ entirely on this point, and yet be equally united to Christ by faith, and, of course, equally safe as to their eternal prospects. But would any real, consistent Presbyterian be willing to connect himself with a church, calling itself by that name, in which, while one portion considered none but a regular minister as competent to the discharge of the functions alluded to, as many of the other portion as chose claimed and actually exercised the right to rise in the congregation, and preach, baptize, and dispense the Lord’s Supper, when and how each might think proper; and not only so, but when the ordained ministers occupying the pulpit, in succession, differed no less entirely among themselves in reference to the disputed question; some encouraging, and others repressing, the efforts of these "gifted brethren?" I do not ask whether such a church could be tranquil or comfortable, but whether it could possibly exist in a state of coherence for twelve months together? Take another example. No man in his senses will consider the question which divides the Paedobaptists and the Antipaedobaptists as a fundamental one. Though I have no doubt that infant baptism is a doctrine of the Bible, and an exceedingly important doctrine; and that the rejection of it is a mischievous error; yet I have quite as little doubt that some eminently pious men have been of a different opinion. But what would be the situation of a church equally divided, or nearly so, on this point; ministers, as well as private members, constantly differing among themselves; members of each party conscientiously persuaded that the others were wrong; each laying great stress on the point of difference, as one concerning which there could be no compromise, or accommodation; all claiming and endeavoring to exercise the right not only to reason, but to act, according to their respective convictions; and every one zealously? Is endeavoring to make proselytes to his own principles and practice? Which would such a church most resemble: the builders of Babel, when their speech was confounded; or a holy and united family, "walking together in the fear of the Lord, and in the consolations of the Holy Ghost, and edifying one another in love?" (cf. Acts 9:31; Ephesians 4:16). Let me offer one illustration more. The question between Presbyterians and Prelatists is generally acknowledged not to be fundamental. I do not mean that this is acknowledged by such of our Episcopal brethren as coolly consign to what they are pleased to call the "uncovenanted mercy of God" all those denominations who have not a ministry episcopally ordained; and who, on account of this exclusive sentiment, are styled by Bishop Andrews, "iron hearted," and by Archbishop Wake, "madmen." But my meaning is that all Presbyterians, without exception, a great majority of the best Prelatists themselves, and all moderate, sober-minded Protestants, of every country, acknowledge that this point of controversy is one which does by no means affect Christian character or hope. Still is it not plain, that a body of ministers entirely differing among themselves as to this point ­ though they might love, and commune with, each other, as Christians ­ could not possibly act harmoniously together in the important rite of ordination, whatever they might do in other religious concerns? In all these cases, it is evident there is nothing fundamental to the existence of vital piety. Yet it is equally evident that those who differ entirely and zealously concerning the points supposed cannot be comfortable in the same ecclesiastical communion. But how is their coming together, and the consequent discord and strife which would be inevitable, to be prevented? I know of no method but so constructing their confessions of faith as to form different families or denominations, and to shut out from each those who are hostile to its distinguishing principles of order. It is plain, then, that unless confessions of faith contain articles not, strictly speaking, fundamental, they cannot possibly answer one principal purpose for which they are formed, viz. guarding churches which receive the pure order and discipline, as well as truth, of scripture, from the intrusion of teachers who, though they may be pious, yet could not fail to disturb the peace and mar the edification of the more correct and sound part of the body. But for further details on this subject, both for and against the doctrine which I maintain, I must refer you to those works which have been devoted to its more extended discussion; more particularly to what if said by the judicious and excellent Mr. Dunlop, in the able "Preface" to his Collection of Confessions; to The Confessional, by Mr. Blackburne, one of the most zealous and formidable opposers of creeds (which will prepare you for perusing some of the best of the many valuable answers to that far-famed work); to Walker’s Vindication of the Church of Scotland, etc.; and, finally, to Mr. Dyer’s Inquiry into the Nature of Subscription to Articles of Religion. Concluding Remarks The subject, beloved pupils, on which I have been addressing you, is eminently a practical one. It enters deeply into many questions of personal and official duty I shall, therefore, detain you a few moments longer, by calling your attention to some of those practical inferences from the foregoing principles and reasonings, which appear to me to deserve your serious regardand, 1. From the representation which has been given, we may see how little reason any have to be afraid of creeds as instruments of oppression. There is something so perfectly visionary and unreasonable in the very thought of "tyranny," or "oppression," as connected with subscription to creeds in this country, that the only wonder is how it can be admitted, for a moment, into any sober mind. Who does or can impose a creed upon any one, or ever attempt to do it? Is any man in the United States obliged to profess any belief, to subscribe any creed, or to join any church whatever? Every man, indeed, is bound by the law of God to believe correctly, and to connect himself with a pure church. He is not and cannot be at liberty, in the sight of Jehovah, to neglect either. But is any man bound by human law, ecclesiastical or civil, to do any of these things? Is any man in the United States, after he has subscribed a creed, and joined a church, obliged, by any human authority, to adhere to either a single day longer than he pleases? Is he not at perfect liberty to withdraw, at any moment, and that with or without giving a reason for his conduct, as he thinks proper? Everlasting thanks to him who gives us this freedom! May it be perpetual and universal! Now, one would think this is liberty enough to satisfy any reasonable man. But it seems there are really those who wish for more. They demand, in effect, that the church should be willing to take all manner of heresy, as well as orthodoxy, to her bosom, and to act as if she regarded both with an equal eye. Nay, they ask that heretics be freely allowed to impose themselves upon her, whether she be willing or not ­ not to unite and edify her members, but to divide and distract them; that they be at liberty to come into the Redeemer’s family, and there, without any regard to its scriptural rules, or its happy harmony, to propagate such discordant sentiments, and to establish such new principles of order (or disorder) as the intruders may choose to adopt. But is this Christian liberty? Is this a kind of liberty which any benevolent, or even honest man would wish to possess? It is liberty, truly, of the most extraordinary kind, to the individual who intrudes; but what becomes of the liberty of the ecclesiastical body which he thus enters, contrary to its wishes and comfort, and to its real injury? It is, evidently, the same sort of privilege in the church, as the privilege of invading the retreat of private families, or disturbing the peace of civil society, at pleasure, and with impunity, would be regarded by the inhabitants of any free country. 2. We may see, from what has been said, that subscribing a church creed is not a mere formality, but a very solemn transaction, which means much, and infers the most serious obligations. It is certainly a transaction which ought to be entered upon with much deep deliberation and humble prayer; and in which, if a man be bound to be sincere in anything, he is bound to be honest to his God, honest to himself, and honest to the church which he joins. For myself, I know of no transaction in which insincerity is more justly chargeable with the dreadful sin of "lying to the Holy Ghost" (cf. Acts 5:3) than in this. It is truly humiliating and distressing to know that in some churches it has gradually become customary to consider articles of faith as merely articles of peace: in other words, as articles which he who subscribes is not considered as professing to believe, but as merely engaging not to oppose ­ at least in any public or offensive manner. Whether we bring this principle to the test of reason, of scripture, of the original design of creeds, or of the ordinary import of language among honorable men, it seems equally liable to the severest reprobation, as disreputable and criminal in a very high degree. Nor does it appear to me to be any alleviation, either of the disgrace or the sin, that many of the governors of the churches referred to, as well as of those who subscribe, publicly avow their adoption of this principle; admit the correctness of it; keep each other in countenance; and thus escape, as they imagine, the charge of hypocrisy. What would be thought of a similar principle, if generally adopted and avowed, with respect to the administration of oaths in civil courts? Suppose both jurors and witnesses, feeling it a grievance to be bound by their oaths to speak the truth, were to agree among themselves, and openly to give out, that they did not mean, when they swore, to take on themselves any such obligation; that they did not so understand the import of their oaths, and did not intend to recognize any such meaning? And suppose the judges were freely to admit them to their oaths with a similar understanding? Would a witness or a juror, in such a case, be exempt from the charge of perjury, or the judge from the guilt of subornation of perjury? I presume not, in the estimation of any sober-minded man. If it were otherwise, then bad men, who form a majority of every community, might, by combining, violate all the principles of virtue and order, not only with impunity, but also without sin. Set it down, then, as a first principle of common honesty, as well as of Christian truth, that subscription to articles of faith, is a weighty transaction which really means what it professes to mean; that no man is ever at liberty to subscribe articles which he does not truly and fully believe; and that, in subscribing, he brings himself under a solemn, covenant engagement to the church which he enters, to walk with it "in the unity of faith," and "in the bond of peace and love" (Ephesians 4:13; cf. Ephesians 4:2-3). If he cannot do this honestly, let him not profess to do it at all. I see not but that here, insincerity, concealment, double dealing, and mental reservations, are, to say the least, quite as mean and base as they can be in the transactions of social and civil life. You will, perhaps, ask me, what shall be done by a man who loves the Presbyterian Church; who considers it as approaching nearer to the scriptural model than any other with which he is acquainted; who regards its Confession of Faith as by far the best, in its great outlines, and in all its fundamental articles, that he knows; and who yet, in some of its minor details, cannot entirely concur? Can such a one honestly subscribe, without any previous explanation of his views? I answer, "by no means." Ought he, then, you will ask, to abandon all thoughts of uniting himself with our church, when he is in cordial harmony with it in all fundamental principles, and nearer to it, in all respects, than to any other church on earth? I again answer, "by no means." I know of no other mode of proceeding in such a case as this ­ which Christian candor, and a pure conscience will justify ­ than the following: Let the candidate for admission unfold, to the Presbytery before which he presents himself, all his doubts and scruples, with perfect frankness; opening his whole heart, as if on oath; and neither softening nor concealing anything. Let him cause them distinctly to understand, that if he subscribe the Confession of Faith, he must be understood to do it in consistency with the exceptions and explanations which he specifies. If the Presbytery, after this fair understanding, should be of the opinion that the excepted points were of little or no importance, and interfered with no article of faith, and should be willing to receive his subscription in the usual way, he may proceed. Such a method of proceeding will best accord with every principle of truth and honor; and will remove all ground of either self-reproach, or of reproach on the part of others, afterwards. 3. From the view which has been presented of this subject, we may decide how an honest man ought to act, after subscribing to a public creed. He will feel it to be his duty to adhere sincerely and faithfully to that creed, in public and in private; and to make it his study to promote, by all means in his power, the peace and purity of the body with which he has connected himself. And if he should, at any time, alter his views concerning any part of the creed or order of the church in question, it will be incumbent on him to inquire whether the points, concerning which he has altered his mind, are of such a nature as that he can conscientiously be silent concerning them, and "give no offense" to the body to which he belongs (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:32; 2 Corinthians 6:3). If he can reconcile this with an enlightened sense of duty, he may remain in peace. But if the points, concerning which his views have undergone a change, are of so much importance in his estimation, as that he cannot be silent, but must feel himself bound to publish, and endeavor to propagate them; then let him peaceably withdraw, and join some other branch of the visible church, with which he can walk harmoniously. Such he may find almost everywhere, unless his views be singularly eccentric. But, at any rate, he has no more right to insist on remaining ­ and being permitted publicly to oppose what he has solemnly vowed to receive and support ­ than a member of any voluntary association, which he entered under certain engagements, but with which he no longer agrees, has a right obstinately to retain his connection with it, and to avail himself of the influence which his connection gives him, to endeavor to tear it in pieces. It is no solid objection, to this view of the subject, to allege that every man is under obligations to obey the great Head of the church, altogether paramount to those which bind him, in virtue of any ecclesiastical engagements, to obey the church herself. This is most readily granted. No man can lawfully bind himself to disobey Christ, in any case whatever. But this principle, it is conceived, has nothing to do with the point under consideration. Though a man cannot properly bind himself always to believe as he now believes; nor always to remain in connection with the ecclesiastical body which he now joins; yet he may safely promise that he will be a regular and orderly member of the body, as long as he does remain in connection with it. When he ceases to be able to do this, without sinning against God, he will, if he is an honest man, immediately withdraw. If he remains, and suffers himself habitually to violate his engagement, under the pretence of benefitting the body to which he has vowed allegiance, he will be chargeable with the sin of treacherously and basely "doing evil that good may come" (cf. Romans 3:8). To illustrate my meaning by a familiar example: Every student of this seminary has, at his entrance, made a solemn promise, that "as long as he shall continue a member of it, he will conscientiously and vigilantly observe all the rules and regulations specified in the plan for its instruction and government, so far as the same relate to the students; and further, that he will obey all the lawful requisitions of the Professors and Directors," etc. As this engagement was voluntarily made, no honest man will doubt that you are all bound to act in conformity with it, to the utmost tittle, as far as you have ability. Suppose, however, that one of your number should become persuaded that some of the "regulations specified in the plan" of the seminary are not only unwise, and inconvenient, but also immoral; what ought he to do? Ought he to remain in the institution, and habitually violate the regulations to which he excepted, pleading that he could not conscientiously obey them, because, though he had solemnly engaged to do so, he felt himself under a prior and paramount obligation to "obey God rather than man?" (cf. Acts 5:29). This, surely, no Christian would approve, nor any faithful government tolerate. No; every principle of honor and integrity would dictate that he should immediately withdraw from the seminary; and if, after withdrawing, he should be able to convince the General Assembly of our church that his exceptions were just, and should prevail with that body to alter the offensive rules; then, and not till then, he might with a good conscience resume his place in the institution. 4. We are led to reflect, from the representation which has been given, how easy it is for a single imprudent or unsound minister to do extensive and irreparable mischief in the church. Such a one, especially if he be a man of talents and influence, by setting himself, either openly or covertly, against the public standards of his church; by addressing popular feeling, and availing himself of popular prejudice; may do more, in a short time, to prepare the way for fatal error, than all his usefulness, though multiplied a hundred fold, would be able to countervail. Ministers, my young friends, may be said to hold in their hands the interests of the church, to a degree which no other class of men do; and which ought to make them tremble under a sense of their responsibility! Such as is the character of the ministry of any particular church, will be, generally speaking, the character of the church itself. On the one hand, if the ministers of religion be generally enlightened, orthodox, holy, diligent, and faithful men, the church to which they belong will never fail to display the influence of this character in happy results. On the other hand, never was the church, in any country or age, corrupted, divided, and ruined, but the mischief was done by its ministers. However humiliating or painful this assertion may be, it is undoubtedly confirmed by all scripture, and all experience. And as the general influence of the clerical character is so vital, so it is not easy to measure the mischief that may be done by one unsound, graceless, imprudent, turbulent minister. If, in every walk of society, "one sinner destroyeth much good" (Ecclesiastes 9:18), how much more wide-spread, deplorable, and fatal is the mischief, when the criminal individual is a minister! By erroneous opinions; by corrupt habits; by a love of innovation; by embracing himself, and extensively imparting to others, pernicious delusions; he may do more in five or ten years, to agitate, divide, corrupt, and weaken the church, than, perhaps, a score of the most faithful ministers in the land can do, humanly speaking, for promoting its purity and peace in half a century. The influence of two or three individuals, of popular talents, in Massachusetts, more than fifty years ago, in gradually undermining orthodoxy, and in reconciling the public mind to heretical opinions is as well known, as it is deeply deplored, by many who are acquainted with the ecclesiastical history of New England. The authors of this mischief have long since gone to their account; but their works have survived them; and of their awful ravages, no one can estimate the extent, or see the end. Beloved pupils! be it your study, at all times, to cherish a deep sense of your solemn responsibility to God and his church. In a little while, you will be among those to whom the most weighty interests that can be committed to man, will be entrusted. Be faithful to your high trust. Guard, with the utmost vigilance, the church’s orthodoxy. Nothing can be truly right, where her doctrinal principles are essentially wrong. But, O, think not that mere frigid orthodoxy, however perfect, is all that is needed. Labor to diffuse, in every direction, the holy and benign influence of truth. If "the household of faith" (Galatians 6:10) is corrupted by heresy, or torn by schism, or agitated by unhallowed innovation, or becomes cold through want of ministerial faithfulness, see to it that none of you be found among the workers of the mischief. See to it that you seek unceasingly not "your own things" (cf. Php 2:21), your own aggrandizement, your own honor, your own fancies, or your own speculations, but "the things which are Jesus Christ’s." If you cannot benefit the church (and no man has a right to say that he cannot, if he has a heart for the purpose), at least do not lend your influence to the unhallowed work of corrupting and dividing it. And if you should ever be brought into circumstances in which you can do nothing else, see that you be found, like the "ministers of the Lord" of old, "weeping between the porch and the altar, and saying, ’Spare thy people, O, Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach; save them, and lift them up forever!’ " (cf. Joel 2:17). 5. We may infer, from what has been said, the duty and importance of all the members, and especially the ministers, of the Presbyterian Church, exerting themselves to spread a knowledge of her public standards. I say, her "public standards," notwithstanding all the sneer and censure which have been cast on this language. For every intelligent and candid man in the community knows that we employ it to designate not formularies which we place above the Bible, but simply those which ascertain and set forth how we interpret the Bible. These formularies ­ if they are really an epitome of the word of God, and surely we think them so ­ every minister is bound to circulate, with unwearied assiduity, among the people of his charge. This is so far, in general, from being faithfully done, that I seriously doubt whether there is a Protestant church in Christendom in which there is so striking a defect as to the discharge of this duty, especially in some parts of the country, as in the Presbyterian Church. Our Episcopal brethren exercise a most laudable diligence in placing the volume which contains their articles, forms, and offices, in every family within their reach which belongs to their communion, or can be considered as tending towards it. Our Methodist and Baptist brethren, with no less diligence, do the same, with respect to those books which exhibit the doctrines and order of their respective denominations. All this is as it should be. It bespeaks men sincere in their belief, and earnest in the dissemination of what they deem correct principles. Why is it that so many ministers of the Presbyterian Church, with a Confession of Faith, and Catechisms, which, I verily believe, and which the most of them readily acknowledge, are by far the best that were ever framed by uninspired wisdom ­ and with a Form of Government and Discipline more consentaneous with apostolical practice than that of any other church on earth ­ are yet so negligent, not to say so indifferent, as to the circulation of these formularies? They, perhaps, do not take the trouble even to inquire whether there is a copy of the volume which contains them in every family, or even in every neighborhood, of their respective charges. How are we to account for the peculiar frequency of this negligence in the ministry of our church? It would be far from being true, I trust, to say, that our clergy are more unfaithful in the general discharge of their duties, than those of any other communion. May we not rather ascribe the fact in question to another fact, from which it might be expected naturally to arise? The fact to which I allude is that, in the Presbyterian Church, at the present day, and in this country ­ whatever may have been the case in former times ­ there is less of sectarian feeling; less of what is called, the esprit du corps, than in any other ecclesiastical body among us. We are in truth, if I do not mistake, so excessively free from it, as to be hardly ready to defend ourselves when attacked. We are so ready to fraternize with all evangelical denominations, that we almost forget that we have a denomination of our own, to which we are peculiarly attached. Now, this general spirit is undoubtedly excellent, worthy of constant culture, and the highest praise. But may it not be carried to an extreme? Universal, active benevolence is a Christian duty; but when the head of a family, in the ardor of its exercise, feels no more concern or responsibility respecting his own household, than he does about the households of others, he acts an unreasonable part, and, what is worse, disobeys the command of God. Something analogous to this, I apprehend, is the mistake of that Christian, or that minister, who in the fervor of his catholicism, loses sight of the fact that God, in his providence, has connected him with a particular branch of the visible church, the welfare and edification of which he is peculiarly bound to seek. If his own branch of the church has anything of peculiar excellence in his estimation, on account of which he prefers it ­ which is always to be supposed ­ can it be wrong for him to desire that others should view it in the same light? And if he be justifiable in recommending these peculiarities from the pulpit (as all allow), is he not equally justifiable in recommending them from the press, especially by means of accredited publications? Happy will it be for our church, then, if her future ministry shall be more attentive to the duty in question, than many of those who have gone before them. To you, beloved candidates for the sacred office, let me recommend a sacred regard to this duty. Resist, always, to the utmost of your power, the littleness of sectarian bigotry, and strive to banish it from the church. But, at the same time, cherish among her members an enlightened attachment to that particular branch of the family of Christ in which their lot is cast. For this purpose, strive to promote among them a general and intimate acquaintance with our Confession of Faith, and Form of Government and Discipline, as well as our Catechisms, which latter, I fain would hope, are not entirely neglected in any part of the church. Never advise the people to take the contents of these public formularies on trust; but diligently to compare every part of them with scripture, and see how far they agree with the unerring standard. Thus will you be likely to become instrumental in forming solid, intelligent Christians. Thus may you hope to become the spiritual fathers of multitudes, "whose faith shall stand, not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:5). 6. Once more; if the foregoing principles be just, then how unhappy is the mistake of those who imagine that, by abandoning all creeds and confessions, they are about to render the church an essential service; to build her up more extensively and gloriously than ever! There are those who imagine that a new order of things is about to open on the church, amounting to as great a change of dispensation as ever marked the progress of the Redeemer’s kingdom in any preceding age. In this new and undefined prospect, they seem to themselves to see the approaching prostration of most of those fences, and the dissolution of most of those ties, which have heretofore been regarded as indispensable to the maintenance of unity and harmony in the family of Christ. I shall only say, that it will be time enough to provide for this new order of things when it shall arrive; and that, in the mean while, in the present state of the world, I should as soon think of extending and edifying the church by laying aside all the means of grace, as of promoting its purity and peace by abandoning those methods of binding its members together which have been found necessary ever since the days of the apostles. The apostle Peter thus exhorted the Christians in his day: "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the Devil, as a roaring lion, goes about, seeking whom he may devour" (cf. 1 Peter 5:8). And another apostle reminded those to whom he wrote, that this adversary oftentimes "transformed himself into an angel of light" (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14). So it was eighteen centuries ago; and so it is at this hour. The very blessings of the church, as they have been in all ages, so they are now, converted into means of deception. The progressive harmony of the different evangelical denominations; their increasing zeal for the spread of the gospel; their growing disposition to sacrifice many smaller differences on the altar of our common Christianity; have so fired the imaginations of some ardent, sanguine spirits, that they have allowed themselves to be hurried on to the unwarranted conclusion that all former rules were about to be laid aside, and all former barriers to be broken down. But remember, my young friends, that a similar notion has been entertained, and afterwards abandoned, in almost every century since the incarnation of Christ. Remember, too, that even when the Millennium shall arrive, human nature will still be depraved, and will still stand in need of law and regulation, not, perhaps, as much, but as really as now. And, finally, remember that before that blessed day shall actually dawn upon our world, we shall probably have many a sore conflict with the enemies of truth, and stand in need of all those methods of distinguishing and binding together its friends, to which the word of God, and uniform experience have so long given their sanction. While I exhort you, then, to hail with delight the spirit of harmony, of union, and of active cooperation, which is among the most precious and animating "signs of the times" in which we live; and while I earnestly hope that no student of this seminary will ever stand a far off, or turn away with an evil eye, when the true standard of Christ is raised by any denomination; let me, at the same time, entreat you always to temper your zeal with soberness. I say soberness; for this is a quality not always found associated even with great vigor of talent, and great warmth of piety. Many a man of admirable endowments in other respects ­ endowments which qualified him, if they had been happily directed, to adorn and bless the church ­ has been either so transported by the visions of a heated fancy; or so deceived by keeping his eye fixed on a single point only of the vast scene before him; or so impelled by the approaches of others, as anomalous as himself; that, like the comet of the infidel philosopher, he has only been able to strike off a few wandering stars from the parent luminary, while he himself, given up to an orbit more and more eccentric, never returned, either to regularity or usefulness. The church is still "in the wilderness" (cf. Acts 7:38; 1 Corinthians 10:1-11); and every age has its appropriate trials. Among those of the present day is a spirit of restless innovation, a disposition to consider everything that is new as of course an improvement. Happy are they who, taking the word of God for their guide, and walking in "the footsteps of the flock" (Song of Solomon 1:8), continually seek the purity, the peace, and the edification of the Master’s family; who, listening with more respect to the unerring Oracle, and to the sober lessons of Christian experience, than to the delusions of fashionable error, hold on their way, "turning neither to the right hand nor the left" (cf. Proverbs 4:27; Deuteronomy 28:14), and considering it as their highest honor and happiness to be employed as humble, peaceful instruments in building up that "kingdom which is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost!" (cf. Romans 14:17). May God grant to each of us this best of all honors! And to his name be the praise, forever! Amen! ======================================================================== CHAPTER 16: 02.02. ADHERENCE TO OUR DOCTRINAL STANDARDS ======================================================================== Adherence to Our Doctrinal Standards Samuel Miller Letter 1 Christian Brethren: I need not say, to any attentive observer of passing scenes, that the subject of faithful adherence to our doctrinal standards is another point which stands essentially connected with the peace of the Presbyterian Church. On this subject, therefore, it is of the utmost importance that there be a concurrence of sentiment in favor of some rational and scriptural principles. On the one hand, if such absolute uniformity in the mode of explaining every minute detail of truth is contended for, with the rigor which some appear to consider as necessary; if men are to be criminated, and subjected to discipline, for not expounding every doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith in the same precise manner with every other subscriber who has gone before him; the church must inevitably be kept in a state of constant mutual crimination and conflict. Quietness and peace will be out of the question. On the other hand, if all sorts of unscriptural opinion, except the extreme of heresy, should be freely countenanced by any of our judicatories; if that refusal to censure any form of doctrinal error, short of palpable Unitarianism, which would seem to be the plan of some brethren, should be adopted as the prevalent policy; it will be impossible much longer to keep the church together. Or rather, it will not, much longer, be worth keeping together. For it will cease to be what the church was constituted and intended to be, from the beginning: a "witness for God" (cf.Isaiah 43:10-12; Acts 1:8), in the midst of a corrupt and ungodly world ­ a witness for the truth as well as the order of his family. If we cannot adopt some course between these ruinous extremes, and with a spirit of mutual affection and accommodation walk in it, there is an end of our long cherished union. We must be torn in sunder scattered to the winds. On this deeply interesting, this vital subject, allow me, then, to offer a few fraternal remarks. If I do not entirely mistake, they are conceived, and will be expressed, in that spirit of conciliation and Christian love which it is my wish to cherish, and to recommend to all whom I address. It is well known, that when ministers are ordained in the Presbyterian Church ­ or when those who are already ordained are received into our body, from other denominations ­ they are called upon to give their formal and solemn assent, among others, to the following questions. 1. "Do you believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?" 2. "Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the holy scriptures?" Here, it will be observed, the Bible is declared to be the only infallible rule of faith, and the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church is recognized as only a summary or compendious view of the manner in which the members of that church agree in interpreting the scriptures. In this sense only are we in the habit of calling our Confession of Faith, and Form of Government, our ecclesiastical standards. Not ultimate standards of faith and practice; but standards or tests, for ascertaining the manner in which we, as a church, profess to interpret the Bible. If there be any individuals, then, in our body, capable of saying or thinking that the Confession of Faith "is the Presbyterian’s Bible," let them seriously pause, and ask, whether they have ever seen and read this formula? and if they have, whether the charge of deliberate slander does not justly lie at their door? But the great practical question which I wish now particularly to discuss is, "How isthis public subscription, or assent to the Confession of Faith, to be understood?" Is it to be considered as precluding all variety of opinion whatever, as to the mode of explaining any of the doctrines of the Confession? Is it the design of this subscription to secure such entire and perfect uniformity in the manner of construing every minute article, as to censure and exclude every possible diversity of exposition on any point? To expect such perfect uniformity, among two thousand ministers of the gospel, is a chimera. It never was or can be realized. And to attempt to enforce such a principle, would be worse than useless. It is well known that the divines of the Westminster Assembly, who framed and adopted the Confession of Faith which we receive, had minor differences among themselves. Some of them were Supralapsarians, others Sublapsarians, and a third class had their peculiar views respecting reprobation, and also respecting the place which the active as well as the passive obedience of Christ holds in the gospel system. Still they were all substantial and sincere Calvinists, and framed the Confession in such a manner as that those who differed, in respect to these minor shades of opinion, might all honestly adopt it. It is notorious, too, that the Calvinistic members of the Synod of Dort differed among themselves in regard to some minor points, particularly with regard to the extent of the atonement; but they were unanimous in that thorough condemnation of Arminianism which their canons contain. It is also equally well known that a similar diversity of views, in relation to the modes of propounding and explaining some doctrines, existed in the old Synod of Philadelphia, at the date of the "Adopting Act," in 1729. Still, as in the case of the Westminster Assembly, and Synod of Dort, they were all substantial, sincere Calvinists; and, therefore, unanimously, and with good faith, subscribed the creed which had been framed by their fathers in Europe, more than seventy years before. But if some degree of diversity in the modes of representing gospel truth must be expected and tolerated in a large ecclesiastical connection, the question arises, "How far can this diversity be allowed with safety to proceed?" This is, undoubtedly, a question of great delicacy, and of very difficult solution; but not more difficult than many other practical questions relating to morals and religion. We all grant that even real Christians, though sincere, are imperfect. But if it were asked, "What degree of moral imperfection may be considered as consistent with Christian character?" I presume every thinking man would find himself embarrased by the attempt to draw a precise line; but would feel quite sure, at the same time, that there are certain forms and degrees of moral delinquency which must inevitably exclude him in whom they are found from the ranks of professing Christians. So, in regard to the form of subscription to the Confession of Faith, it is believed that few fair and candid minds can be at a loss to decide how it ought to be interpreted. If the question, "What is the meaning of the words, ’the system of doctrines taught in the holy scriptures,’ as they occur in the formula which makes a part of the ordination service?" were submitted to any intelligent and impartial jury in the country ­ to twelve men of plain common sense, who had never heard of the subterfuges and refinements of modern subscribers to creeds ­ I cannot doubt that they would be unanimous in their verdict without quitting their seats. They would naturally decide thus: "Since the primary object of subscribing an ecclesiastical creed is to express agreement in doctrinal belief; since the manifest design of the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church is to maintain what is commonly called the Calvinistic system, in opposition to the Socinian, the Arian, the Pelagian, and the Arminian systems; since almost every point which distinguishes these several forms of error are specifically exposed, disproved and rejected, under one or another of its several articles; and since this has notoriously been the universal understanding, ever since that Confession was formed, we judge that no man who is not a sincere Calvinist, that is, who does not ex animo [from the heart; sincerely] receive all the distinguishing articles of the Calvinistic system, can honestly subscribe it. "We do not suppose, indeed, that among those who subscribe that formulary, it is necessary, in order to a candid subscription, that there should be entire agreement as to ’every jot and tittle’ in the mode of explaining every doctrine which the Confession contains. But we cannot resist the conclusion, as fair and honorable men, that unless a candidate for admission does really believe in the doctrine of the Trinity; the incarnation and true Deity of Jesus Christ; the personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit; the fall and entire native depravity of man in virtue of a connection with Adam, the progenitor of our race; the vicarious atoning sacrifice of the righteousness of Christ, set to our account, and made ours by faith; sovereign and unconditional personal election to eternal life; regeneration and sanctification by the power of the Holy Spirit; the eternal punishment of the impenitently wicked, etc., etc.; unless he sincerely believes all these, and the essentially allied doctrines which have ever been considered as the distinguishing features of the Calvinistic system, and believes them in substance, as they are laid down in the Confession, our verdict is that he cannot honestly subscribe it. "We suppose, indeed, that among many hundred sincere and candid Calvinists on earth, there will ever be found some diversity in their manner both of explaining and defending these doctrines, while they all truly and steadfastly hold them. But as long as none of them embrace any of the errors to which reference has just been made, and which it was the special design of the Confession to exclude, we judge that they may all adopt it without any breach of good faith." Such, I do believe, would be the verdict of any candid impartial jury, who had any tolerable acquaintance with the facts in the case, and whose minds were entirely unsophisticated by party polemics on this subject. And such, I am equally persuaded, is the conclusion to which Christian fairness and honor ought to conduct us. There is a manifest difference between the essential nature of a Christian doctrine, and the different modes of representing and expounding it which have been resorted to by divines, on the whole equally sound and pious. To depart from the former is to abandon the doctrine; but with respect to the latter, some variety of views must be expected and allowed. To illustrate my meaning: The doctrine of the vicarious atoning sacrifice of Christ is regarded, by all who are entitled to the Christian name, as a fundamental doctrine of the gospel. The essential nature of this doctrine I suppose to consist in the fact that the Redeemer laid down his life as a covenanted substitute and surety for sinners. In other words, that "though he knew no sin, he was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:21). Those who adhere to this leading idea, and consider the sacrifice of Christ as strictly vicarious, must be considered as adhering to all that is radical and indispensable in the doctrine, whether they explain it on what has been called the Gethsemane theory, the infinite value scheme, or the plan of universal applicability. As long as any one holds the true scriptural nature of the atonement, he may be allowed some latitude in his mode of explaining its extent, without being considered, in reference to this article, as recreant from the standard which he has subscribed. And so of other leading doctrines. While, therefore, some diversity, in the explanations adopted of an extended series of doctrines, must be expected among the teachers in every church, and has been ever found to exist; there cannot, it appears to me, be a plainer dictate of common sense, and common honesty, than that a Pelagian, a Semi-Pelagian, or Arminian ­ to say nothing of more radical errorists ­ cannot possibly, with a good conscience, subscribe the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church. That this Confession was originally drawn up by men decisively and warmly opposed to these errors, is universally known. Nay, to erect a barrier against the encroachments of those errors, which were then coming into England "like a flood" (Isaiah 59:19), was, notoriously, one main object in the construction of this formula. Again, the private writings of those who first formed and adopted it all speak the same language, and establish, beyond a doubt, the quo animo [intention] of its original authors. Further, it is equally well known , to all who are acquainted with the history of those times, that our own church, in this country, when by her "Adopting Act," in 1729, she received this Confession of Faith as her ecclesiastical "form of sound words" (2 Timothy 1:14), had a main reference to Semi-Pelagian or Arminian errors, as those to which she was most exposed, and against which it behooved her to be especially on her guard. Further still, who is ignorant that, from that day to this, the Presbyterian Church has been universally regarded, and by multitudes stigmatized, as a Calvinistic body; that on this ground, she has uniformly stood aloof from all ecclesiastical communion with confessedly Arminian bodies, of various denominations, and has borne testimony against what she considered as their serious errors; and that she has, more than once, in her highest judicatories, condemned the writings and the preaching of such of her own ministers as were found propagating those errors. And, to crown all, the whole history of the Cumberland Presbyterians, in the West, bears witness that our venerable Fathers, thirty years ago, when there was no special jealousy or prejudice excited in reference to this subject, thought the adoption of Arminian opinions altogether inconsistent with an honorable subscription to our Confession, and considered it as their duty to cast out of the church a large body of otherwise respectable ministers and members who, though they decisively preferred and still retain Presbyterian order, yet could not subscribe a Calvinistic confession. Shall we, then, be told, at this time of day ­ after all that has been written, and decided, and done in reference to this very subject ­ that an Arminian, or one who, if not entirely of that creed, adopts its leading and most exceptionable principles, can yet, with entire candor, subscribe to our Confession? Just as rationally and honestly might it be contended that a zealous Remonstrant, in 1618, might have conscientiously subscribed to the "Canons" of the Synod of Dort; or an Arian to the Creed adopted by the Nicene Council. The truth is (however the question as to the admissibility of minor differences in the mode of explaining gospel truth may be decided), no position in morals can be plainer, than that the advocate of those principles which the Confession in language directly proscribes ­ which it was expressly and specially intended to exclude, and which the actual administration of the church under it is known to have again and again condemned and excluded ­ cannot possibly, with a good conscience, subscribe to its articles. Such a subscription is a solemn perjury. If there be such a thing as "lying to the Holy Ghost" (cf. Acts 5:3), here it is. It is destroying the very intention of a creed: the object of which, as all allow, is to ascertain and secure concurrence in faith. If the system of doctrine taught in the Confession be wrong, let it by all means be changed. But as long as we profess to hold certain doctrines, let us really and honestly hold them. I would unspeakably rather discard the Confession altogether, than adopt a principle which would render its use a solemn mockery. The moment this lax mode of interpreting subscription to creeds becomes general, or even frequent, we may bid farewell to their power or usefulness. They can no longer be regarded as either a bond of union, or as a fence against the inroads of error. With whatever potency or value they may have been once invested, they will soon degenerate into mere unmeaning forms. That this view of the subject is neither novel nor extravagant, will be apparent to those who weigh the following sentiments, deliberately published, many years since, by the late Dr. Witherspoon, who was never charged either levity in forming his opinions, or with violence in maintaining them: "I cannot forbear warning you against, and pointing out, the evil of two pieces of dishonesty which may possibly be found united to gravity and decency in other respects.... The first is a minister’s subscribing articles of doctrine which he does not believe. This is so direct a violation of sincerity, that it is astonishing to think how men can set their minds at ease in the prospect, or keep them in peace after the deliberate commission of it. The very excuses and evasions that are offered in defense of it are a disgrace to reason, as well as a scandal to religion. "What success can be expected from that man’s ministry, who begins it with an act of such complicated guilt? How can he take upon him to reprove others for sin, or to train them up in virtue and true goodness, while he himself is chargeable with direct, premeditated, and perpetual perjury? I know nothing so nearly resembling it as those cases in trade, in which men make false entries, and at once screen and aggravate their fraud by swearing, or causing others to swear, contrary to truth. This is justly reputed scandalous, even in the world; and yet I know no circumstance in which they differ that does not tend to show it to be less criminal than the other.... "I have particularly chosen to introduce upon this subject upon this occasion that I may attack it, not as an error, but as a fraud; not as a mistake in judgment, but an instance of gross dishonesty and insincerity of heart. ... I must beg every minister, but especially those young persons who have an eye to the sacred office, to remember that God will not be mocked, though the world may be deceived. In his sight, no gravity of deportment, no pretence to freedom of inquiry (a thing excellent in itself), no regular exercise of the right of private judgment, will warrant or excuse such a lie for gain, as solemnly to subscribe what they do not believe."[1] It obviously affords no relief from this heavy charge to allege, as some have done, that they subscribed the Confession of Faith with a mental reservation, implying that they received it only so far as they considered it as agreeing with the scriptures. This, I acknowledge, appears to me a subterfuge which offers as direct an insult to common sense as it does to common honesty. Upon this principle it is plain that any man might, without scruple, subscribe any confession of faith whatever. For, surely a Socinian might, without the least hesitation, declare that he believed a rigidly Calvinistic Confession, so far as he considered it as coinciding with the word of God. Besides, of what value is a subscription to any creed which is made upon this principle? The only object of subscribing a creed is to ascertain whether the subscriber believes a certain set of doctrines: or, in other words, whether he believes them to be taught in the Bible. But is it not evident that he who subscribes, with the mental reservation before us, entirely defeats this object; evades the only design of the whole transaction; and palms a base deception upon the body before which he stands: a deception the more criminal, and the more mischievous, because practiced as a solemn religious act, and in the name of the heart-searching God! It would be unspeakably better, in my opinion, to abandon at once all church creeds, than to continue their use upon a principle so utterly subversive of all fairness and sincerity. And it requires no gift of prophecy to foresee that any church or judicatory that acts upon such a principle is sowing the seeds of ruinous discord and corruption, and must expect the curse of a God of truth. It has been sometimes, indeed, alleged, as a source of relief from this view of the subject, that those who are agreed in the great facts involved in Christian truth may safely subscribe the same creed, although they may differ very widely in their philosophical solution of those facts. For example, it is supposed by some, that those who agree in what are called Calvinistic facts may conscientiously subscribe our Confession of Faith, though all their philosophical explanations of those facts be thoroughly Pelagian or Arminian. Now, it is not denied that the facts of the Christian revelation may, to a certain extent, be separated from the philosophy of those facts. It is not denied that the former may, in many cases, be honestly held fast, while a considerable range of speculation is indulged with regard to the latter. But what is denied is that this principle can be admitted in the case before us, beyond very restricted limits. As applied by many modern errorists, to cover a disingenuous subscription to articles of belief, it is a subterfuge in the highest degree uncandid and dangerous; and if employed as some theologians appear willing to employ it, can scarcely fail opening the door to all the evils of perfect latitudinarianism. Suppose one of the alleged Calvinistic facts in question to be that man is a depraved being. It is true Calvinists maintain this fact. But so do Arminians, so do Pelagians. But how is it held by each? The slightest intelligent survey will satisfy any impartial judge that the general fact may be admitted, and is admitted by thousands, upon principles, and in a form entirely subversive of the gospel plan of salvation. Again, suppose the fact in question to be that all the sincere disciples of Christ are renewed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. Here again, all classes of professing Christians agree in words. When many Arminians, however, accede to this fact, they mean only that the Holy Spirit operates upon all alike, where the gospel comes, just as the atmosphere presses equally upon who are immersed in it; and that the reason why one is impressed and not another, is, that the former cherishes the impression, which the latter does not. They "make themselves to differ" (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:7). When the Pelagian admits this fact, it is upon principles still further removed from scriptural truth. And when the Socinian acknowledges the fact, it is often meant by him to import nothing more than that the Holy Spirit, that is a Divine influence, has revealed in the scriptures the way of salvation. I ask, is the nominal fact sufficient here? May not, nay, is not, a mode of explaining it adopted which completely nullifies it, as a ground of Christian hope? Or rather, which makes it an entirely different sort of fact from that which the Bible exhibits? Further, suppose the fact under discussion to be that men are saved through the atonement of Christ. Almost all denominations of Christians will readily concur in this statement, as announcing a great fact. But is this enough for him who would "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints?" (cf. Jude 1:3). Some mean no more by the statement just made than that Christ by his instructions has revealed to men a future life, and by his sufferings and death has procured a mitigation of the demands of the law; so that the believer can now purchase eternal blessedness by his own imperfect obedience; whereas, anterior to the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God, a perfect obedience only could avail to this end. According to these, Christ died, not to satisfy the demands of law and justice ­ not to pay the debt of his people, and thus set them free from condemnation ­ but simply to lower the terms of acceptance, and to bring the required payment within the reach even of sinful creatures. But a third class interpret the fact of which we speak in a totally different manner. They suppose that the sacrifice of Christ was truly and properly vicarious; that the Father "laid on him the iniquities of us all;" that he "bare our sins in his own body on the tree;" and that he delivers his people from the curse of the law by "being made a curse for them" (cf. Isaiah 53:6; 1 Pet. 3:24; cf. Galatians 3:13). I ask again, is the alleged fact the same in the systems of all these people? Let the humble believer, who can find no rest for his soul but in the all-perfect and all-sufficient righteousness of his Divine Surety, answer the question. The truth is, what is called the fact in question is, in each of these cases, an entirely different fact in the estimation of the different classes enumerated. Each erroneous theory perverts the fact as found in the Bible, and transforms it into a fact of totally different aspect and bearing. Let me entreat the friends of Bible truth, then, to beware of those who talk of Calvinistic facts explained by Pelagian, or Semi-pelagian philosophy. It is an utter and ruinous delusion. The Pelagian philosophy never fails to transform all the facts which it perverts and tortures into Pelagian facts, with this dangerous circumstance attending them, that they are really Pelagian under a deceptive name and false colors. Let Pelagian philosophy prevail in the church for a few years, and he is an infatuated man who flatters himself that Pelagian doctrines will not soon be the reigning creed. These remarks, my Christian brethren, are freely made, not for the purpose of wounding feelings, or fomenting strife; but with a sincere desire to prevent both, by preventing what must inevitably lead to both. Allowing men to subscribe to a confession which they obviously do not believe ­ and to declare that they "approve" of a form of ecclesiastical government and discipline which they do not love, and have no disposition to support ­ may have the appearance of great "liberality," and may seem to promise a most enviable harmony among brethren of different opinions. But the appearance is delusive. The hope is a miserable dream. It requires no spirit of prophecy to foresee that whenever our ecclesiastical judicatories begin deliberately to admit of subscription to our public standards on any such principles, they are paving the way for troubles and dangers of the most ruinous kind. They will soon discover, either that they have introduced an enemy into the camp, who will create all the confusion of Babel, and eventually tear them in pieces; or, that indifference to truth, and that moral torpor and death, into which the Protestant churches of France and Geneva, from this very cause, and in this very way, gradually sunk down, and which was, for many years, the basis of all their tranquility. There is peace among the dead; but it is the peace of darkness, of rottenness and of desolation. From such a peace, may God of his infinite mercy preserve us. Princeton, February, 1833 Letter 2 Christian Brethren: It may be asked, and probably will be asked by some, what application the subjects discussed in the preceding letter can have to the present state of the Presbyterian Church? I answer, much in variety of ways. There are, undoubtedly, circumstances, either real or supposed, in the situation of the church, adapted to excited deep solicitude in the minds of those who take an interest in her welfare; and especially in the minds of those who believe that her true interest essentially depends on her faithful adherence to those evangelical principles which our fathers laboured hard to defend and establish, which their sons have gone through many a conflict to maintain, and which the great mass of our most experienced, wise, and pious ministers and members do still consider as lying at the foundation of our real prosperity as a church of Christ. You will, no doubt, anticipate me, when I say that the circumstance to which I allude is the painful apprehension, entertained by many, that, in some of our Presbyteries, there is not that entire adherence to our doctrinal standards which the purity of the church demands. To what extent there is real ground for this fear, I pretend not to decide. I would fain hope, as expressed in my first letter, that nineteen-twentieths of our ministry and eldership are not liable, in any considerable degree, to the charge in question. I know, however, that the apprehension (above referred to) exists in some minds; and that, in some cases, it is so deeply fixed, as materially to interfere with that cordiality of feeling, and that harmony of Christian intercourse, which are so desirable among the members of the body of Christ, and which it is the unfeigned object of these letters to promote. Many of those whom I address will be better judges both of the reality and extent of the evil in question than, in my situation, I can possibly be. Permit me, then, Christian brethren, to pour out the fulness of my heart on this important subject, with fraternal freedom. I shall "bring no railing accusation" against any one (cf. 2 Peter 2:11; 1 Peter 3:9; Jude 1:9). I shall hold up no brother to the public gaze as a heretic. Nothing is further from my wish, than to hurl the charge of heterodoxy, or to indulge the suspicion of it in my bosom. Rather would I cherish myself, and inculcate upon all whom I address, the exercise of that Christian charity which "hopeth all things," and "thinketh no evil" (1 Corinthians 13:5, 7). Still, even charity herself has eyes, and ears, and intellect, and cannot be regardless of the truth. If the evil in question exists, is it the part of wisdom to close our eyes against it? Will it not "eat as doth a canker" (2 Timothy 2:17), and be likely, at last, to produce a fatal mischief? If it produces uneasiness now, will it not be likely, if left uncorrected, to produce discord, hostility, and rupture in the end? Allow me, then, to express my feelings on the subject with all the sincerity and frankness of one who loves harmony and quietness much, but truth more; and who remembers that the inspired oracle represents that "wisdom which cometh down from above, as first pure, then peaceable" (cf. James 3:17); nay who is persuaded that all that peace which rests upon indifference to the truth, or on friendship to error, must be as transient as it is false. Let none say that uniformity of doctrinal belief, among the ministers and members of a particular church, is by no means so important as many imagine; and that to indulge uneasiness, or to give trouble respecting it, is rather a mark of prejudice and bigotry than of sound wisdom. This, I know, is the language of some. But is it the language of God’s word? Has it been the language of the most faithful and eminently useful of the servants of Christ in any age? What is to be done by those who verily believe that Christians are bound, agreeable to the inspired injunction, to "hold fast the form of sound words which they have received," and to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints?" (cf. 2 Timothy 1:13; cf. Jude 1:3). What shall be done by those who believe that one principal end for which the church was instituted, by her Divine Head, was that she might preserve in their purity, and transmit uncorrupted to future ages, the true faith and order of Christ’s house? What shall we say to those humble, conscientious Christians who think they read, in every page of ecclesiastical history, that in all cases without exception, when the church has faithfully adhered to those doctrines of the Bible, and of the Reformation, which are taught in our Confession of Faith, she has been blessed and prospered; and that, just in proportion as she has departed from these doctrines, she has declined both in spirituality and peace? It is not enough to tell such persons that they are weakly prejudiced, or that they are "high church" bigots. This is, surely, not the way either to satisfy a conscientious scruple, or to promote Christian love among brethren. The stubborn facts, after all, remain: that is, by the truth alone, borne home to heart by the Spirit’s power, that any of the children of men are truly sanctified; and that it is only so far as the disciples of Christ "walk by the same rule," and "speak the same thing" (Php 3:16; 1 Corinthians 1:10), that they can be blessed with a harmony and love which are worth possessing. The impression which has undeniably been made on the minds of some excellent ministers of the Presbyterian Church, that there are brethren in our connection who have departed from some of the important doctrines of our Confession; and that there are others who, though not chargeable themselves with this departure, in all its extent, are yet over-indulgent to it in their co-presbyters; the impression, I say, thus made, is either founded in truth, or it is false. If it be entirely false ­ if there be no real ground for the suspicion ­ why suffer it to be indulged for a moment? Why not remove it effectually, and at once, as might easily be done by a few candid and explicit statements? Surely to make such statements, is not too great a condescension, when the edification of brethren, and the peace of the church, are involved. But if the impression referred to is just; if the suspicion of doctrines seriously erroneous, having crept into the church, is founded in fact, can those who lament, and complain of the fact, be blamed? Ought they, as "watchmen on the walls of Zion" (cf. Isaiah 62:6), to hold their peace when their Master’s truth is invaded? And is it possible to hope for a sound and safe peace until the evil is, in some way, corrected; until the impression of which we speak is legitimately removed? On such a subject, however, general remarks and suggestions will be of little value, unless followed by some distinct specifications. I will, therefore, frankly give a specimen of the doctrines to which I allude. That teaching doctrines such as I am about to mention has been often and formally imputed to ministers of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, no one who has been conversant with the religious journals of our country can fail to know. With what truth these imputations may, in some instances, have been made, I will not, at present, undertake to decide. And therefore, I do not venture to connect the specified opinions with any particular names. But I will venture to say, that if any of these doctrines are held and taught by any of the ministers connected with the Presbyterian Church, it is deeply to be deplored, and affords a painful augury of the purity and peace of the church in time to come. The doctrines referred to are such as these: that we have no more to do with the first sin of Adam, than with that of any other parent; that he was not constituted the covenant head of his posterity, but was merely their natural progenitor; that there is no such thing as original sin; that infants come into the world as perfectly free from corruption of nature as Adam was when he was created; that to speak of innate corrupt inclinations and propensities is an absurdity; that by human depravity is meant nothing more than the universal fact that all the posterity of Adam, though born entirely free from moral defilement, will always begin to sin when they begin to exercise moral agency; that the doctrine of imputed sin, or imputed righteousness, is nonsense; that the human will determines itself; that the impenitent sinner is, by nature, in full possession of all the powers necessary to a full compliance with all the commands of God; that he is in possession of plenary ability to repent and believe, without the aid of the Holy Spirit; that if he labored under any kind of inability, natural or moral, which he could not remove himself, he would be fully excusable for not complying with God’s will; that man is active in his own regeneration ­ in other words, that his regeneration is his own act; that it is impossible for God, by a direct influence on the mind, to control its perceptions and practical choices, without destroying its moral agency; that, consequently, Omnipotence cannot exert such an influence on men as shall make it certain that they will choose and act in a particular manner, without making them mere machines; that we have no evidence that God could have prevented the existence of sin, or that he could now prevent any that exists, without interfering with the moral agency of man; that he would, no doubt, be glad to do it, but is not able; that he elected men to eternal life, on a foresight of what their character would be; and that his sovereignty is confined to the revelation of truth, and exhibition of it to the mind. Now, let any man take these doctrinal propositions, and compare them with the spirit and language of our Confession of Faith; and if he can lay his hand on his heart and say, with an honest conscience, that they agree with that formulary, and that the same individual can sincerely assent to both, he will furnish, it appears to me, one of the most signal examples of either perverted intellect, or moral obliquity, that can easily be found. If I really adopted the foregoing doctrines, I should certainly consider myself as guilty of the grossest perjury in subscribing the Confession of Faith. If Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian sentiments existed in the fifth century, here they are, in all their unquestionable and revolting features. More particularly, in regard to the denial of original sin and the assertion of the doctrine of human ability, Pelagius and his followers never, certainly, went further than some of the advocates of the doctrines above recited. To attempt to persuade us to the contrary is to suppose that the record of the published language and opinions of those ancient heretics is lost or forgotten. And to assert that these opinions are reconcilable with the Calvinistic system is to offer a poor compliment to the memory of the most acute, learned, and pious divines that ever adorned the church of God, from the days of Augustine to those of the venerable band of Puritans who, after bearing a noble testimony against surrounding errors on the other side of the Atlantic, bore the lamp of truth, and planted the standard of Christ in this western hemisphere. Were they entirely mistaken in all their able and heroic testimony against Pelagian and Arminian errors? Did they spend their breath, and give up all that was dear to them in this world, in vainly contending against a mere imaginary discrepancy? My Christian friends, if we are prepared to admit this, we are indeed the degenerate offspring of a noble race of men. Let us no longer claim them as our sires. Let us withdraw the memorials of their exalted virtues, piety and services, which we have so often thought ourselves honored in erecting. Let us no more repeat that almost hallowed aspiration: Sit anima mea cum Puritanis! [Let my soul be with the Puritans!] That the distressing apprehensions of error just expressed are not confined to "Old School" Presbyterians is well known to those who have attended to the popular publications of the day. One of the most acute, profound, and cautious theologians of New England, the venerable Professor of Christian Theology at Andover, in speaking of the precise opinions above recited, and others of allied character, represents himself and his friends as filled with anxious fears respecting the nature and tendency of these opinions; and considers their advocates as "making an attack on several important articles of the orthodox faith; and as employing language on the subject of moral agency, free will, depravity, divine influence, etc., which is so like the language of Arminians and Pelagians, that it would require some labor to discover the difference."[2] And one of the most enlightened and respectable divines of Connecticut, in terms of still more unqualified reprobation, denounces the same opinions, as Arminian in their character; directly adapted ­ whatever may be the intention of their advocates ­ to make all who believe them Arminians; and tending to undermine, at once, the purity and peace of the church.[3] But the question, whether the doctrinal opinions alluded to are reconcilable with the received Confession and Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church is of small importance compared with another, "Are they reconcilable with the scriptures?" What is their bearing on that great system of "grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ?" (cf. John 1:17). And here the unavoidable answer appears to me to be of the most painful kind. I am aware, indeed, that the respected brethren who are said to be the advocates of these opinions are said also to believe and insist that they consider them as peculiarly benign in their aspect and influence. They assure us that these doctrines afford great advantages over all others, in addressing both saints and sinners; in making men feel their deep responsibility, and in moving them to immediate and vigorous effort in the great work of salvation; that they are the most efficient promoters of revivals, and eminently adapted to build up the church of God. I have no doubt they believe all this. And those who, with me, deplore the reception of these opinions by any, might believe it too, if the opinions themselves had now, for the first time, been known in the Christian church. But they are old opinions. There is scarcely any thing new about them, even in their dress. An ample experiment has been made of their effects in different ages, and in various parts of the world; and these effects have always been deplorable, especially in reference to the spiritual interests of the church. The very same plea was made in behalf of the same doctrines, by their original advocates in the fifth century, and has been urged by their followers ever since. Yet nothing is more plain than that all the principles of evangelical truth, and all the lessons of Christian experience, must be reversed before such a plea can be admitted. In fact, the whole tendency (of the system of doctrines just detailed) is to exalt the creature, and depress the Creator; to give us less humbling ideas of the moral disease under which we labor, and a diminished sense of obligation to the grace of Christ, and to the power of the Holy Spirit; to make the impenitent believe that conversion is a small and easy thing, and that they can accomplish it in their own strength, whenever they please. If men come into the world as free from all moral taint as Adam was in his state of primitive rectitude, and yet never fail to commence a course of sin the moment their moral agency begins, is not the doctrine of depravity, on this plan, encumbered with new difficulties, and placed on a footing far more perplexing and objectionable, than the old system of orthodoxy ever placed it? If there be no such thing as innate depravity, what is the real source of the sinful series of actions which never fails to commence with the commencement of moral agency? Is God the source of it? There is nothing, it seems, in man, by nature, to which it can be traced. Besides, if this be so, in what can regeneration consist? If there be no native tendency or disposition of the soul to be corrected, what does the Holy Spirit do to or for a man when he regenerates him? Does he only break the force of a few successive sinful acts, without any agency on the heart which will render it less liable, or less disposed to sin in future? Further, if God cannot control the volitions of men without destroying their moral agency, then all certainty that his purposes will be accomplished, his predictions fulfilled, and the perseverance of his people in holiness secured, is, at one stroke, subverted. If God wills to save man, and yet cannot save him, unless man wills to help him, though at the same time, man, (according to this system) can will to be saved independently of any agency or will of God to that end; what security is there that any will be saved? If man be active in his own regeneration ­ in other words, if the agency by which he is "brought out of darkness into the marvellous light" of the gospel is his own (cf. 1 Peter 2:9) ­ in what rational or scriptural sense can he be said to be "born of the Spirit;" to be "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God?" (John 3:6; John 1:13). If the wills of men are always governed by a "self-determining power," how can all glorying be taken away from the creature, and ascribed to almighty, sovereign, self-moving grace? Is it indeed so? Then I see not ­ notwithstanding all the solemn, and I doubt not, sincere protestations of the abettors of these doctrines to the contrary ­ I see not how we can avoid the conclusion, that the character of God is dishonored; that his counsels are degraded to a chaos of impotent wishes, and abortive endeavors; that his promises are the fallible and uncertain declarations of circumscribed power, and endless doubt; that it is impossible to guard the best hopes of the Christian from the constant liability to be blasted, unless by reducing him to a mere machine; that the whole plan of salvation is nothing better than a system of probabilities and peradventures, in which nothing can be made certain but at the expense of destroying the moral agency of the creature; and that it is nearly, if not quite, as likely to land the believer in the abyss of the damned, as in the paradise of God! I know that these consequences are neither recognized nor admitted by the respected brethren who entertain the opinions under consideration. On the contrary, they think they see consequences flowing from them of the most favorable and inviting character. Nay, I believe they have been led, in some instances, to embrace and to preach these doctrines, by a sincere wish to avoid certain evils which they saw, or thought they saw, to arise from the exhibition of what they called the "Old Orthodoxy." They have heard, perhaps, some who professed to be advocates of "Calvinism," represent some of the features of that system, and especially the subject of human inability, in a manner rather adapted to diminish a sense of responsibility, and lull to sleep, than rouse and alarm the impenitent sinner. They have thence hastily concluded, that the fault was in the system itself, and not in the preacher. And in their ardent zeal to do good, instead of only rectifying the mode of presenting truth, which was all that needed rectification, they have been allured into the opposite error, by an honest desire to make a strong and salutary impression. This, I have no doubt, is a real statement of facts; and that we have, of course, to thank the occasional mistakes of "Old School" preaching for some of the most serious departures of "New School" champions from the simplicity of Bible truth. This, however, while it accounts for the fact before us, by no means justifies it. Some of the worst heresies that ever infected the church have arisen from a similar source. As to the alleged peculiar tendency of these doctrines, to make men feel their responsibility, and to promote revivals of religion, it is, I am constrained to believe, altogether delusive. The preaching of these opinions may promote, as I am persuaded it has promoted, revivals of a spurious kind, in which temporary excitement ­ strong animal feeling ­ and vows and resolutions made on the spur of the moment, and in human strength, were the sum and substance of what was accomplished by them. Or they may exceedingly rouse the public mind, by being connected with novel devices and movements. Thus, it is well known, that strongly marked and extensive religious excitements have often occurred, both in former and latter times, under the ministrations of those who denied every fundamental doctrine of the gospel. But surely no one ever considered this as any evidence that the sentiments, on which the whole rested, were either sound in their character, or salutary in their influence. I defy the most diligent student of ecclesiastical history to produce a single instance in which the interests of vital piety, and of genuine revivals of religion, have not utterly perished in Pelagian hands. O how different, my Christian friends, is this scheme of doctrine, from that humbling, yet elevating, and glorious plan of salvation which shines so clearly in the Bible, and which appears to me to be so exactly and happily copied into our Confession of Faith! A system which represents man as universally fallen, depraved and guilty, in virtue of his covenant connection with "the first Adam" (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Corinthians 15:47); which exhibits him as an active, sentient, moral being, endowed with all the faculties which constitute a free, responsible moral agent; yet destitute of all holy dispositions, "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1) ­ that is, insensible to the glory of God, and to all holy taste and enjoyment; which describes him as wholly unable to recover himself from this state of moral pollution and alienation, yet entirely to blame for this inability (to blame, nay, wholly inexcusable, for every moment of its continuance, the inability being altogether moral, and consequently, rather aggravating than excusing the spirit and conduct of the sinner); a system which, while it represents man as in these deplorable circumstances, holds forth to him a dispensation of rich and wonderful mercy, through "the second Adam, the Lord from heaven" (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:47); which proclaims, to a guilty world, a divine, almighty, all-sufficient Saviour, who as the covenant Head and Representative of his chosen, laid down his life as an atoning sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us to God; a sacrifice abundantly sufficient for the whole world, but according to the gracious purpose and sovereign wisdom of God, made efficacious only to those who believe; which, on the ground of this all-sufficient sacrifice, sincerely makes an offer of the Saviour, with all his benefits, to every one who hears the gospel (and that not on the ground that those who make the offer, thus general, do not know who are chosen, and who are not, but because the provision made by the sacrifice of the Redeemer is abundantly adequate, and in its nature, perfectly adapted to the case of all); a plan which represents the pardon and acceptance of the sinner as founded solely on the perfect satisfaction and righteousness of the Redeemer, received by faith, and imputed to the believer; and his regeneration and progressive holiness, as produced entirely by the power of the Holy Spirit, on whose gracious power the Christian is entirely dependent, for the commencement and continuance of every holy exercise. In short, [it is] a system, which represents the moral ruin and impotence of man by nature as entire; which maintains from the beginning to the end, his perfect dependence, and at the same time his perfect freedom and responsibility; and which also, from the beginning to the end, holds forth the Saviour, his love, his atoning blood, his justifying righteousness, his life-giving spirit, as the only hope of the sinner ­ as the Alpha and the Omega, the first and last of the whole plan. This, as I read the Bible, is the great evangelical system. And as David said concerning the sword of Goliath, so say I of this system, "There is none like it, ­ give it me" (1 Samuel 21:9). This is " the glorious gospel of the blessed God" (1 Timothy 1:11). It may, no doubt, be preached unfaithfully, or unskillfully, as it has often been by its professed friends; but, when proclaimed in its genuine character, it is "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16). Some, I know have said, that to exhibit the gospel thus is to give it a "discouraging" aspect. But I know of no "discouragement" with which it is chargeable, except it be that it discourages in the sinner all hope of being his own savior. And this, I acknowledge, is, to me, one of its strongest recommendations. It humbles the sinner. It exalts the Saviour. It warms, consoles, and edifies the believer. This is that "sword of the Spirit" (Ephesians 6:17), which, accompanied with the mighty power of him who gave it, is destined to accomplish the conquest of the world. I do not forget that some of the respected and beloved brethren, who are regarded as the advocates of the doctrines alluded to, tell us continually that they believe substantially as we believe; that the difference between them and us is chiefly, if not entirely, a difference of words. And is it possible, if this is the case, that they will allow so much anxiety and noise to be created by a mere verbal dispute? Is it possible that they are so intent on a set of terms, as to grieve multitudes of the pious, and run the risk of breaking the peace of the church, for the sake of maintaining a mere phraseology? Surely they cannot so lightly esteem the harmony and edification of the body of Christ! But whatever may be the understanding and the intention of leading preachers of the doctrines referred to, the question is, "How are they understood by others?" What impression, when preached as they are, will they be likely, and are they found in fact, to make? Nothing can be more certain than that the language of some of these doctrinal statements is palpably Pelagian, and some others of them Semi-Pelagian; and even if those who (after all they have heard of the uneasiness of their brethren, still insist upon employing this language) do not themselves embrace the errors with which it was once connected, there is the utmost danger that others (not so discerning or so pious) will be led astray by the language in question, and really embrace, in all their extent, the errors which it was originally employed to express. I am persuaded that ecclesiastical history furnishes no example of such theological language being obstinately and extensively used, without being found in fact connected with Arminian and Pelagian opinions, or at least ultimately leading to their adoption. Besides, all experience admonishes us to be upon our guard against those who, in publishing erroneous opinions, insist upon it that they differ from the old orthodox creed "only in words." This plan has been often pursued, until the language became familiar, and the opinions which it naturally expressed, current; and then the real existence of something more than a verbal difference was disclosed in all its extent and inveteracy. Such was the course adopted by Arius, in the fourth century. He and his followers strenuously maintained that they differed in no material respect ­ nay in terms only ­ from the orthodox church. But how entirely was their language changed when they had gained a little more power and influence! The same plea precisely was adopted by Pelagius, and his leading adherents in the fifth century, and also by Cassian, and other advocates of the Semi-Pelagian cause, about the same time. When Arminius arose toward the close of the sixteenth century, he veiled his opinions by the very same plea, and by this means succeeded, for a number of years, in eluding ecclesiastical discipline. Such also was the allegation of Cameron and Amyraut, of France, in the seventeenth century, when they commenced that corrupting process in the doctrine of the French churches, which at length issued in their deplorable degeneracy from the truth, and, indeed, in their final ruin. And, to mention but one example more: All the world knows that a similar plea was confidently urged by our Unitarian neighbors of Massachusetts, when more than twenty years ago, they were charged, by some faithful watchmen on the walls of Zion, with holding Arian and Socinian opinions. They denied and resented the charge; denounced those who brought it as malignant slanderers; and warmly contended that they differed from the mass of the Massachusetts clergy chiefly in "words." If my memory does not deceive me, only one man in the whole commonwealth was candid enough, when the charge was first published, to acknowledge its truth. But we all know how the affair issued. The worst predictions of the advocates of truth were seen realized; and proof of the most unequivocal kind produced, that while the truth of the charge was loudly and indignantly denied, it had a deep-seated and growing foundation in fact. Shall these instructions of experience be lost upon us? Shall examples so numerous and decisive be contemplated in vain? I am very far from imputing to the respected brethren, to whose alleged opinions I now refer, the insidious aim to conceal and deceive, which appeared but too plainly in the long line of errorists to which I have referred. On the contrary, I am bound to take for granted, and do really believe, that the greater part of them have completely succeeded in persuading themselves that the doctrines specified are truly, for substance, those which are found in our public formularies. Yet it is impossible for me to doubt that these brethren are laboring under an entire mistake; that they are really, without being aware of it, teaching dangerous errors; and, like men of excellent intentions who have gone before them, are laying a foundation for still more serious departures from the purity of gospel truth. I am not unacquainted with the ingenious and plausible efforts of distinguished brethren, who advocate these speculations, to reconcile them with the simple truths of the gospel; and to show that they do not differ from the doctrines taught on the same subjects by President Edwards, by Witherspoon, and by other venerated fathers whose praise is in all the churches. But the more I read of such efforts, the more I am amazed and dissatisfied. By a similar process I could prove that President Edwards and John Taylor, of Norwich, did not materially differ! Either language has lost its meaning, or these brethren differ essentially from the excellent men whose authority they plead. I can confidently say, that I have heard preachers of my own denomination, with my own ears, deliver sentiments (and have seen, in print, tenets which others, of the same class, publicly avowed), which constrained me ­ and not me only, but some of the wisest and most moderate ministers in the Presbyterian Church ­ to say "that we had rather, much rather, sit habitually under the ministry of a pious Methodist brother, with all his avowed Arminianism, than under that of the Presbyterian brethren alluded to." My deliberate judgment is in favor of this decision. I verily think that the former would approach much nearer to the spirit of the Bible than the latter; and be, in every respect, a more sober, safe, and edifying guide to us and our children. Our church, as such, professes to be a Calvinistic church. This name and this character she has long borne. She is descended from a church which, for a series of generations, deserves to be called one of the noblest witnesses for "the truth as it is in Jesus" (cf. Ephesians 4:21) that ever adorned the annals of reformed Christendom. And ever since her organization in this country, the daughter has acknowledged and gloried in the faith of her transatlantic mother. She has been distinguished as Calvinistic; reproached as Calvinistic; and, as Calvinistic, has suffered, on some occasions, every thing short of martyrdom from an ungodly world, and from professing Christians, who misunderstood and maligned her tenets. Under this "flag" she has bravely and successfully fought. Shall she now "change her colors?" Or shall she retain them ostensibly, only to dishonor and betray them? Every principle of fidelity to the God of her fathers, and of regard to Christian truth, and Christian honor, ought to forbid this. If her public "Standards" have not been hitherto correct, let them be openly and frankly altered. But as long as she professes to maintain them, let them be maintained in sincerity and good faith. Let not her Confession of Faith speak one language and her pulpits another. Let the world be honestly informed what, as a church, she really holds. I venture to predict that, whenever we abandon our doctrinal testimony, God will abandon us. No instance, I repeat, can be produced, in all the records of ecclesiastical history, in which a church, once firm and zealous in maintaining the Calvinistic system, gradually relaxed from her testimony, and deviated into Pelagian or Arminian errors, without, in a great measure, losing her spirituality, and manifesting that her strength had departed from her. It is true the influence of Arminian doctrine has not always been such in churches originally founded and nurtured in its belief. But never, as I believe, has the adoption of this system succeeded to the light and the influence of a more scriptural faith, without being marked, very distinctly and mournfully, as a descent, rather than a rise in the scale of Christian prosperity. This was exemplified in England, in the early part of the seventeenth century. Precisely in proportion as Arminianism gained ground in the established church, in the time, and under the influence of Laud, spirituality declined, and remained in a deplorable state for more than a hundred years. And the return to spirituality, at a later period, in that church, was notoriously attended with a corresponding return to Calvinistic opinions. The same general principle is strikingly illustrated, and mournfully confirmed by the history of the French Protestant churches in the same century. Just in proportion as they relaxed from the original doctrines of the Reformation, and extensively embraced opinions nearly allied to the Semi-Pelagian system, they declined in harmony and piety, and manifested that their glory was departed. The same fact notoriously appeared in the churches of Massachusetts and Connecticut when, more than a century ago, a number of their ministers manifested a tendency toward the adoption of Arminian opinions. Who does not know that, in almost every such case, coldness, formality, and spiritual barrenness were, constantly, the ultimate result? To speak of an Arminian, at that time, and in that country, was to speak of one opposed to close and faithful preaching, and to all fervent zeal for the conversion of souls. It may be imagined by some to be a sufficient answer to this position, that the very reverse is now alleged to be the fact; that those who are charged with Arminian tendencies in doctrine are among the most fervent preachers in the country. But we have not seen the end. Let us wait a few years, and see what the result will be. It is yet to be decided whether they will sink down into the coldness and death-like formality of the Whitbyan school, as a great majority of Arminians, in every age, have done; or take the position of the Cumberland Presbyterians, with their unscriptural creed, and their fanatical, revolting irregularities. Either result, I am sure, is now regarded, by those worthy brethren to whose opinions I allude, as equally unwelcome and improbable. It will be seen, from the foregoing representation, that my opinion decisively is that, unless there can be some fraternal understanding and co-operation, in both sides, in adhering to our doctrinal standards, our beloved church must long continue to be a stranger to peace. It is, indeed, very important that the brethren of what is called the "Old School" should not be, as to this matter, captious, or over rigorous in their demands; that they should not be perpetually and vexatiously occupied in the work of "heresy hunting;" that they should not indulge the disposition to make a brother "an offender for a word" (Isaiah 29:21). But it is evident that this will not be enough. If the brethren of the "New School" will persist in the public, habitual use of a theological language which impartial judges consider as Pelagian in its obvious import; if they will pay no regard to this subject; if they will venture, notwithstanding all the irritability of the public mind in relation to the matter, to license and ordain men who give too much reason to fear that they do not, ex< animo [from the heart; sincerely], receive the doctrines and order of our church; and if, whenever a question arises, in our higher judicatories, respecting doctrinal soundness, they will always sustain and acquit lax theology, to whatever extreme it may go; I say, if they will pursue this course, it requires no spirit of prophecy to foresee, that growing alienation, strife, and eventual rupture must be the consequence. It is, indeed, an easy thing for a minister accused of heresy, and affording too much evidence of the fact, by ingenious refinements, and plausible protestations, to render it difficult, if not impossible for a judicatory to convict him. And it is easy for such of his brethren as resolve to screen him from censure, so to varnish over his opinions ­ as to hide, for the present, most of their deformity. But is this the policy of Christian fidelity and candor? Will such a curse be likely to taste favorably to either party? I trow not. It will be to no purpose that we call ourselves the Presbyterian Church in the United States, if we cannot be really united in cordial attachment to the faith as well as the order publicly adopted by that body. To retain our name, while we desert our standards, will not long be possible; and would be neither honest nor useful even if it were possible. My further remarks, on the importance of adhering to our doctrinal standards, will be dispatched in one or more letter. Princeton, February, 1833 Letter 3 Christian Brethren: Before I take leave of the subject of adherence to our doctrinal standards, allow me to advert to one or two points, closely connected with the general subject, in relation to which I cannot resist the impression that sentiments and practices of more than doubtful character have been repeatedly indulged in several of our judicatories. No one, I trust, will suspect me of a disposition so far to travel out of my province as to arraign and censure ecclesiastical bodies with which I have nothing immediately to do. Far from it. My only object is to remark on some principles which, however they are assumed, and acted upon, cannot fail, in my opinion, to lead to mischief. The first of the points to which I refer is one which appears to me to have a very portentous bearing on the doctrinal purity and peace of our church. I mean the disposition which has been avowed, and acted upon, of forming new Presbyteries upon the plan of what has been called "elective affinity" ­ or, in other words, where there is a large Presbytery, comprising brethren who differ very materially in their doctrinal belief, and who find it difficult to act with harmony together, on account of that difference, of forming the members who constitute one of the parties into a new Presbytery, by themselves, thus enabling them to indulge their doctrinal peculiarities, and to pursue their favorite policy without control. In the remarks which I have to offer on this subject, I beg to be considered as having no special reference to the act of the last General Assembly, by which a certain Presbytery seems to have been confessedly divided upon this very principle. If I had been a member of that Assembly, I am inclined to think I should have given my vote for the division which was made; not, however, by any means on the principle which was avowed by many of the advocates of the measure; but on an entirely different ground, hereafter to be stated. My sole object is, without any reference to particular cases, to offer some general remarks by which I hope you will be satisfied, that the whole scheme of forming new Presbyteries on the principle of "elective affinity" involves an essential departure from the spirit of our constitution; and, if freely pursued, must very speedily issue in a painful and fatal division of the Presbyterian Church. The theory of our ecclesiastical constitution, as every one who reflects on the subject will immediately perceive, is that the Presbyterian Church, though composed of many parts, is one body. It supposes a number of individual churches and judicatories all embracing the same faith; walking by the same rules; and agreeing to be governed by the same principles of truth and order; thus forming one harmonious community, in which every part is presumed to agree with every other part, and one law, spirit, and counsel to pervade the whole. "Things equal to one and the same thing are equal to one another." Of course, if every minister, and elder, and deacon, of the Presbyterian Church, on becoming such, subscribe a certain formulary, the whole body is to be considered as according with that formulary, which each individual part has formally adopted; and, consequently, every part as in harmony with every other part. In this sense, the Presbyterian Church, in a manner somewhat peculiar to herself, is one: not merely composed of a number of religious bodies, or worshipping assemblies, bearing the same name, and a general resemblance to each other; but every member and judicatory being integral parts of the same compact and organized body, and each part exercising its appropriate and definite share of government, over itself and over the whole. This is the theory. Now it is evident that if there is not real harmony, real unity of spirit among all these several parts, the principle on which the body is constituted, is, precisely to the extent to which this want of harmony exists, really abandoned. If even a single subordinate part, or judicatory, does not believe, and refuses to act, in accordance with the rest, it is plain that the beauty, the purity, and even the safety of the whole, may be invaded by that one. And if a few more parts become erratic and impure, their influence may soon become, not merely unhappy, but fatal. This principle is not as applicable to various other denominations. If a single Independent or Congregational church, or even a single Congregational Association, should depart from the general faith or order which it has been wont to receive, it would, of course, be regretted by the wise and the good. But as that church, or that association, is an independent and insulated body ­ has only an advisory power, and can take no part in governing the rest of her sisters ­ the mischief of her aberration might by no means be widely extended; at any rate, the mischief attendant upon it might not necessarily be great. But suppose the case to be, as it actually is, and must be, when a similar occurrence takes place in the Presbyterian Church. Suppose a Presbytery to be set off on the principle of "elective affinity:" that is, on the principle that the members who compose it were not able to agree with their brethren, in doctrinal sentiments; suppose that they differed so widely in this respect, not only from their brethren, but also from some very material articles in the Confession of Faith, as to be no longer able to act together with comfort and peace; and suppose that they wished for a separate organization that they might be free to indulge their doctrinal peculiarities in licensing and ordaining candidates, etc., without restraint or conflict. This may appear, to superficial thinkers, a very reasonable demand, and a very feasible expedient for terminating the evils of ecclesiastical controversy. But let us, for a moment, pursue this expedient to its natural results. Suppose this newly organized Presbytery to follow out the principles of its solicitude and, eventually granted this organization, into a regular system of corresponding acts. Suppose it immediately to go to work, and to be a kind of mint, for manufacturing and sending forth among the churches an abundance of coin bearing the same stamp with itself. Suppose, further, that the principle recently contended for is also adopted and acted upon, viz., that whenever either a licentiate or an ordained minister comes from any Presbytery with regular testimonials, declaring him to be in good standing with that body, he must, of course, be received by any and every Presbytery to which he may present himself, without a word of examination or inquiry. Suppose these things, and is it not manifest, that it would be in the power of a single Presbytery of this character, in a few years, to ruin the Presbyterian Church. Let such a Presbytery be regarded by the public, generally, as the center and patron of lax theology. Let it be understood that its members, though not all, or perhaps any of them, Pelagians themselves, will not hesitate a moment to license or ordain a Pelagian! Let every individual in the land who dislikes the rigid plan of subscription to the Confession of Faith ­ and who wishes for the privilege of declaring his solemn assent to a system of doctrines without believing them ­ flock to that Presbytery for license and ordination. Let a score of candidates from that mint be emitted into the church every year, and by certificates be distributed about among the more orthodox Presbyteries, as inclination or policy might dictate; and let the doctrine be adopted that no Presbytery must hesitate about receiving such candidates as come with "clean papers," whatever degree of painful suspicion respecting their soundness in the faith may be entertained. Let this course be pursued, and it is plain that no long time would be requisite to inoculate the whole church with the views of this single Presbytery, and that all faithful adherence to our public formularies would be at an end. I do not say, for I do not believe, that there is a single Presbytery in our church which is now capable of acting in this manner. But a supposition has been made for the purpose of showing the natural tendency, and indeed the unavoidable operation, of the general principle of setting off new Presbyteries on the ground of incompatibility of doctrinal belief. And if I do not deceive myself, it is clearly and directly adapted to destroy the purity of the whole body. There is an incompatibility, indeed, which I can readily recognize as a valid reason for dividing a Presbytery, and erecting a new one with a part of its members. I mean such an incompatibility of temper: such an alienation of feeling among the members as renders it difficult, if not impossible for them to transact the business of the church with mutual confidence and affection. For this reason ­ that is on account of an evident incompatibility of feeling which rendered it wholly impossible for the members to act together with edification, as well as on the account of the extraordinary and unwieldy size of the Presbytery which was divided by the last General Assembly ­ I think I should have concurred in the general measure of division, if it had been my lot to give a vote on that occasion. There was evidently a state of feeling in the body, which, as it respected some of the members, at least, had no immediate connection with doctrinal discrepancy. To divide them into two distinct bodies, for the purpose of affording relief from this unhappy state of feeling, was in my apprehension no way inconsistent with correct and safe principle, and really seemed to be the only mode of affording the necessary relief. But to divide, and to erect new Presbyteries on the ground of the existence of such doctrinal diversity as that brethren cannot live and act together, is in my opinion, high treason against the first principles of Presbyterianism. It is to poison the very fountains of our ecclesiatical purity, and, for the sake of avoiding a little present inconvenience, to lay a train for an explosion which must, at no great distance of time, rend the church in pieces. I contemplate the subject, my Christian brethren, I repeat, not at all with feeling excited by the case which occupied so much of the time and attention of the last Assembly. Of these I have none; having before intimated that, if I had been a member of the body, I should probably have yielded my assent to the general measure which was adopted. But upon the most impartial and dispassionate view that I am able to take of the essential characteristic of a Presbyterian Church ­ as made up of many members, all subject to the same rules, and bound together in truth, love and authority by one common Head ­ the idea of expressly providing for the encouragement and perpetuation of diversity of faith in her bosom is deliberately to conspire against her unity, and to take counsel for introducing into her very system a principle of disease and self -destruction. The only other point to which I shall refer as existing in our church, and as threatening her peace, is nearly the converse of that which was mentioned, and relates to the licensing of candidates for the ministry. I knew, not long since, a young man, who, after being for a number of months on trial for license before a certain Old School Presbytery (rather more than usually respectable for size, talents, learning and piety), was deliberately refused license, on account of alleged immaturity in theological knowledge, and unsoundness in the faith. He immediately applied to another Presbytery, of the New School, more than a hundred miles off, by whom he was promptly licensed, notwithstanding the refusal of the sister judicatory, and with a distinct knowledge of that refusal. Here, you will observe, was a departure from that doctrine contended for in the other case. There it was maintained that a minister licensed by one Presbytery, coming to another with "clean papers," as a minister in good and regular standing, must necessarily be received as rectus in ecclesia [sound in the church], upon the principle that the acts of one Presbytery must be respected and sustained by all coordinate judicatories. But here it was quite as strenuously maintained that the judgment and act of a sister Presbytery might properly be disregarded. In other words, it seems to be the doctrine of some (at least), of our respected brethren of the New School, that where the act of a sister Presbytery makes in their favor, it is to be sustained; but that where it makes against them, it is to be set at naught. It is easy to see that these two doctrines, though diametrically opposite in principle, yet harmonize most perfectly in one respect. So far as they are acted upon, they both alike facilitate the multiplication of candidates of a particular stamp to an indefinite extent; and would enable, as was before observed, a single Presbytery, if she should be disposed, to deluge the church with unsound ministers, without her sister Presbyteries being able to interpose any adequate remedy. While the former would feel herself at liberty to act at her pleasure, the latter would be, if I may so express it, bound hand and foot; compelled to receive all who came to them with regular testimonials; and utterly unable to defend either themselves or the rest of the church from the encroachments of error. Is this right? Is it not subversive of every sound principle of ecclesiastical government? Is it not adapted to destroy mutual confidence among judicatories, who ought to feel not only that they bear the same name, but that they are in truth, "one body in Christ, and every one members one of another?" (Romans 12:5). But the question naturally arises, "What is the proper remedy in cases such as those of which we have been speaking?" Suppose an ordained minister, in good standing in his own Presbytery, to be called within the bounds of another, or to wish for any reason, to connect himself with that other. And suppose that, while he presents the most ample testimonials of regular official character from the Presbytery from which he comes, a majority of the members of that which he proposes to join believe him to be materially unsound in the faith. What is to be done? Has the latter Presbytery no alternative? Must we consider her as compelled to receive the candidate for admission without inquiry? If so, then, as before suggested, a single Presbytery might poison, and eventually destroy the whole church. She might soon create a majority of her own way of thinking in every Presbytery within her reach. It cannot be that this is the true theory of Presbyterian Church government. By no means. It is evident that the Presbytery to which the candidate applies may, if she sees her way clear, receive him at once, on the faith of his testimonials, and, as soon as he becomes a member of her body, proceed to arraign and try him, as she may any other of her members, on the charge of heresy. But suppose the Presbytery to which the applicant comes to, foresees that, if she receives him at once to membership, he may, either by artfully tampering with other members render process very difficult, or by adding one more vote to a previously large minority, obstruct it altogether. Would she be doing justice to the cause of truth to receive him at once, and thus run the risk of strengthening the interests of error within her own bosom, and possibly of giving it a predominant influence? If she distinctly foresaw such a result as likely to ensue, she would be not only justifiable, but bound in duty, to decline admitting such an applicant among the number of her members. However painful such an alternative might be, it would undoubtedly comport with the strictest rules of ecclesiastical order. Every body, ecclesiastical as well as civil, must be considered as having a right to judge of the qualifications of its own members. It ought, indeed, to exercise this right with great wisdom and prudence; and always exercise it on its own responsibility; but exercise it, it ought and must, or there is an end of all liberty. This right is inherent in our Presbyteries. When a candidate for admission stands before them, and his testimonials are produced and read, a vote is taken whether to receive him or not. If they have a right in this vote to say yes, they, surely, have quite as good a right to say no. In other words, the right of voting on the question at all, necessarily implies the right of voting either in the affirmative or negative, as they see cause. If they think proper to say no (in other words, to reject him), any one of several courses may be taken. The rejected applicant may simply withdraw his application, and take no further step in the business: or, the Presbytery which rejected him may represent the case to that from which he came, and by which he was recommended, and may request process to be commenced against him: or, the rejected candidate may complain of his non-reception to the Synod, and that body may take such order in the case as the rules and edification of the church may appear to require. Two of these courses may appear, at first view, circuitous; but when we consider the value of harmony in an extended community, and the importance, if we would attain it, of adhering to the rules agreed upon by that community, we cannot for a moment doubt that the most regular course of proceeding is always the best, and generally the most easy and expeditious. While on the subject of the respect due from one ecclesiastical judicatory to another ­ and the necessity of their concurrence in maintaining our ecclesiastical standards, if they would promote either the peace or the purity of the church ­ there is a matter of so much delicacy that I scarcely know how to speak of it, and at the same time of such vital importance, that I dare not wholly refrain from speaking. I refer to some circumstances which have attended the intercourse between our church and the Congregational churches in New England. That intercourse began with the commencement of my ministerial life. I have always been a warm friend to it; and should be grieved at the occurrence of anything adapted either to interrupt it, or render it less comfortable. If no such intercourse were already constituted, it ought forthwith to be begun. Those who come so near together as the great body of the ministers of New England, and those of the Presbyterian Church, ought undoubtedly to know and love one another, and to cooperate in the great work of enlighten ing and converting the world. But while the intercourse in question is delightful to every pious heart, and has been made, I doubt not, mutually useful to the contracting parties, and conducive to the extension of the Redeemer’s kingdom; both its comfort and usefulness cannot fail of being painfully interrupted, unless care be taken to guard against some of those sources of misunderstanding, which, however small they may appear in the beginning, will assuredly work wider and deeper mischief as they advance. The articles of intercourse between the Associations of New England, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, are to be considered as a solemn ecclesiastical compact, evidently intended to promote harmony, cooperation, and mutual strength. They secure the friendly reception of the ministers and licentiates of each party by the other; and they furnish a virtual, if not a formal pledge, that the peace, purity, and edification of each other, will be respected by both. Now the spirit of these principles seems to require that each party should abstain from such acts as manifestly militate with the object of the compact; and, of course, that candidates for the ministry, which are known to have been rejected by one party, should not be received by the other, and immediately sent back to the party which had rejected them, and there claim reception under the broad shield of this compact. Yet cases of this kind have occurred with a frequency, and painfulness, which cannot fail of being regarded with apprehension by the friends of the Presbyterian Church. About thirty years ago, a young man presented himself to the Presbytery of New York, of which I was then a member, to be taken on trial for license to preach the gospel. In the preliminary examination as to his experimental acquaintance with religion, he by no means gave satisfaction. The Presbytery, however, determined to pursue his trials a little further, and for the purpose of obtaining more light, gave him several subjects on which to produce written compositions. When these were exhibited, it became so perfectly apparent to the Presbytery that he was destitute of every proper qualification for the sacred office, that they, unanimously, resolved to proceed no further in his trials, and advised him to turn his attention to some secular employment. He appeared to acquiesce in their decision; but in a few weeks went to Massachusetts; applied to one of the Associations in that state; was promptly licensed; and immediately returned to the bosom of the Presbyterian Church; and presented himself as a regular licentiate from New England, to the Presbytery in the immediate vicinity of that by which he was rejected. That Presbytery felt itself bound, in courtesy (although the compact between the General Assembly, and General Association of Massachusetts, now existing, had not then been formed), to receive him as a licentiate in good standing. He was received; was finally with much reluctance ordained; occupied several stations in the church, though none for any length of time; and proved as long as he lived a trouble to the judicatories with which he was connected, and a distress to all intelligent and conscientious Christians, for his gross ignorance and lamentable departure from the correctness of Christian example. Nor does this case stand alone. Several times, since the date of that to which I have referred, candidates for ordination in our church, who refused to adopt our Confession of Faith, and, of course, were rejected by the respective Presbyteries to which they applied, have gone forthwith to New England, and there, with a distinct knowledge of their rejection in the Presbyterian Church, have been immediately ordained, and returned to its bosom, clothed with the ministerial character, and candidates for settlement in Presbyterian Churches. Now, though it cannot be said that any formal engagement was violated by these proceedings; although the Associations which acted in these cases had a perfect right, on the principles of their government, to decide and act as they did; although I am entirely satisfied that they meant to do nothing unfair or unfriendly; and although it is not known that any extensive mischief in fact resulted from more than one of the cases in question; yet it is perfectly plain that, if similar proceedings should become frequent, heart burning and impaired cordiality must be the consequence. Indeed, if such acts were to become very frequent, not to say habitual; if our beloved and respected brethren of the New England Associations were to allow themselves to license and ordain, without reserve, rejected fugitives from our Presbyteries; they might essentially weaken our hands, nay, they might absolutely destroy the discipline of the Presbyterian Church, and render the articles of agreement in question a curse instead of a blessing. It ought to be known that this is not a new difficulty. It is not a matter of complaint to which the recent jealousies of conflicting theologians have, for the first time, given rise. More than seventy years ago, the same evil was felt and remonstrated against. The following extract from the proceedings of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, then the highest judicatory of our church, at its sessions in 1764, will at once explain and confirm my statement. "Though the Synod entertains a high regard for the Associated Churches of New England; yet we cannot but judge, that students who go to them, or to any other than our own Presbyteries, to obtain license, in order to return and officiate among us, act very irregularly, and are not to be approved, or employed by our Presbyteries, as hereby we are deprived of the right of trying and approving the qualifications of our own candidates. Yet if any cases shall happen wherein such a conduct may in some circumstances be thought necessary for the greater good of any congregation, it shall be laid before the Presbytery to which the congregation belongs, and be approved of by them." Here, it will be perceived, the conduct censured was applying to Eastern Associations, in the first instance, to be licensed, "in order to return and officiate" in the Presbyterian Church. How much louder would have been the complaint against those Associations, if they had licensed and ordained candidates which had been rejected by our Presbyteries ­ knowing them to have been rejected ­ with the distinct and avowed purpose of preparing them to come back and settle, or at least to preach, in Presbyterian Churches! It is for the purpose of averting evil, and of guarding against every feeling which may threaten mischief, that I make these remarks. It is because I wish the connection which exists to be perpetual, and, at once, more pleasant and more beneficial on both sides, that I speak thus of the dangers to which it is exposed. If there ever has been an instance in which we have failed to pay due respect to the decisions of any of the Associations with which we have a conventional intercourse, it is unknown to me. And if such a thing were to occur, I think I should be the first to condemn it, and to make a motion for acknowledging and repairing our fault. It was in connection with uneasiness arising from an event of the kind referred to, that the proposal was made, and carried into effect, several years ago, that the delegates from the several Associations to our General Assembly, and from us to them, should no longer have a vote in the decisions of those bodies respectively. The proposal came from us, and was prompted by the following considerations. 1. The system of mutual voting by these delegates appeared, on serious consideration, so far as our church was concerned, unconstitutional. The Form of Government under which the General Assembly acts makes provision for that body maintaining a correspondence with sister churches at home and abroad; but not for receiving their members into authoritative cooperation with us. It declares, very explicitly, in what manner the General Assembly shall be constituted by the ministers and ruling elders from the several Presbyteries; but opens no door for admitting to a complete membership and vote any other description of persons. It was deemed, therefore, that our fathers, in forming this agreement, had gone beyond their constitutional warrant, and that we were, of course, bound to retrace our steps. 2. Some years after our brethren of the New England Associations had established a conventional intercourse with the General Assembly, the Associate Reformed, the Dutch Reformed, and the German Reformed churches, made overtures for establishing a similar intercourse; in framing the articles of which, although those bodies are all strictly Presbyterian, yet, such was their adherence to constitutional principles, that the privilege of voting, on the part of the delegates reciprocally sent by each party, was expressly precluded. Accordingly, for some years, at the meetings of our General Assembly, the singular spectacle was witnessed of all the delegates from the Congregational churches voting on every question; while those from the Presbyterian Churches in correspondence with us were never permitted to vote. This had so strange an appearance, that the friends of impartiality and good neighborhood thought it of importance that all the delegates from the corresponding churches should be placed on an equal footing. And as our Presbyterian correspondents would not consent either to give or take the voting power, it was deemed most judicious to abolish it in regard to all. 3. In 1821, when our Form of Government was revised, it was judged best to take away even from our own corresponding members, the right of voting. As the constitution of the church had stood before, when a member of one our Presbyteries happened to be present at the session of another Presbytery, he was, commonly of course, invited to sit as a corresponding member; and, when he did so, was allowed not only to speak, but also to vote, as if he had been a stated and plenary member of the Presbytery in which he held this temporary seat. On the revision of our Form of Government, in the year just mentioned, it was judged best, for weighty reasons, to declare that such corresponding members should, thereafter, be allowed to sit and deliberate, but not to vote. In these circumstances it was surely not equal to continue to the delegates of corresponding sister churches a privilege which we had deliberately thought proper to withdraw from the corresponding members of our own denomination. 4. Finally, the General Assembly was deliberately brought to the conclusion that the voting system of the delegates from the Congregational churches ought to be abolished, because this power, as enjoyed in their bodies and ours, was by no means of equal potency. On the one hand, it is well known that our General Assembly is a judicial body: that its decisions are authoritative, and bind the churches which are represented by its members. On the other hand, it is equally well known that the General Association of the Congregational Churches have no judicial authority; that they are only advisory bodies; and, of course, that a vote given in them binds no one, not even those, strictly speaking, who concur in it. Here, then, is an immense difference in the potency of votes. In our General Assembly, if there should happen to be nearly a tie, a single delegate or two from an Association, if they enjoyed the privilege of voting, might absolutely turn the scale, and give law to the church on a most important point; or might be instrumental in deciding an interesting case of discipline in a manner contrary to the wishes of a real majority of the church. While in the Association, supposing one of our delegates to enjoy the privilege of voting, the utmost that his vote could avail would be to carry a question in favor of giving advice. It could, in no case whatever, carry with it an authoritative power. To many warm friends of the intercourse system, this difference appeared too serious to be disregarded. The truth is, that on more than one occasion, while the system of delegate voting continued, the General Assembly has been so nearly divided, that, if the votes from the Association did not decide the vote of the Assembly, they came very near it, and might have done so in reality. Can it surprise anyone that such a fact should be regarded with some apprehension? It must be acknowledged, indeed, that our New England brethren have never discovered the least disposition to take the advantage of such a power on any occasion; but we might easily conceive of a state of things in which the enjoyment of it would be by no means unattended with hazard. My reasons for mentioning this subject, in the present connection, are chiefly two. 1. Because I am sensible that painful feelings have been excited in the minds of some by the abolition of the system of delegate voting. These feelings, I am confident, could never have been indulged, if the whole subject, in all its bearings, had been well understood. 2. Because I am more and more convinced that if the intercourse in question is to be maintained with comfort, and to edification, it will be of great importance that the rules and feelings of each party be, in all cases in which it is practical, affectionately respected. Those families which the providence of God has placed in the immediate vicinity of each other, and whose circumstances give rise to much intercourse, must habitually consult the feelings and interests of one another, if they desire to dwell together in peace. Long, very long may the correspondence between our New England brethren and ourselves continue! And, henceforth, may there be no other strife between us than who shall love one another, and our common Master with the most fervent affection, and who shall do most for the conversion of the world to the knowledge and likeness of that Master! And, by the way, while speaking of our New England brethren, it gives me unfeigned pleasure to know, that a large portion of the most enlightened, venerable and pious of the clergy in that part of the United States, lament and deprecate, as much as any individual in our church can do, the disposition which has been manifested by some to propagate the Pelagianizing sentiments alluded to in a former letter. It will, indeed, be deeply to be deplored if, while these excellent men are frowning upon this pestiferous system within their own bosom, and regarding its patrons as dangerous corruptors of truth, it should find countenance in any of the judicatories of the Presbyterian Church! Nothing more, I am persuaded, is necessary, under God, to save us from this calamity, than a fraternal understanding and cooperation among that large majority of the "New School" ranks in our body, who are known to reprobate the philosophical deceits in question. If they will faithfully unite in setting their faces against these erroneous opinions, and withholding their licensing and ordaining suffrages from all who avow them, they may become happily instrumental in harmonizing the church, as well as promoting its purity. It is in their power, humanly speaking, to do more for the peace and edification of our beloved department of Zion, than in that of any other equal number of individuals in our communion. If, however, these respected brethren of the "New School" who are the real friends of substantial orthodoxy should indulge their party feelings to the uttermost ­ and feel more desirous to oppose and thwart those whom they call the "ultra orthodox," than to resist the encroachments of heresy, and the acts and inroads of real disorders ­ the prospect is indeed gloomy. The issue must be disastrous. And now, my Christian brethren, in regard to adherence to the doctrinal standards of our church, on which I have so long detained you, I have done. I have spoken my mind with the freedom of one who is conscious of an honest desire for peace, but who prefers truth even to peace. I have not intentionally magnified a single evil, or inconsiderately sounded a single note of alarm. If I have in the least degree overstated facts, no one will more cordially rejoice than myself, to find the overstatement proved. And now, at the close, I ask, "What will you do? " The question is not, whether, in opposing erroneous opinions, you will patronize a system of "ultra" rigor, of inquisitorial strictness. This I have never approved, and have no wish to see applied. But the question is, whether you will honestly and with good faith maintain the system of doctrine which every minister elder of the Presbyterian Church has solemnly engaged to sustain? Again I ask, "What will you do?" Will you keep up the "landmarks" (cf. Proverbs 22:28) which your fathers with so much labor, and with so many prayers and tears erected, and bequeathed to you; or will you abandon them? Will you adhere, as faithful witnesses, to that testimony in favor of truth, which, in the old world and in the new, God has so signally blessed to the glory of his church; or will you suffer it to be trampled under your feet? Will you call a convention of the whole church, and attempt to alter your Confession of Faith, and to make its articles either so unmeaning, or so general, that persons of every grade of opinion, short of Unitarianism, may honestly subscribe it? An alteration has been publicly proposed, and is, perhaps, wished for by some. Make the attempt; and, instead of really mending this venerable and precious monument of orthodoxy, you will leave it a disfigured and mutilated carcass, less satisfactory to any party than it is at the present moment. Or, while it stands in your book, as an evidence of what the Presbyterian Church once was ­ and still ought to be ­ will you suffer one article of it after another to be nullified, in fact, by reckless subscription, until its whole dignity and authority shall perish together? In other words, will you suffer men of coarse and ductile consciences, with the philosophy and the language of Pelagianism on their lips, to be guilty of the solemn, dishonest mockery of subscribing your Calvinistic Creed, and entering your judicatories? If this be admitted, you will soon fill our beloved church (with anguish of spirit I write it) not merely with the elements of fearful repulsion and explosion; but, what is unspeakably more to be dreaded, with the seeds of spiritual desolation and death, with which the ears of every Christian who hears, shall tingle! Or finally, will you faithfully maintain that creed in its true spirit and meaning, and let those who cannot honestly subscribe it seek a connection with some other portion of the great Christian family? These questions must soon be decided. The crisis is approaching. God grant that you may decide them in such a manner as most effectually to promote his glory, and the purity and edification of our beloved Zion. Princeton, February, 1833. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 17: 03.00. WARRANT, NATURE AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF THE RULING ELDER ======================================================================== An Essay on the Warrant, Nature and Duties of the Office of the Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church by Samuel Miller, D.D. Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, N.J. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introductory 2. Testimony from the Order of the Old Testament Church. 3. Evidence in Favor of the Office from the New Testament Scriptures 4. Testimony of the Church Fathers 5. Testimony of the Witnesses for the Truth during the Dark Ages 6. Testimony of the Reformers, and Other Learned and Disinterested Witnesses, Nearly Contemporary with Them 7. Testimony of Eminent Divines since the Time of the Reformers 8. Ruling Elders Absolutely Necessary in the Church 9. The Nature and Duties of the Office 10. Distinction between the Offices of the Ruling Elder and Deacon 11 The Qualifications Proper for this Office 12.. On the Election of Ruling Elders 13. Of the Ordination of Ruling Elders 14. Of the Resignation of Ruling Elders;--Their Removal from One Church to Another;--And the Method of Conducting Discipline against Them 15. Advantages of Conducting this Discipline on the Presbyterian Plan http://bpc.org/reading_room/books/miller/ruling_elder.html ======================================================================== CHAPTER 18: 03.01. INTRODUCTORY ======================================================================== CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. Our once crucified, but now exalted Redeemer, has erected in this world a kingdom which is his Church. This Church is either visible or invisible. By the invisible Church we mean, the whole body of sincere believers, of every age and nation, "that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the glorious Head thereof." Part of these are already made perfect in heaven. Another portion are at present scattered over the earth in different denominations of professing Christians, though not certainly distinguishable from others by the human eye. And the remainder are in future to be gathered in by the grace of God when the whole number of the "redeemed from among men," will be united in one holy assembly, which is the "spouse," the "body of Christ, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all." By the visible Church is meant the body of those who profess the true religion, together with their children. It is that body which is called out of the world, and united under the authority of Christ, the Head, for the purpose of maintaining Gospel Truth and Order, and promoting the knowledge, purity, comfort and edification of all the members. When we use the term Church, as expressive of a visible, professing body, we either mean the whole visible Church of God throughout the world, or a particular congregation of professing Christians, who have agreed to unite together for the purpose of mutual instruction, inspection and edification. The word Church is also employed in Scripture to designate a Church Judicatory; that is, the Church assembled and acting by her representatives, the Elders, chosen to inspect, and bear rule over the whole body. This, it is believed, will be evident to those who impartially consult Matthew 18:15-18; and compare the language of the original here, with that of the original, and the Greek translation of the Seventy of Deuteronomy 31:28-30. [1] The visible Church is a spiritual body. That is, it is not secular or worldly, either in its nature or objects. The kingdom of Christ "is not of this world." Its Head, laws, ordinances, discipline, penalties, and end, are all spiritual. There can be no departure from this principle; in other words, there can be no connexion between the Church and the State; no enforcement of ecclesiastical laws by the power of the secular arm, or by "carnal weapons," without departing from "the simplicity that is in Christ." and invading both the purity and safety of his sacred body. This great visible Church is one, in all ages, and throughout the world. From its first formation in the family of Adam, through all the changes of the Patriarchal, Mosaic and Christian dispensations, it has been one and the same; having the same divine Head, the same ground of Hope, the same essential characters, and the same great design. Diversity of denomination does not destroy this unity. All who profess the true religion, together with their offspring, however divided by place, by names, or by forms, are to be considered as equally belonging to that great family denominated the Church. The Presbyterian, the Episcopalian, the Methodist, the Baptist, and the Independent, who hold the fundamentals of our holy religion, in whatever part of the globe they may reside, are all equally members of the same visible community; and if they be sincere, will all finally be made partakers of its eternal blessings. They cannot, indeed, all worship together in the same solemn assembly, even if they were disposed to do so:-and the sin and folly of men have separated into different bodies those who ought to "walk together." Still the visible Church is one. All who "hold the Head," of course, belong to the body of Christ. "We, being many," says the inspired Apostle, "are one body in Christ, and every one, members one of another." Those who are united by a sound profession to the same almighty Head; who embrace the same "precious faith;" who are sanctified by the same Spirit; who eat the same spiritual meat; who drink the same spiritual drink; who repose and rejoice in the same promises; and who are travelling to the same eternal rest-are surely ONE BODY,-in a sense more richly significant than can be ascribed to millions who sustain a mere nominal unity. This unity is very distinctly recognized, and very happily expressed, by Cyprian, a distinguished Christian Father of the third century. "The Church," says he, "is one, which, by its fruitful increase, is enlarged into a multitude. As the rays of the sun, though many, are yet one luminary; as the branches of a tree, though numerous, are all established on one firmly rooted trunk; and as many streams springing from the same fountain, though apparently dispersed abroad by their overflowing abundance, yet have their unity preserved by one common origin;-so the Church, though it extends its rays throughout the world, is one Light. Though every where diffused, its unity is not broken. By the abundance of its increase, it extends its branches through the whole earth. It spreads far and wide its flowing streams; yet it has one Head; one Fountain; one Parent; and is enriched and enlarged by the issues of its own fruitfulness." [2] It is ever also to be borne in mind that the Church is not a mere voluntary association, with which men are at liberty to connect themselves or not, as they please. For, although the service which God requires of us is throughout a voluntary one: although no one can properly come into the Church but as a matter of voluntary choice: although the idea of either secular or ecclesiastical compulsion is, here, at once unreasonable and contrary to Scripture: yet as the Church is Christ’s institution, and not men’s; and as the same divine authority which requires us to repent of sin, and believe in Christ, also requires us to "confess him before men," and to join ourselves to his professing people; it is evident that no one is at liberty, in the sight of God, to neglect uniting himself with the Church. Man cannot, and ought not, to compel him; but if he refuse to fulfil this duty, when it is in his power, he rejects the authority of God. He, of course, refuses at his peril. Of this body, Christ alone, as before intimated, is the Head. He only has a right to give laws to his Church, or to institute rites and ordinances for her observance. His will is the supreme guide of his professing people; his Word their code of laws; and his glory their ultimate end. The authority of Church officers is not original, but subordinate and delegated: that is, as they are his servants, and act under his commission, and in his name, they have power only to declare what the Scriptures reveal as his will, and to pronounce sentence accordingly. If they attempt to establish any other terms of communion than those which his word warrants; or to undertake to exercise authority in a manner which He has not authorised, they incur guilt, and have no right to exact obedience. In this sacred community, Government is absolutely necessary. Even in the perfectly holy and harmonious society of heaven, there is government; that is, there is law and authority, under which the whole celestial family is united in perfect love, and unmingled enjoyment. Much more important and indispensable is government among fallen depraved men, among whom "it is impossible but that offences will come," and to whom the discipline of scriptural and pure ecclesiastical rule, is one of the most precious means of grace. To think of maintaining any society, ecclesiastical or civil, without government, in this depraved world, would be to contradict every principle of reason and experience, as well as of Scripture: and to think of supporting government without officers, to whom its functions may be intrusted, would be to embrace the absurd hope of obtaining an end without the requisite means. The question, whether any particular form of Church Government is so laid down in Scripture, as that the claim of divine right may be advanced on its behalf, and that, of consequence, the Church is bound, in all to adopt and act upon it;-will not now be formally discussed. It has been made the subject of too much extended and ardent controversy, to be brought within the compass of a few sentences, or even a few pages. It may not be improper, however, briefly to say, that it would, indeed, have been singular, if a community, called out of the world, and organized under the peculiar authority of the all-wise Redeemer, had been left entirely without any direction as to its government:-That the Scriptures, undoubtedly, exhibit to us a form of ecclesiastical organization and rule, which was, in fact, instituted by the Apostles, under the direction of infinite Wisdom:-That this form was evidently taken, with very little alteration, from the preceding Economy, thus giving additional presumption in its favor:-That we find the same plan closely copied by the churches for a considerable time after the apostolic age:-That it continued to be in substance the chosen and universal form of government in the Church, until corruption, both in doctrine and practice, had, through the ambition and degeneracy of ecclesiastics, gained a melancholy prevalence:-And, that the same form was also substantially maintained by the most faithful witnesses for the truth, during the dark ages, until the great body of the Reformers took it from their hands, and established it in their respective ecclesiastical connexions. These premises would appear abundantly to warrant the conclusion, that the form of Government which answers this description, is the wisest and best; that it is adapted to all ages and states of society; and that it is agreeable to the will of Christ that it be universally received in his Church. All this the writer of the following Essay fully believes may be established in favor of Presbyterianism. There seems no reason, however, to believe, with some zealous votaries of the hierarchy, that any particular form of government is in so rigorous a sense of divine right, as to be essential to the existence of the Church; so that where this form is wanting, there can be no Church. To adopt this opinion, is to take a very narrow and unscriptural view of the covenant of grace. After yielding to the visible Church and its ordinances, all the importance which the word of God warrants, still it cannot be doubted, that on the one hand, men in regular external membership with the purest Church on earth, may be hypocrites, and perish; and on the other, that all who cordially repent of sin, and receive the Saviour in spirit and in truth, will assuredly obtain eternal life, although they never enjoyed the privilege of a connexion with any portion of the visible Church on earth. The tenor of the Gospel covenant is,-He that believeth on the Son of God hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. Still it is plain, from the word of God, as well as from uniform experience, that the government of the Church is a matter of great importance; that the form as well as the administration of that government is more vitally connected with the peace, purity and edification of the Church, than many Christians appear to believe; and, of consequence, that it is no small part of fidelity to our Master in heaven to "hold fast" the form of ecclesiastical order, as well as the "form of sound words" which He has delivered to the saints. The existence of ecclesiastical Rulers, presupposes the existence and exercise of ecclesiastical power. A few remarks on the nature, source and limits of this power, may not be irrelevant as a part of this preliminary discussion. When we speak of ecclesiastical power, then, we speak of that which, much as it is misunderstood, and deplorably as it has been perverted and abused, is plainly warranted, both by reason and Scripture. In fact, it is a prerogative which common sense assigns and secures to all organized society, from a family to a nation. The doctrine attempted to be maintained by the celebrated Erastus, in his work, De Excommunicatione, viz: that the exercise of all Church power, however modified, is to be rejected, is forming an imperium in imperio is one of the most weak and untenable of all positions. The same argument would preclude all authority or government subordinate to that of the State, whether domestic, academical, or financial. The truth is, there not only may be, but there actually are thousands of imperia in imperio, in every civil community in the world; and all this without the least danger or inconvenience, as long as the smaller or subordinate governments maintain their proper place, and do not claim, or attempt to exercise, powers, which come in collision with those of the State. Now the power exercised by the Church is of this character. Christ is the Sovereign. His kingdom is spiritual. It interferes not with civil government. It may exist and flourish under any form of political administration; and always fares best when entirely left to itself, without the interference of the civil magistrate. Accordingly, it is notorious, that the power of which we speak, was exercised by the Church, in the days of the Apostles, and during the first three centuries of the Christian era, not only without any aid from the secular arm, but while all the civil governments of the world were firmly leagued against her, and followings her with the bitterest persecution. But the moment the Church became allied with the State, that moment the influence of each on the other became manifestly mischievous. The State enriched, pampered and corrupted the Church; and the Church, in her turn, gradually extended her power over the State, until she claimed, and in some instances gained, a haughty supremacy over all rulers and governments. This is an ecclesiastical power which the Bible no where recognizes or allows. It is the essence of spiritual usurpation; and can never have a price but where the essential character of the religion of Jesus Christ is misapprehended or forgotten. This abominable tyranny, so long and so wickedly maintained in the name of the meek and lowly Saviour, who, instead of countenancing, always condemned it;-has prejudiced the minds of many against ecclesiastical power in any form. On account of this prejudice it is judged proper to state, with some degree of distinctness, what we mean when we speak of the Church of Christ as being invested with power for the benefit of her members, and for the glory of her almighty Head. It is evident that even if the Church were a mere voluntary association, which neither possessed nor claimed any divine warrant, it would have the same powers which are universally conceded to all other voluntary associations; that is, the power of forming its own rules, of judging of the qualifications of its own members, and of admitting or excluding, as the essential principles and interests of the body might require; and all this as long as neither the rules themselves, nor the execution of them, infringed the laws of the State, or violated any public or private rights. When a Literary, Philosophical, or Agricultural Society claims and exercises powers of this kind, all reflecting people consider it as both reasonable and safe; and would no more think of denying the right to do so, than they would think of denying that the father of a family had a right to govern his own household, as long as he neither transgressed any law of the State, nor invaded the peace of his neighbors. But the Christian Church is by no means to be considered as a mere voluntary association. It is a Body called out of the world, created by divine institution, and created, as its members believe, for the express purpose of bearing testimony for Christ, in the midst of a revolted and rebellious world, and maintaining in their purity the truth and ordinances which He has appointed. The members of this body, therefore, by the act of uniting themselves with it, profess to believe certain doctrines, to be under obligation to perform certain duties, and to be bound to possess a certain character. Of course, the very purpose for which, and the very terms on which the Master has formed this body, and bound its members together, necessarily imply, not only the right, but the, duty, of refusing to admit those who are manifestly hostile to the essential principles of its institution, and of casting out those who, after their admission, as manifestly depart from those principles. To suppose less than this, would be to suppose that a God of infinite wisdom has withheld from a body, formed for a certain purpose, that which is absolutely necessary for its defence against intrusion, insult, and perversion; in other words, for its own preservation. Hence the Apostle Paul, after the New Testament Church was erected, speaks (1 Corinthians 12:28) of "governments" as well as " teachers" being "set in it" by the authority of God. He expressly claims, (2 Corinthians 10:8) an "authority" which God had given to his servants as rulers in the Church, "for edification , and not for destruction." And he exemplifies this authority by representing it as properly exercised in casting out of the Church, any one who was immoral, or profane: (1 Corinthians 5:1-13). Hence the officers of the Church are spoken of as "guides," (hgoumenoi) "overseers," or "bishops" (episkopoi) and "rulers," (proestwtes)-and it is declared to be their duty, not only to instruct, warn, and entreat; but also to "rebuke," or authoritatively to admonish and censure. They were commanded by the authority of the Head of the Church (1 Corinthians 5:1-13; Titus 3:10) to "reject," to "put away from them," after using proper admonition, those who were grossly heretical or immoral. In short, in that period of gospel simplicity and purity, the Church claimed no authority over any but her own members; and even over them, no other authority than that which related to their character, duties, and interests as members, and was deemed essential to her own well-being. And as this power of the Church is not self-created or self-assumed, but derived from her gracious and almighty Head; and as it is, and can, of right, only be, exercised over her own members; so it is merely spiritual in its nature ; in other words, it claims no right whatever to inflict temporal pains or penalties. It cannot touch the persons or property of those to whom it is directed. It addresses itself only to their judgments and consciences. It includes only a right to instruct, warn, rebuke, censure, and cast out, that is, to exclude from the privileges of the body. This last step, is the utmost length to which it can go. When the Church has excluded from her pale those toward whom this power is directed; in other words, when she has declared them out of her communion or fellowship, she has done every thing to which her power extends. All beyond this is usurpation and oppression. The great end of Church Government, is not to employ physical force; but moral weapons only. It can never invade the right of private judgment. It can never exert its power over any but those who voluntarily submit to it. And it prescribes no sanctions but those which have for their object the moral benefit of the body itself, and also of the individuals to whom they are awarded. The gospel knows nothing of delivenng men over to the secular arm, to be punished for offences against the Church. The Church might, therefore, exert her whole power, in its plenary extent, though all the governments of the world were arrayed against her in the bitterest hostility, as they have once been, and as they may again be found. And, as all the power of the Church is derived, not from the civil government, but from Christ, the almighty King of Zion; and as it is purely spiritual in its nature and sanctions ; so the power of Church Officers is merely ministerial. They are, strictly, servants, who are to be governed, in all things, by the pleasure of their employer. They have only authority to announce what the Master has said, and to decide agreeably to that will which he has made known in his word. Like ambassadors at a foreign court, they cannot go one jot or tittle beyond their instructions. Of course, they have no right to set up a law of their own. The Bible is the great Statute-Book of the body of which we speak; the only infallible rule of faith and practice. And nothing can be rightfully inculcated on the members of the Church, as truth, or demanded of them, as duty, but that which is found in that great charter of the privileges as well as the obligations of Christians. To complete the view of that ecclesiastical power which we consider as implied in Church government, it is only necessary to add, that it is given solely for the benefit of the Church, and not for the aggrandizement of Church Officers. Tyrants in civil government have taught, and acted upon the principle, that the great end of all political establishments, is the exaltation of a few at the expense of the many. And it is deeply to be deplored that the same principle has been too often apparently adopted by bodies calling themselves Churches of Christ. Nothing can be more opposite than this, to the spirit and law of the Redeemer. The "authority" which the Apostle claims as existing, and to be exercised in the Church, he represents (2 Corinthians 10:8.) as given "for edification, and not for destruction." Not for the purpose of creating and pampering classes of "privileged orders," to "lord it over God’s heritage;" not to build up a system of polity, which may minister to the pride or the cupidity of an ambitious priesthood; not to form a body, under the title of clergy, with separate interests from the laity of the Church. All this is as wicked as it is unreasonable. No office, no power is appointed by Jesus Christ in his Church, but that which is necessary to the instruction, the purity, and the happiness of the whole body. All legitimate government here, as well a elsewhere, is to be considered as a means, not an end; and as no further resting on divine authority, than we can say in support of all its claims and acts, "thus saith the Lord;" than it is adapted to build up the great family of those who profess the true religion, in knowledge, peace and holiness unto salvation. The summary of the doctrine of Presbyterians, then, concerning ecclesiastical power, may be considered as comprehended in the following propositions: 1. That the Lord Jesus Christ is the only King and Head of the Church, the Fountain of all power; and that no man or set of men, have any right to consider themselves as holding the place of his vicar, or representative. 2. That the Bible contains the code of laws which Christ has enacted, and given for the government of his Church; and that it is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. 3. That his kingdom is not of this world; and of course, that the Church can take no cognizance of any other concerns than those which relate to the spiritual interests of men. 4. That the power of Church officers is not original, or inherent, but altogether derived and ministerial. They have no other authority than, as his servants, and in his name, to proclaim the truth which he has declared, and to urge to the performance of those duties which lie has commanded. 5. That nothing can be lawfully required of any one as a member of the Church, excepting what is expressly taught in Scripture; or, by good and necessary consequence to be inferred from what is expressly taught there. 6. That the Church being instituted by Christ for the chief purpose of maintaing in their purity the doctrines and ordinances of Christ, is authorized and bound by turn to refuse admission to her fellowship those who are known to be hostile to this purpose, and to exclude such as are found to offend against this purpose after admission. 7. That the discipline and penalties of the Church are wholly of a moral kind, consisting of admonition, entreaty, warning, suspension, and excommunication; and that exclusion fiom the fellowship of the body, is the highest penalty that can be inflicted on any delinquent. 8. That the apostolic Church, though under the bitterest persecution, was instructed by the inspired Apostles, to exercise the power mentioned, and did actually exercise the same; and is to be considered as therein exemplifying and teaching the principles which ought to regulate the Church in all ages. 9. That the Church can exercise no authority over any others than her own members. 10. That none can be compelled to be members, or to submit to her authority any longer than they choose to do so 11. That the authority of the Church cannot be lawfully exercised for any other purpose than to promote the purity, order and edification of the whole body and that of course, any exertion of Church power which has for its object the aggrandizement of ecelesiastics, at the expense of the body of the Church, is an unscriptural abuse. And, 12. Finally; that all civil establishments of religion, in any form, or under any denomination, are wrong; contrary to the spirit of Christianity; injurious to the best interests of the Church; and really more to be deprecated by the enlightened friends of piety, than the most sanguinary persecution that can be inflicted by the arm of power. In every Church completely organized, that is, furnished with all the officers which Christ has instituted and which are necessary for carrying into full effect the laws of his kingdom, there ought to be three classes of officers, viz: at least one Teaching Elder, Bishop, or Pastor — a bench of Ruling Elders — and Deacons. The first to "minister in the Word and Doctrine," and to dispense the sacraments ; — the second to assist in the inspection and government of the Church ; — and the third to "serve tables;" that is, to take care of the Church’s funds destined for the support of the poor, and sometimes to manage whatever relates to the temporal support of the gospel and its ministers. The following Essay will be devoted to the consideration of the SECOND CLASS of these officers, namely, RULING ELDERS; and the points which it is proposed more particularly to discuss, are the following — The CHURCH’S WARRANT for this class of officers; — The NATURE, DESIGN AND DUTIES of the office itself; — The QUALIFICATIONS proper for those who bear it; — Tbe DISTINCTION between this office, and that of DEACONS; by whom Ruling Elders ought to be ELECTED; — in what manner they should be ORDAINED; — The principles which ought to regulate their WITHDRAWING or being DEPOSED from office, REMOVING from one Church to another, &c.; — and, finally, the ADVANTAGES attending this form of government in the Church. The question, whether the Church has any warrant for this class of officers, will have different degrees of importance attached to it by different persons. Those who believe that no form of Church government whatever can justly claim to be, in any sense, of divine right, will, of course, consider this inquiry as of small moment. If the Church be at perfect liberty, at all times, to adopt what form of government she pleases, and to modify, or entirely to change the same at pleasure; then no other warrant than her own convenience or will, ought to be required. But if the writer of the following pages be correct in believing, that there is a form of government for the family of God laid down in Scripture, to which it is the duty of the Church, in all ages, to conform; then the inquiry which it is the purpose of several of the succeeding chapters to pursue, is plainly important, and demands our serious attention. It is believed, then, that the following positions, in reference to the office now under consideration may be firmly maintained, viz That under the Old Testament economy in general, and especially in the Synagogue service, Elders were invariably appointed to exercise authority and bear rule in ecclesiastical society ; — That similar Elders, after the model of the Synagogue, were appointed in the primitive Church, under the direction of inspired Apostles; — That we find in the writings of some of the early Fathers, evident traces of the same office as existing in their times; — That the Waldenses, and other pious Witnesses for the truth, during the dark ages, retained this class of officers in the Church, as a divine institution; — That the Reformers, with very few exceptions, when they separated from the corruptions of Popery, restored this office to the Church; — That a number of distinguished divines and Churches, not otherwise Presbyterian, who have flourished since the Reformation, have remarkably concurred in declaring for the same office; — and, finally, that Ruling Elders, or officers of a similar kind, are indispensably necessary in every well ordered congregation. Each of these topics of argument is entitled to separate consideration. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 19: 03.02. TESTIMONY FROM THE ORDER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CHURCH ======================================================================== CHAPTER II. TESTIMONY FROM THE ORDER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. It is impossible fully to understand either the spirit, the facts, or the nomenclature of the New Testament, without going back to the Old. The Christian religion is founded upon that of the Jews; or rather is the completion of it. The latter was the infancy and adolescence of that body of which the former is the manhood. And it is remarkable, that no class of theologians more strenuously contend for the connexion between the Jewish and Christian economics, and the impracticability of taking intelligent views of the one, without some previous knowledge of the other, than most of those who deny the apostolic origin of the class of officers now under consideration. With all such persons, then, we join issue, And, as a very large part of the titles and functions of ecclesiastical officers were, evidently, transmitted from the ceremonial to the spiritual economy, it is indispensably necessary, in order fully to understand their character, to go back to their source. The term Elder, corresponding with ZQN, in Hebrew, and presbuteros, in Greek, literally signifies an aged person. Among the Jews, and the eastern nations generally, persons advanced in life were commonly selected to fill stations of dignity and authority, because they were supposed to possess most wisdom, gravity, prudence and experience. From this circumstance, the term Elder, became, in process of time, and by a natural association of ideas, an established title of office. [1] Accordingly, the Jews gave this title to most of their offices, civil as well as ecclesiastical, long before Synagogues were established. From the time of Moses, they had Elders over the nation, as well as over every city and smaller community. These are repeatedly represented as inspectors, and rulers of the people; as "officers set over them;" and, indeed, throughout their history, there is every reason to believe that the body of the people never, themselves, exercised governmental acts; but chose their Elders, to whom all the details of judicial and executive authority, under their Divine Legislator and Sovereign, were constantly committed. The following specimen of the representation given on this subject, in various parts of the Old Testament, will suffice, at once to illustrate and establish what is here advanced. Even while the children of Israel in Egypt, they seem to have had Elders, in the official sense of the word; for Jehovah in sending Moses to deliver them, said, Go, and gather the Elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The Lord hath visited you, and hath seen what is done to you in Egypt; Exodus 3:16. In the wilderness, the Elders of Israel are spoken of as called together by Moses, appealed to by Moses, and officially acting under that divinely commissioned leader, on occasions almost innumerable. These Elders appear to have been of different grades, and endowed, of course, with different powers; Exodus 17:5; Exodus 18:12; Exodus 24:1, Exodus 24:9; Numbers 11:16; Deuteronomy 25:7-9; Deuteronomy 29:10; Deuteronomy 31:9, Deuteronomy 31:28. From these and other passages, it would seem, they had seventy Elders over the nation and besides these, Elders over thousands, over hundreds, over fifties, and over tens, who were all charged with inspection and rule in their respective spheres. Again, we find inspectors and rulers of the people, under the name of Elders, existing, and on all public occasions, acting in their official character, in the time of Joshua; during the period of the judges; under the kings, especially during the most favored and happy season of their kingly dominion; probably during the captivity in Babylon; and, beyond all doubt, as soon as they returned from captivity, and became settled in their own land; until the Synagogue system was regularly established as the stated means of popular instruction and worship. When the Synagogue service was instituted, is a question which has been so much controverted, and is of so much real uncertainty that the discussion of it will not be attempted in this place, especially as it is a question of no sort of importance in the inquiry now before us. All that it is necessary for us to assume, is that it existed, at the time of our Lord’s advent, and for a considerable time before; and that the Jews had been long accustomed to its order and worship; which no one, it is presumed, will think of questioning. Now, whatever might have been its origin, nothing can be more certain, than that, from the earliest notices we have of the institution. and through its whole history, its leading officers consisted of a bench of Elders, who were appointed to bear rule in the congregation; who formed a kind of Consistory, or ecclesiastical judicatory;-to receive applicants for admission into the Church; to watch over the people, as well in reference to their morals as their obedience to ceremonial and ecclesiastical order: to administer discipline when necessary; and, in short, as the representatives of the Church or congregation, to act in their name and behalf; to "bind," and "loose;" and to see that every thing was "done decently and in order." It is not forgotten that a few eminent writers, following the celebrated German errorist, Erastus, have contended that there was no ecclesiastical government among the Jews distinct from the civil; and that, of course, there were no rulers of the Synagogue, separate from the civil judges. Those who wish to see this error satisfactorily refuted, and the existence of a distinct ecclesiastical government among that people clearly established, may consult what has been written on the subject, by the learned Gillespie,[1] by professor Rutherford,[3] by Bishop Stillingfleet, [4] and others; from whose writings they will be convinced, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the civil and ecclesiastical judicatories were really distinct: that the persons composing each, as well as their respective spheres of judgment were peculiar; and that the latter existed long after the civil sovereignty of the Jewish people was taken away. There has been, indeed, much diversity of opinion among learned men, concerning a variety of questions which arise in reference to these Elders of the Synagogue. As, for example, whether there was a difference of rank among them? Whether some were teachers as well as rulers, and others rulers only? Whether there was any diversity in their ordination, &c., &c.? But while eminent writers on Jewish antiquities have differed and continue to differ in relation to these points, they are all perfectly agreed in one point, namely, that in every Synagogue there was a bench of Elders, consisting of at least three persons, who were charged with the whole inspection, government, and discipline of the Synagogue; who, as a court or bench of rulers, received, judged, censured, excluded, and, in a word, performed every judicial act, necessary to the regularity and welfare of the congregation. In this general fact, Vitringa, Selden, Voetius, Marck, Grotius, Lightfoot, Blondel, Salmasius, and, indeed, so far as I can now recollect, all the writers on this subject, who deserve to be represented as high authorities, substantially agree. And in support of this fact, they quote Philo, Josephus,-, Maimonides, Benjamin of Tudela, and the great mass of other Jewish witnesses, who are considered as holding the first rank among Rabbinical authorities. Indeed, they speak of the fact as too unquestionable to demand any formal array of testimony for its confirmation. [5] Accordingly, we find various passages in the New Testament history, which refer to these Ruling Elders as belonging to the old economy, then drawing to a close, and which admit, it would appear, of no other interpretation than that which supposes their existence. The following specimen will suffice; Mark 5:22. And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the Synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw him he fell at his feet; Acts 13:15. And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the Synagogue sent unto them, saying, ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. On this latter passage, Dr. Gill, an eminent master of oriental, and especially of rabbinical learning, in his Commentary, writes thus:-"The rulers of the Synagogue sent unto them: that is, those who were the principal men in the Synagogue; the Ruler of it, together with the Elders; for there was but one Ruler in a Synagogue, though there were more Elders; and so the Syriac version here renders it, the Elders of the Synagogue." By this language, as I understand the Doctor, he does not mean to intimate that, the other Elders of whom he here speaks, did not bear rule in the Synagogue; but that there was only one, who, by way of eminence, was called, "the Ruler of the Synagogue;" that is, who presided at their meetings for official business. It is plain, however, that, even in this assertion, he is in some degree in error; for more than once we find a plurality of persons in single Synagogues spoken of as "Rulers." The learned Vitringa, who, undoubtedly, is entitled to a very high place in the list of authorities on this subject, is of the opinion, that all who occupied a place with the bench of Elders in the Synagogue, were of one and the same rank or order; that they all received one and the same ordination; and were, of course, equally authorised to preach, when duty or inclination called them to this part of the public service, as well as to rule. And in this opinion he is joined by some others, whose judgment is worthy of the highest respect. But, at the same time, this eminent man freely grants, that a majority of the Elders of the Synagogue were not, in fact, ordinarily employed in teaching or preaching; that this part of the public service was principally under the direction of the Chief Ruler, or Head of each Synagogue, who attended to it himself; or called on one of the other Elders, or even any other learned Doctor who might be present,, and who was deemed capable of addressing the people in an instructive and acceptable manner; and that the chief business of the mass of the Elders was TO RULE. [6] The correctness of this opinion has been questioned. A number of other writers, quite his equals, both in talents and learning, and especially quite as conversant with Jewish authorities, have maintained, that a majority of the Elders in the Synagogue were neither chosen nor set apart to the function of teaching, but to that of ruling only. But, in the want of absolute certainty which exists on this subject, and for the sake of argument, I am willing to acquiesce in Vitringa’s opinion. Suppose it to have been as he alleges:-This is quite sufficient for our purpose. If it be conceded, that there was, in every Synagogue, a bench of Elders, who, as a judicial body, were entrusted with the whole government and discipline of the congregation:-that a majority of these Elders seldom or never preached, but were, in fact (whatever right they might have had) chiefly occupied as ecclesiastical rulers; and that all ecclesiastical matters, instead of being discussed and decided by the congregation at large, were constantly committed to the judicial deliberation and decision of this Eldership; if these things be granted-and they are granted, in substance, by every writer, entitled to be referred to as an authority, with whom I am acquainted;-it is all that can be considered as material to the purpose of our argument. This will appear more fully in the sequel. These officers of the Synagogue were called by different names as we learn from the New Testament, and from the most respectable Jewish authorities. The most common and familiar name, perhaps, was that of Elders, as before stated at large. They were also called Rulers of the Synagogue; a title of frequent occurrence in. the New Testament, as applied to the whole bench of the Elders in question; but which would seem, from some passages, to have been, at least, sometimes applied, by way of eminence, to the principal ruler in each Synagogue, which principal ruler appears, however. io have been of the same general rank, or order, with the rest, and to have had no other precedence than that which consisted in presiding and taking the lead in the public service. These officers were, further called Heads of the Synagogue;-Overseers, or Bishops;-Presidents;-Orderers, or Regulators of the affairs of the Synagogue;-Guides, &c. &c. These titles are given at length by Vitringa, [7] Selden, [8] and others, with the original vouchers and exemplifications of each; showing that they all imply bearing rule, as well as the enjoyment of pre-eminence and dignity. And, as these Elders were distinguished from the common members of the Synagogue by appropriate titles, indicating official honor and power; so they had also distinct and honorable seats assioned them , when the congregation over which they ruled was convened. The place of sitting usually appropriated to them, was a semi-circular bench, in the middle of which the chief ruler was placed, and his colleagues on each side of him, with their faces toward the assembly, and in a certain position with respect to the Ark, the principal Door, and the cardinal points of the compass. This statement is confirmed by the learned Thorndike, a distinguished Episcopal divine, of the 17th century. In speaking of tl-ie Consistory, or bench of Elders, in the Synagogue, and describing their manner of sitting in public worship, he makes the following statement, in the form of a quotation from Maimonides, and confirms it abundantly from other sources. "How sit the people in the Synagogue? The Elders sit with their faces towards the people, and their backs towards the Hecall (the place where they lay the copy of the law;) and all the people sit rank before rank, the face of every rank towards the back of the rank before it; so the faces of all the people are towards the Sanctuary and towards the Elders, and towards the Ark; and when the Minister of the Synagogue standeth up to prayer, he standeth on the ground before the Ark, with his face toward the sanctuary, as the rest of the people." [9] The number of the Elders in each Synagogue was not governed by any absolute rule. In large cities, according to certain Jewish authorities quoted by Vitringa the number was frequently very large. But even in the smallest synagogue, we are assured,, as mentioned in a former page, that there were never less than three that the judicatory might never be equally divided. Such were the arrangements for maintaining purity and order in the Synagogues, or parish churches of the old economy, anterior to the advent of the Messiah. It would seem to be impossible for any one to contemplate this statement, so amply supported by all sound authority, without recognising, a striking likeness to the arrangements afterwards adopted in the New Testament Church. That this likeness is real, and has been maintained by some of the ablest writers on the subject, the following short extracts will sufficiently establish. The first quotation shall be taken from Bishop Burnet. "Among the Jews," says he, "he who was the chief of the Synagogue was called Chazan Hakeneseth, that is, the Bishop of the Congregation, and Sheliach Tsibbor, the Angel of the Church. And the Christian Church being modelled as near the form of the Synagogue as could be, as they retained many of the rites, so the forin of their government was continued, and the names remained the same," And again; "In the Synagogues there was, first, one that was called the Bishop of the Congregation. Next the three Orderers and Judges of every thing about the Synagogue, who were called Tsekenim, and by the Greeks, presbuteroi or yeronteþ. These ordered and determined every thing that concerned the Synagogue, or the persons in it. Next to them,. were the three Parnassin, or Deacons whose charge was to gatber the collections of the rich and to distribute them to the poor. The term Elder, was generally given to all their Judges: but chiefly to those of the great Sanhedrim. So we have it Matthew 16:21. Mark 8:31. Mark 14:43 & Mark 15:1, and Acts 23:14." "A great deal might be said to prove that the Apostles, in their first constitutions, took things as they had been modelled to their hand in the Synagogue. And this they did, both because it was not their design to innovate, except where the nature of the Gospel dispensation obliged them to do it:-As also, because, they took all means possible to gain the Jews, who we, find were zealous adherers to the traditions of their fathers, and not easily weaned from those precepts of Moses which by Christ’s death were evacuated. And if the Apostles went so great a length in complying with them in greater matters, as circumcision and other legal observances, (which appears from the Acts and Epistles,) we have good grounds to suppose that they would have yielded to them in what was more innocent and less important. Besides, there appears, both in our Lord himself, and in his Apostles, a great inclination to symbolize with them as far as was possible. Now the nature of the Christian worship shows evidently, that it came in the room of the Synagogue, which was moral, and not of the temple worship, which was typical and ceremonial. Likewise this parity of customs betwixt the Jews and Christians, was such that it made them taken by the Romans, and other more overly observers for one sect of religion. And, finally, any that will impartially read the New testament, will find that when the forms of government or worship are treated of, it is not done with such architectonal exactness, as was necessary, if a new thing had been instituted, which we find practised by Moses. But the Apostles rather speak as those who give rules for the ordering and directing of what was already in being. From all which it seems well grounded and rational to assume, that the first constitution of the Christian Churches was taken from the model of the Synagogue, in which these Elders were separated, for the discharge of their employments, by an imposition of hands, as all Jewish writers do clearly witness." [10] The second testimony shall be that of the Rev Dr. Thomas Godwin, an English divine of great erudition, especially in oriental learning. In his well known work, entitled "Moses and Aaron," we find the following passage:-"There were in Israel distinct, Courts, consisting of distinct persons; the one principally for church business; the other for affairs in ther commonwealth:-the, one an ecclesiastical Coitsistory; the other a civil Judicatory.-The secular Consistory was named a Sanhedrim, or Council; the spiritual, a Synagogue. The office of the ecclesiastical court was to put a difference between things holy and unholy, and to determine appeals in controversies of difficulty. It was a representative Church. Hence is that, Dic Ecclesioe; Matthew 18:1-35; Matthew 16:1-28. [11] The next question shall be taken from Dr. Lightfoot, another Episcopal divine, still more distinguished, for his oriental and rabbinical learning. "The Apostle," says he, "calleth the minister Episcopus, or (Bishop,) from the common and known title of the Chazan or Overseer in the Synagogue." And again;-"Besides these, there was the public minister of the Synagogue, who prayed publicly, and took care about reading the law, and sometimes preached, if there were not some other to discharge this office. This person. was called, rwkyu xylv, the angel of the Church, and tmnkh Nzx the Chazan, or Bishop of the congregation. The Aruch gives the reason of the name. The Chazan says he, is dbyu xylv the angel of the Church, (or the public minister,) and the Targum renders the word hawr by the word hzwt, one that oversees. For it is incumbent on him to oversee how the reader reads, and whom he may call out to read in the law. The public Minister of the Synagogue Himself read not the law publicly; but every Sabbath he called out seven of the Synagogue (on other days fewer) who he judged fit to read. He stood by him, that read, with great care, observing that he read nothing either falsely or improperly, and called him back, and correcting him, if he had failed in any thing. And hence he was called Chazan, that is, Episkopos, Bishop, or Overseer. Certtinly the signification of the words Bishop and Angel of the Church, had been determined with less noise, if recourse had been had to the proper fountains, and men had not vainly disputed about the signification of words taken I know not whence. The service and worship of the temple being abolished, as being ceremonial, God transplanted the worship and public adoration of God used in the Synagogues, which was moral, into the Christian Church; viz: the public ministry, public prayers, reading God’s Word, and preaching, &c. Hence the names of the ministers of the gospel were the very same, the Angel of the Church, and the Bishop, which belonged to the Ministers in the Synagogues. "There was in every Synagogue, a bench of three. This bench consisted of three Elders, rightly and by imposition of hands preferred to the Eldership." "There were also three Deacom, or, Almoners, on which was the care of the poor." [12] In another place, the same learned Orientalist, says-describing the worship in the Jewish Synagogue:-" In the body of the Church the congregation met, and prayed and heard the law, and the manner of their sitting was this-The Elders sat near the Chancel, with their faces down the Church: and the people sat one form behind another, with their faces up the Church, toward the Chancel and the Elders.-Of these Elders there were some that had rule and office in the Synagogue, and some that had not. And this distinetion the Apostle seemeth to allude unto, in that much disputed text, 1 Timothy 5:18. The Elders that rule well, &c.; where `the Elders that ruled well’ are set not only in opposition to those that ruled ill, but to those that ruled not at all.-We may see, then, whence these titles and epithets in the New Testament are taken, namely, from the common platform and constitution of the Synagogues, where Angelus Ecclesioe, and Episcopus were terms of so ordinary use and knowledge. And we may observe from whence the Apostle taketh his expressions, when he speaketh of some Elders ruling, and laboring in word and doctrine, and some not; namely, from the same platform and constitution of the Synagogue, where `the Ruler of the Synagogue’ was more singularly for ruling the affairs of the Synagogue, and `the minister of the Congregation,’ laboring in the word, and reading the law, and in doctrine about the preaching of it. Both these together are sometimes called jointly, `the Rulers of the Synagogue;’ Acts 13:15; Mark 5:22; being both Elders that ruled; but the title is more singularlygiven to the first of them." [13] Again, he says:-"In all the Jew’s Synagogues there were Parnasin, Deacons, or such as had care of the poor, whose work it was to gather alms for them from the congregation, and to distribute it to them. That needful office is here (Acts vi.) translated into the, Christian Church. [14] The fourth quotation sball be taken from Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Stillingfleet, who, in his Irenicum, maintains a similar position with confidence and zeal. the following is a specimen of his language:-"That which we lay, then, as a foundation, whereby to clear what apostolical practice was, is that the Apostles, in forming Churches, did observe the customs of the Jewish Synagogue." [15] And in support of this position, particularly in reference to the Eldership of the Synagogue, he quotes a large number of the most distinguished writers, both Jewish and Christian. It is due to candor, indeed, to state, that Stillingfleet does not admit that any of the Elders, either of the Synagogue, or of the primitive Church, were lay-Elders, but thinks they were all invested with some kind of clerical character. This, however, as before remarked, does not at all affect the value of his testimony to the general fact, that, in every Synagogue there was a Consistory, or Judicatory, of Elders-and that the same class of officers was adopted, both name and thing, in the apostolic Church, which he unequivocally asserts and proves. In the same general doctrine, Grotius and Salmasius of Holland, decisively concur. By Grotius, the following strong and unqualified language is used:-"The whole polity, or order (regimen) of the Churches of Christ, was conformed to the model of the Jewish Synagogue." And again; speaking of ordination by the imposition of hands, he says:-This method was observed in setting apart the Rulers and Elders of the Synagogue; and thence the custom passed into the Christian Church." [16] Salmasius also, and other writers, of equally profound learning, might be quoted as unequivocally deciding, that the Synagogue had a bench of Ruling Elders, and that a similar bench, after that model, was constituted in the Christian Church. Especially, he contends that the Elders of the Church were, beyond all doubt, taken from the Eldership in the Synagogue. [17] The learned Spencer, a divine of the Church of England, in the seventeenth century, teaches the same general doctine, when he says:-It The Apostles, also, that this reformation (the change from the Old to the New Testament dispensation) might proceed gently, and without noise, received into the Christian Church many of those institutions which had been long in use among the Jews. Among the number of these may be reckoned, the imposition of hands; bishops, elders, and deacons; excommunication, ordination, and other things familiar to learned men." [18] The Rev. Dr. Adam Clarke, whose eminent learning, no competent judge will question, also bears testimony that in every Jewish Synagogue, at the time of the coming of Christ, and before, there was an ecclesiastical judicatory, or little Court, whose duty it was to conduct the spiritual government of each congregation. Among several places in which he makes this statement, the following is decisive:-"In his Commentary on James 2:2, he says:-"In ancient times petty courts of judicature were held in the Synagogue;,;, as Vitringa has sufficiently proved, De Vet. Syn. 1. 3.; and it is probable that the case here adduced was one of a judicial kind; where of the two parties, one was rich, and the other poor; and the master or ruler of the Synagogue, or he who presided in this court, paid particular deference to the rich man, and neglected the poor person; though as plaintiff and defendant, they were equal in the eye of justice." I shall cite on this subject only one more authority; that of the celebrated Augustus Neander, Professor in the University of Berlin, and generally considered as, perhaps, more profoundly skilled in Christian antiquities, than any other man now living. He is, moreover, a Minister of the Lutheran Church, and, of course, has no sectarian spirit to gratify in vindicating Presbyterianism. And, what is not unworthy of notice, being himself of Jewish extraction, he has enjoyed the highest advantages for exploring the peculiar polity of that people. After showing at some length, that the government of the primitive Church was not monarchical or prelatical, but dictated throughout by a spirit of mutual love, counsel, and prayer, he goes on to express himself thus: "We may suppose that where any thing could be found in the way of Church forms, which was consistent with this spirit, it would be willingly appropriated by the Christian community. Now there happened to be in the Jewish Synagogue, a system of government of this nature; not monarchical, but rather aristocratical (or a government of the most venerable and excellent.) A council of Elders, oynqz presbuteroi, conducted all the affairs of that body. It seemed most natural that Christianity, developing itself from the Jewish religion, should take this form of government. This form must also have appeared natural and appropriate to the Roman citizens, since their nation had, from the earliest times, been, to some extent, under the control of a Senate, composed of Senators, or Elders. When the Church was placed under a council of Elders, they did not always happen to be the oldest in reference to years; but the term expressive of age here, was, as in the Latin Senatus, and in the Greek gerousia, expressive of worth or merit. Besides the common name of these overseers of the Church, to wit, rresbuteroi, there were many other names given, according to the peculiar situation occupied by the individual, or rather his peculiar field of labor; as poimeneþ, shepherds; hgoumenoi leaders; proestwteþ twn adelfwn, rulers of the brethren; and episkopoi, overseers." [19] Now, if, in the ancient Jewish Synagogue, the government of the congregation was not vested, either in the people at large, or in any single individual but in a bench of Elders; if this is acknowledged on all hands, as one of the clearest and most indubitable facts in Jewish antiquity;-and if, in the judgment of the most learned and pious divines that ever lived, both episcopal and non-episcopal, the New Testament Church was formed after the model of the Jewish Synagogue, and not after the pattern of the temple service;-we may, of course, expect to find some evidence of this in the history of the apostolic Churches. How far this expectation is realized, will be seen in the next chapter. FOOTNOTES 1. It has often been remarked, that the ancient official use of the word, as implying wisdom and experience, is still preserved in many modern languages, in which Seigneur, Signior, Senator, and other similar words, are used to express both dignity and authority. It is evident that all these words, and some others which might be mentioned, are derivatives from the Latin word, Senior. It is no less plain, that the title of the Magistrates of Cities and Boroughs, who are called Aldermen or Eldermen, is from the same origin with our modern term Elder. Many of the titles of respect, both in the Eastern and Western world, were it proper to take time for the purpose, might be traced beyond all doubt to a similar source. 2. Aaron’s Rod, &c. Lond. 4to. 1646. 3. Divine Right of Church Government, &c. London. 4to. 1646. 4. Irenicum. Part 2. Chapter 6. 5. When the unanimous agreement of these learned writers is asserted, it is not meant to be alleged that they all entertain the same views of the Elders of the Synagogue, as to all particulars; but simply that they all unite in maintaining that there was, in every Synagogue, such a bench of Elders, who conducted its discipline, and managed its affairs. 6. De Synagoga Vetere. Lib. iii. Par. i. Cap. 7. 7 De Synagoga Vetere. Lib. iii. Par. i. Cap. 1, 2, 3. 8. Discourse of the Service of God in Religious Assemblies. Chap. 3. p. 56. 9. De Synedriis -- passim. 10. Observations on the First and Second Canons, &c. p. 2, 83, 84, 85. Glasgow. 12mo. 1673. 11. Moses and Aaron, Book 5, chapter i. 12. Lightfoot’s Works, Vol. 1. p. 308. Vol. ii. p. 133, 755. 13. Ibid. i. 611, 612. 14. Ibid. i. 279. 15. Irenicum. Part 2. Chapter 6. 16. Grotii Annotationes in Act. Apost. vi. xi. 17. De Primatu Papoe. cap. i. 18. De Legibus Hebraeorum, Lib. iii. Dissert. 1. Cap. 2. sect. 4. 19. Kirchengeschichte, Vol. i. p. 283, 285. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 20: 03.03. EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE OFFICE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES ======================================================================== CHAPTER III. EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE OFFICE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. In this chapter it is proposed to show, that the office in question is mentioned in the New Testament, as existing in the apostolic Church; that it was adopted from the Synagogue; and that it occupied, in substance, the same place in the days of the Apostles, that it now occupies in our truly primitive and scriptural Church. The first assertion is, that this class of officers was adopted in the Church of Christ, under its New Testament form, after the model of the Synagogue. Some have said, indeed, that the Apostles adopted the model of the Temple, and not of the Synagogue service, in the organization of the Church. But the slightest impartial attention to facts, will be sufficient, it is believed, to disprove this assertion. If we compare the titles, the powers, the duties, and the ordination of the officers of the Christian Church, as well as the nature and order of its public service, as established by the Apostles, with the Temple and the Synagogue systems respectively, we shall find the organization and service of the Church to resemble the Temple in scarcely any thing; while they resemble the Synagogue in almost every thing. There were Bishops, Elders, and Deacons in the Synagogue; but no officers bearing these titles, or performing similar functions in the Temple. There was ordination by the imposition of hands in the Synagogue; but no such ordination in the Temple. There were reading the Scriptures, expounding them, and public prayers, every Sabbath day in the Synagogue; while the body of the people went up to the Temple only three times a year, and even then to attend on a very different service. In the Synagogue, there was a system established, which included a weekly provision, not only for the instruction and devotions of the people, but also for the maintenance of discipline, and the care of the poor; while scarcely any thing of this kind was to be found in the Temple. Now, in all these respects, and in many more which might be mentioned, the Christian Church followed the Synagogue model, and departed from that of the Temple. Could we trace a resemblance only in one or a few points, it might be considered as accidental; but the resemblance is so close, so striking, and extends to so many particulars, as to arrest the attention of the most careless inquirer. It was, indeed, notoriously, so great in the early ages, that the heathen frequently suspected Christian Churches of being Jewish Synagogues in disguise, and stigmatized them as such accordingly. And when it is considered that all the first converts to Christianity were Jews; that they had been accustomed to the offices and service of the Synagogue during their whole lives: that they came into the Church with all the feelings and habits connected with their old institutions strongly prevalent; and that the organization and service of the Synagogue were of a moral nature, in all their leading characters, proper to be adopted under any dispensation; while the typical and ceremonial service of the Temple was then done away;-when these things are considered, will it not appear perfectly natural that the Apostles, themselves native Jews, should be disposed to make as little change in converting Synagogues into Christian Churches, as was consistent with the spirituality of the new dispensation? That the Synagogue model, therefore, should be adopted, would seem beforehand, to be the most probable of all events. Nor is this a new or sectarian notion. Whoever looks into the writings of some of the early Fathers; of the Reformers; and of a large portion of the most learned men who have adorned the Church of Christ, subsequently to the Reformation, will find a very remarkable concurrence of opinion that such was the model really adopted in the organization of the apostolic Church. Most of the distinguished writers whose names are mentioned in the preceding chapter, are, as we have seen, unanimous and zealous in maintaining this position. Accordingly, as soon as we begin to read of the Apostles organizing Churches on the New Testament plan, we find them instituting officers of precisely the same nature, and bestowing on them, for the most part, the very same titles to which they had been accustomed in the ordinary sabbatical service under the preceding economy. We find Bishops, Elders, and Deacons every where appointed. We find a plurality of Elders ordained in every Church. And we find the Elders represented as "overseers," or inspectors of the Church; as "rulers" in the house of God; and the members of the Church exhorted to "obey them," and "submit" to them, as to persons charged with their spiritual interests, and entitled to their affectionate and dutiful reverence. The following passages may be considered as a specimen of the New Testament representations on this subject. And when they had ordained them ELDERS in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed; Acts 14:1-28; Acts 23:1-35. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church, and of the Apostles and ELDERS. And the Apostles and ELDERS came together to consider of this matter; Acts 15:1-41; Acts 4:1-37. And from Miletus, he (Paul) sent to Ephesus, and called the ELDERS of the Church; and when they were come unto him, he said unto them, take heed flock unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you OVERSEERS; Acts 20:1-38. Is any sick among you? Let him call for the ELDERS of the Church; and let them pray over him, &c.; James 5:14. The ELDERS which are among you I exhort, who am also an ELDER, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God that is among you, taking the OVERSIGHT THEREOF, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being Lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock; 1 Peter 5:1-3. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain ELDERS in every city, as I had appointed thee; Titus 1:5. Obey them that HAVE THE RULE OVER YOU, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls as they that must give account; Hebrews 13:17. And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are OVER YOU in the Lord, and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their work sake, 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honor, especially, they who labor in the word and doctrine; 1 Timothy 5:17. To whatever Church our attention is directed, in the inspired history, we find in it a plurality of Elders;-we find the mass of the Church members spoken of as under their authority;-and while the people are exhorted to submit to their rule, with all readiness and affection; these rulers are commanded, in the name of Christ, to exercise the power vested in them by the great Head of the Church, with firmness, and fidelity, and, yet with disinterestedness and moderation, so as to promote most effectually, the purity and order of the flock. The circumstance of our finding it so uniformly stated that there was a plurality of Elders, ordained in every Church, is certainly worthy of particular attention here. If there had been a plurality of these officers appointed only in some of the more populous cities, where there were probably several worshipping assemblies; where the congregations may be supposed to have been unusually large; and where it was important, of course, to have more than a single preacher; then we might consider this fact as very well reconcileable with the doctrine of those who assert, that all the Elders in the apostolic Church, were official teachers. But as both the direction and the practice were to ordain Elders, that is, more than one, at least, in every Church, small as well as great, there is, evidently, very strong presumption that it was intended to conform to the Synagogue model; and if so, that the whole of the number so ordained could not be necessary for the purpose of public instruction; but that some were rulers, who, as in the Synagogue, formed a kind of congregational Presbytery, or consistory, for the government of the Church. The idea that it was considered as necessary, at such a time, that every Church should have two, three, or four Pastors, or Ministers, in the modern popular sense of those terms, is manifestly altogether inadmissible. But if a majority of these Elders, whatever their ordination or authority might be, were in fact employed, not in teaching, but in ruling, all difficulty vanishes at once. Accordingly, the learned Vitringa, before mentioned,. whose authority is much relied upon to disprove the existence of the office of Ruling Elder in the primitive Church, explicitly acknowledges, not only that there was then a plurality of Elders in every Church; but that, as in the Synagogue, the greater part of these were, in fact, employed in ruling only; and that although all of them were set apart to their office in then same manner, and were, ecclesiastically, of the same rank; yet a majority of them, from want of suitable qualifications, were not fitted to be public preachers, and seldom or never attempted this part of the service. [1] But there are distinct passages of Scripture, which have been deemed, by some of the most impartial and competent interpreters, very plainly to point out the class of Elders now under consideration. In Romans 12:6-8, the Apostle exhorts as follows:-Having, then gifts, differing according to the grace given to us; whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth on teaching; or he that exhorteth on exhortation; he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; HE THAT RULETH, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. With this passage may be connected another, of similar character, and to be interpreted on the same principles. In I Corinthians xii. 28, we are told,-God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, GOVERNMENTS, diversities of tongues. In both these passages there is a reference to the different offices and gifts bestowed on the Church by her divine King and Head: in both of them there is a plain designation of an office for ruling or government, distinct from that of teaching: and in both, also, this office evidently has a place assigned to it below that of Pastors and Teachers. Now, this office, by whatever name it may be called, or whatever doubts may be started as to some minor questions respecting its powers and investiture, is substantially the same with that which Presbyterians distinguish by the title of Ruling Elder. Some, indeed, have said that the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 12:25, is not speaking of distinct offices, but of different duties, devolving on the Church as a body. But no one, it is believed, who impartially considers the whole passage, can adopt this opinion. In the whole of the context, from 1 Corinthians 12:12, the Apostle is speaking of the Church of God under the emblem of a body, and affirms that, in this body, there is a variety of members adapted to the comfort and convenience of the whole body. For the body, says he, is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body, is it, therefore, not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body, is it, therefore, not of the body? If the whole body were, an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? Plainly implying that in every ecclesiastical, as well as in every natural body, there are different functions and offices: that all cannot be teachers: that all cannot be governors, or governments; but that to each and every functionary is assigned his proper work and duty. Nor is this interpretation of the Apostle confined to Presbyterians. Peter Martyr, the learned Italian reformer, interprets the passage before us just as we have done. In his Commentary on 1 Corinthians 12:28, he speaks thus: "Governments. Those who are honored with this function, are such as were fitted for the work of government, and who know how to conduct every thing relating to discipline righteously and prudently. For the Church of Christ had its government. And because a single pastor was not able to accomplish every thing himself, there were joined with him, in the ancient Church, certain Elders, chosen from among the people, well-informed, and skilled in spiritual things, who formed a kind of parochial Senate. These, with the pastor, deliberated on every matter relating to the care and edification of the Church. Which thing Ambrose makes mention of in writing on the Epistle to Timothy. Among these Elders the Pastor took the lead, not as a tyrant, but rather as a Consul presiding in a council of Senators." Many Episcopalians and others find in the passage the same sense. The Reverend Herbert Thorndike, before quoted, a learned divine of the Church of England, who lived in the reign of Charles I., speaks thus of the passage last cited. "There is no reason to doubt, that the men whom the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 12:28, and Ephesians 4:11, called Doctors, or Teachers, are those of the Presbyters, who had the abilities of preaching and teaching the people at their assemblies. That those of the Presbyters who preached not, are called here by the Apostle, governments; and the Deacons, antilipshs, that is, helps, or assistants to the Government of Presbyters; so that it is not to be translated helps in governments, but helps, governments, &c. There were two parts of the Presbyter’s office, viz., teaching and governing, the one whereof some attained not, even in the Apostle’s times." [2] But there is a still more pointed reference to this class of Elders in 1 Timothy 5:17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine. It would seem that every person of plain common sense, who had never heard of any diversity of opinion on the subject would, without hesitation conclude, on reading this passage, that, at the period in which it was written there were two kinds of Elders, one whose duty it was to labor in the word and doctrine, and another who did not thus labor but only ruled in the Church. The Apostle declares that Elders who rule well are worthy of double honor, but ESPECIALLY those who labor in the word and doctrine. Now, if we. suppose that there was only one class of Elders then in the Church, and that the were ALL teachers, or laborers in the word and doctrine, we make the inspired Apostle speak in a manner utterly unworthy of his high character. There was, therefore, a class of Elders in the apostolic Church who did not, in fact, or, at any rate, ordinarily, preach, or administer sacraments, but assisted in government;-in other words, Ruling Elders. For this construction of the passage, Dr. Whitaker, a zealous and learned Episcopal divine, and Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, of whom Bishop Hall remarks, that "no man ever saw him without reverence, or heard him without wonder"-very warmly contends-"By these words," says he, "the Apostle evidently distinguishes between the Bishops and the Inspectors of the Church. If all who rule well be worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine, it is plain that there were some who did not so labor; for if all had been of this description, the meaning would have been absurd; but the word especially points out a difference. If I should say that all who study well at the University are worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the study of theology, I must either mean, that all do not apply themselves to the study of Theology, or I should speak nonsense. Wherefore I confess that to be the most genuine sense by which Pastors and Teachers are distinguished from those who only governed; Romans 12:8. Of this class of Elders Ambrose speaks in his commentary on 1 Timothy 5:1." [3] The learned and venerable Dr. Owen, gives his opinion of the import of this passage, in still more pointed language. "This is a text," says he, "of incontrollable evidence, if it had any thing to conflict withal but prejudice and interest. A rational man, who is unprejudiced, who never heard of the controversy about Ruling Elders, can hardly avoid an apprhension that there are two sorts of Elders, some who labor in the word and doctrine, and some who do not so do. The truth is, it was interest and prejudice which first caused some learned men to strain their wits to find out evasions from the evidence of this testimony. Being found out, some others, of meaner abilities, have been entangled by them.-There are Elders, then, in the Church. There are, or ought to be so in every Church. With these Elders the whole rule of the Church is intrusted. All these, and only they, do rule in it." [4] Equally to our purpose is the judgment of that acute and learned Episcopal divine, Dr. Whitby, in his Commentary on this passage:-"The Elders of the Jews," says he, "were of two sorts; lst, such as governed in the Synagogue, and 2dly, such as ministered in reading and expounding their scriptures and traditions, and from them, pronouncing what did bind or loose, or what was forbidden, and what was lawful to be done. For when, partly by their captivity, and partly through increase of traffic, they were dispersed in considerable bodies through divers regions of the world, it was necessary that they should have governors or magistrates to keep them in their duty, and judge of criminal causes; ind also Rabbins, to teach them the law, and the tradition of their fathers. The first were ordained ad judicandum, sed non ad docendum de licitis et vetitis, i.e. to judge and govern, but not to teach. The second, ad docendum, sed non ad judicandum, i.e. to teach, but not to judge or govern." "And these the Apostle here declares to be the most honorable, and worthy of the chiefest reward. Accordingly, the Apostle, reckoning up the officers God had appointed in the Church, places teachers before governments; 1 Corinthians 12:28." I am aware that a number of glosses have been adopted to set aside the testimony of this cogent text in favor of Ruling Elders. To enumerate and show the invalidity of them all, would be inconsistent with the limits to wfiich this manual is restricted, But a few of the most plausible and popular may be deemed worthy of notice. Some, for example, have said, that, by the Elders that rule well in this passage, civil magistrates are intended; while, by those who labor in the word and doctrine, ministers of the gospel are pointed out. But it will occur to every reflecting reader that, at the time when the passage of Scripture under consideration was addressed to Timothy, and for several centuries afterwards, there were no Christian Magistrates in the Church; and to suppose that the Church is exhorted to choose heathen judges or magistrates, to compose differences, and maintain order among the followers of Christ, is in the highest degree improbable, not to say altogether absurd. Others have alleged, that by the Elders that rule well are meant Deacons. It is enough to reply to this suggestion, that it has never been shown, or can be shown, that Deacons are any where in the New Testament distinguished by the title of Elders; and, further, that the function of ruling is no where represented as belonging to their office. They were appointed Diakoveiv trapezais, to serve tables; Acts 6:2-3; but not to act as rulers in the house of God.-Of this, however, more in a subsequent chapter. A third class of objectors contend, that the word malista, which our translators have rendered especially ought to be translated much. That it is not to be considered as distinguishing one class of Elders from another; but as marking intensity of degree; in other words, that it is meant to be exegetical of those who rule well, viz: those who labor MUCH, or with peculiar diligence, in the word and doctrine. On this plan, the verse in question would read thus:-Let the Elders who rule well, that is who labor MUCH in the word and doctrine, be accounted worthy of double honor. If this were adopted as the meaning of the passage, it would go to show, that it is for preaching alone, and not for ruling well, that Elders are entitled to honor. But is it rational or consistent with other parts of Scripture, to suppose that no honor is due to the latter? It has also been contended, by excellent Greek critics, that the structure of the sentence will not, naturally, bear this interpretation. It is not said, oi malista kopiwntes, as would have been the proper order of the words, if such had been the meaning intended to be conveyed; but malista oi kopiwntes:-not those who labor with especial diligence and exertion; but especially those who labor, &c. But the most decisive consideration is, that not a single case can be found, in the New Testament ` in which the word malista has the signification here attributed to it. It is so generally used to distinguish one class of objects from another, that we may safely venture to say, it cannot possibly have a different meaning in the passage before us. A few decisive examples will be sufficient. In the same chapter, from which the passage under consideration is taken, (1 Timothy 5:8) it is said: If any man provide not for his own, and especially (malista) for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, &c. Again; Galatians 4:10 :-Let us do good unto all men, but especially (malista) unto them who are of the household of faith. Again? Php 4:22;-All the saints salute you, chiefly (malista) they of Caesar’s household.-Thus, also, 2 Timothy 4:13 :-When thou comest, bring with thee the books, but especially (malista) the parchments. Further; 1 Timothy 4:10 : Who is the Saviour of all men, especially (malista) of those who believe. Again; Titus 1:10 :-For there any many unruly and vain talkers, especially (malista) they of the circumcision. Now, in all these cases, there are taw classes of objects intended to be distinguished from each other. Some of the saints were of Caesar’s household, and others were not. Good was to be done to all men; but all were not believers. There were many vain and unruly talkers alluded to, but they were not all of the circumcision: and so of the rest. A fourth class of objectors to our construction of this passage, are certain prelatists, who allege, that by the Elders that rule well, the Apostle intends to designate superannuated Bishops, who though too old to labor in the word and doctrine, were still able to assist in ruling. To this it is sufficient to reply, that, whether we understand the "honor" (timhs) to which the Apostle refers, as intended to designate pecuniary support, or rank and dignity, it would seem contrary to every principle, both of reason and Scripture, that younger and more vigorous laborers in the word and doctrine, should have a portion of this honor awarded to them, superior to that which is yielded to those who have become worn out in the same kind of service. These aged, venerable, and exhausted dignitaries, according to this construction, are to be, indeed, much honored, but less than their junior brethren, whose strength for labor still continues. A further objection made to our construction of this passage is, that when the Apostle Speaks of double honor (diplhs timhs) as due to those who rule well, he refers, not to respect and regard, but to temporal support. [5] Now, say this class of objectors, as Presbyterians never give salaries to their Ruling Elders, they cannot be the kind of officers contemplated by the sacred writer in this place. But is it certain that by the original term here translated "honor," salary, or maintenance, is really intended? Why not assign to the word timh its more common signification, viz.: honor, high respect, reverence? It is common to say, that the illustration contained in 1 Timothy 5:18. Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn; and the laborer is worthy of his reward, seem to fix the meaning to temporal support. But those illustrations only carry with them the general idea of reward; and surely a reward may be of the moral as well as of the pecuniary kind. But supposing the inspired Apostle really to mean double, that is liberal maintenance, still this interpretation does not at all militate against our doctrine. It might have been very proper, in the days of Paul, to give all the Elders a decent temporal support, as a reward for their services. But if any Elders chose to decline receiving a regular stipend, as Paul himself seems to have done, he surely did not, by this disinterestedness, forfeit his office. It may be that Ruling Elders ought now to receive a compensation for their services, especially when they devote to the Church a large part of their time and talents. But if any are willing to render their services gratuitously, whether they be ruling or preaching Elders, every one sees that this cannot destroy, or even impair their official standing. Accordingly, it will be seen in the sequel, that there is a concurrence of sentiment, in favor of our construction of this celebrated passage in Timothy, among the most distinguished divines of all denominations, Protestant and Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed, truly remarkable, and affording a very strong presumptive argument in favor of its correctness. There is another class of passages, already quoted in a former part of this chapter, which is entitled to more formal consideration. I mean such as that found in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13. "And we beseech you brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake." Such also as that found in Hebrews 13:17. "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give account," &c. Here the inspired writer is evidently speaking of particular Churches. He represents them as each having a body of Rulers "set over them in the Lord," who "watch over them," and whom they are bound to "obey." In short, we find a set of officers spoken of, who are not merely to instruct, and exhort, but to exercise official authority in the Church. Now this representation can be made to agree with no other form of government than that of the Presbyterian Church. Not with Prelacy; for that presents no ruler in any single Church but the Rector only. It knows nothing of a Parochial Council, or Senate, who conduct discipline, and perform all the duties of spiritual rule. Not with Independency; for according to the essential principles of that system, the body of the communicants are all equally rulers, and even the Pastor is only the chairman, or president, not properly the Ruler of the Church. But with the Presbyterian form of Church government, in which every congregation is furnished with a bench of spiritual Rulers, whom the people are bound to reverence and obey, it agrees perfectly. There is only one passage more which will be adduced in support of the class of Elders before us. This is found in Matthew 18:15-17. Here it is believed that Matthew 18:17, which enjoins-Tell it to the Church-has evidently a reference to the plan of discipline known to have been pursued in the Jewish Synagogue; and that the meaning is, "Tell it to that Consistory or Judicatory, which is the Church acting by its representatives." It is true, indeed, that some Independents, of more zeal than caution, have confidently quoted this passage as making decisively in favor of their scheme of popular government. But when carefully examined, it will be found not only by no means to answer their purpose; but rather to support the Presbyterian cause. We must always interpret language agreeably to the well known understanding and habit of the time and the country in which it is delivered. Now, it is perfectly certain that the phrase-"Tell it to the Church"-was constantly in use among the Jews to express the carrying a complaint to the Eldership or representatives of the Church. And it is quite as certain, that actual cases occur in the Old Testament in which the term Church (ekklhsia) is applied to the body of Elders. See as an example of this, Deuteronomy 31:28, Deuteronomy 31:30, comparing our translation with that of the Seventy, as alluded to in a preceding chapter. We can scarcely avoid the conclusion, then, that our blessed Lord meant to teach his disciples, that, as it had been in the Jewish Synagogue, so it would be in the Christian Church, that the sacred community should be governed by a bench of Rulers regularly chosen and set apart for this purpose. In support of this construction of the passage before us, we have the concurring judgment of a large majority of Protestant divines, of all denominations.-We have not only the opinion of Calvin, Beza, Paraeus, and a great Number of distinguished writers on the continent of Europe; but also of Lightfoot, Goodwin, and many others, both ministers of the Church of England, and the Independents of that country. It is worthy of remark, too, that Chrysostom, known to be an eminently learned and accomplished Father, of the fourth century, evidently understands this passage in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, as substantially agreeing with the views of Presbyterians; or, at any rate, as totally rejecting the Independent doctrine. Zanchius, (in Quart. Proecept.) and Junius (Controv. iii. Lib. ii. Cap. vi.) quote him as asserting, in his Commentary on this place, that by the Church to which the offence was to be told, we are to understand the proedroi kai prwestwtes of the Church. It may not be improper, before taking leave of the Scriptural testimony in favor of Ruling Elders, to take some notice of an objection which has been advanced with much confidence, but which, manifestly, when examined, will be found destitute of the smallest force. It has been said that great reliance is placed on the word proestwteþ, found in 1 Timothy 5:17, as expressive of the ruling character of the office under consideration; whereas, say these objectors, this very word, as is universally known and acknowledged, is applied by several of the early Fathers to Teaching Elders, to those who evidently bore the office of Pastors of Churches, and who were, of course, not mere rulers, but also "laborers in the word and doctrine." If therefore this title be applied to those who were confessedly teachers, what evidence have we that it is intended, in any case, to designate a different class? This objection is founded on a total misrepresentation of the argument which it is supposed to refute. The advocates of the office of Ruling Elder do not contend or believe that the function of ruling is confined to this class of officers. On the contrary, they suppose and teach that one class of Elders BOTH rule and teach, while the other class rule ONLY. Both, according to the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, are proestwteþ; but one only "labor in the word and doctrine." When, therefore, cases are found in the early records of the Church in which the presiding Elder, or Pastor, is styled proestwteþ, the fact is in perfect harmony with the usual argument from 1 Timothy 5:17 the import of which we maintain to be this:-Let all the Elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor, especially those of their number who, besides ruling, besides acting as proestwtes, in common with the others, also labor in the word and doctrine. It has also been contended that the whole doctrine of the Ruling, as distinct from the Teaching Elder, tends to weaken, if not wholly to destroy, the Presbyterian argument in favor of parity in the Gospel ministry, drawn from the fact, that both Scripture and early Christian antiquity represent Bishop and Presbyter as convertible titles for the same office. Presbyterians maintain, and I have no doubt, with perfect truth, that, in the language of the New Testament, a Bishop means the Pastor, or Overseer of a single Church or parish; that Bishop and Presbyter are not titles which imply different grades of office; but that a Presbyter or Elder who has a pastoral charge, who is the overseer of a flock, is a Scriptural Bishop, and holds the highest office that Christ has instituted in his Church. Now, it his been alleged by the opponents of Ruling Elders, that to represent the Scriptures as holding forth TWO CLASSES of Elders, one class as both teaching and ruling, and the other as ruling only-and, consequently, the latter as holding a station not exactly identical with the former;-amounts to a virtual surrender of the argument derived from the identity of Bishop and Presbyter. This objection, however, is totally groundless. If we suppose Elder, as used in Scripture, to be a generic term, comprehending all who bore rule in the Church; and if we consider the term Bishop, as also a generic term, including all who sustained the relation of official inspectors or overseers of a flock;-then it is plain that all Bishops were Scriptural Elders; and that all Elders, whether both teachers and rulers, or rulers only, provided they were placed over a parish, as inspectors or overseers, were Scriptural Bishops. Now this, I have no doubt, was the fact. When, therefore, the Apostle Paul, in writing to the Church at Philippi, addresses the Bishops and Deacons; and when in his conference with the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, at Miletus, he speaks of them all equally as Overseers; or, as it is in the original, Bishops (Episkpouþ) of that Church, I take for granted he included the rulers as well as the teachers, in both instances. In a word, I suppose that, in every truly primitive and apostolic Church, there was a bench of Elders, or Overseers, who presided over all the spiritual interests of the congregation; that, generally, a small part only of these, and perhaps seldom more than one, statedly preached; that the rest, though probably ordained in the same manner with their colleagues, very rarely, if ever, taught publicly, but were employed as inspectors and rulers, and it may be, also, in visiting, catechizing, and instructing from house to house. If this were the case-and every part of the New Testament history favors the supposition-then nothing can be more natural than the language of the inspired writerss in reference to this whole subject. Then we readily understand why the Apostle should say to Titus: For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain ELDERS in every city, as I had appointed thee. if any be blameless, &c; for a BISHOP must be blameless, as the steward of God, &c. We may then perceive, why he speaks of a number of Bishops at Philippi, and a number also at Ephesus; and, in the same breath, calls the latter alternately Bishops and Elders;-and, on this principle, we may see, no less plainly why the Apostle Peter said:-The Elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God that is among you, taking the oversight thereof, (episkotounteþ)-acting as Bishops among them-not by constraint but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being Lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And accordingly, it is remarkable that the word poimavate, used in the second verse of the last quotation, is derived from a word signifying a shepherd, and carries with it the ideas of guiding, protecting and ruling, as well as feeding in appropriate spiritual pastures. See Matthew 2:6, and Revelation 2:27. This view of the subject takes away all embarrassment and difficulty in reference to the titles given to the primitive officers of the Church. There is abundant evidence that every class of Elders, as well those who commonly officiated as rulers only, as those who both ruled and taught, bore the names of Bishops, Inspectors, Overseers, during the apostolic age, and for some time afterwards. This was a name most significantly expressive of their appropriate function, which was to overlook, direct and rule each particular Church, for its edification. How long this title continued to be applied to all the Elders, indiscriminately, it is not easy to say. It was probably in the Church, as it was known to have been in the Synagogue. All the rulers of the Synagogue were popularly called Archi-synagogi, as is evident from several passages in the New Testament; but sometimes, as we learn from the same source, this title was applied, by way of eminence, to the presiding or principal Ruler of each Synagogue. So with regard to the title of Inspector, Overseer, or Bishop, we know that all the Elders of Ephesus (Acts 20:17, Acts 20:28) were indiscriminately called Bishops by the inspired Paul. We know too that the same Apostle recognizes a plurality of Bishops, or Overseers, in the Church at Philippi,-(Php 1:1)-who, could not posssibly have been Prelates, as Episcopalians themselves allow. We find, moreover, the same "chiefest of the Apostles," giving the titles of Bishop and Elder, without discrimination, to all the Church Rulers directed to be ordained in Ephesus and Crete, as the Epistles to Timothy and Titus plainly evince. In those pure and simple times no difficulty arose from this general application of a plain and expressive title. For more than a hundred years after the apostolic age, this title continued to be frequently applied in the same manner, as the writings of Clemens Romanus, Hermas, Irenaeus, and others, amply testify. We find them not only speaking of the Elders as bearing rule in each Church; but also calling the same men, alternately, Bishops, and Elders, as was evidently done in apostolic times. In process of time, however, this title, which was originally considered as expressive of duty and labor, rather than of honor, became gradually appropriated to the principal Elder, who usually presided in preaching and ordering the course of the public service. Not only so, but, as a worldly and ambitious spirit gained ground, he who bore this title began to advance certain peculiar claims;-first those of a stated Chairman, President, or Moderator;-and finally those of a new order, or grade of office. That there was an entire change in the application of the title of Bishop not long after the apostolic age, a majority of our Episcopal brethren themselves allow. They grant that in the New Testament this title is given indiscriminately to all who were intrusted with the instruction and care of the Church. But that, in the succeeding period, it was gradually reserved to the highest order. In other words, they grant that the title Bishop had a very different meaning in the second and third centuries, from that which it had borne in the first. Now, even conceding to them that this change took place earlier than the best records give us reason to believe; it may be asked-why make such a change at all? Why not continue to get along with the language which the inspired Apocies had authorised by their use? Why insidiously make an old title, which was familiar to the popular ear, signify something very different from what it had been wont to signify from the beginning; and thus palm a new office with an old name on the people? Were there no other fact established by the early writers than this, it would be quite sufficient to convince us that the apostolic government of the Church was early corrupted by human ambition. FOOTNOTES 1. VITRINGA, De Synagoga Vetere. Lib. ii. Chap.ii. 2. Discourses of Religious Assemblies. Chap. iv. p. 117. 3. Proelectiones, as quoted in CALDERWOOD’S Altere Damascenum, p. 681. 4. True Nature jof a Gospel Church. Chapter vii. p. 141, 142, 143. 5. It is worthy of notice that Calvin, in his commentary on this place, gives the following view of the Apostle’s meaning when he speaks of double honor. "When Chrysostom interprets the phrase double honor, as importing support and reverence, I do not impugn his opinion. Let those adopt it who think proper. But to me it appears more probable that a comparison is here intended between Widows and Elders. Paul had just before commanded to have Widows in honor. But Elders are still more worthy of honor than they. Wherefore to these double honor is to be given." This interpretation is natural, and consistent. "Honor Widows, says the Apostle, that are widows indeed;" but "let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those that labor in the word and doctrine." The same word is used to express honor in both cases. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 21: 03.04. TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH FATHERS ======================================================================== CHAPTER IV. TESTIMONY OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. That which is not found in the Bible, however fully and strongly it may be enjoined elsewhere, cannot be considered as binding on the Church. On the other hand, what is plainly found in the word of God, though it be no where else taught, we are bound to receive. Accordingly, if we find Ruling Elders in the New Testament, as it is firmly believed we have done--it matters not, as to their substantial warrant, how soon after the apostolic age, they fell into disuse. Still if we can discover traces of them in the early uninspired writings of the Christian Church, it will certainly add something to the chain of proof which we possess in their favor. It will add strong presumption to that which is our decisive rule. Let us, then, see whether the early Fathers say any thing which can be fairly considered as alluding to this class of Church officers. But before we proceed to examine these witnesses in detail, it may not be improper to make two general remarks, which ought to be kept steadily in view through the whole of this branch of our subject. The first is,-that we must be on our guard against the ambiguous use of the title, Elder, as it is expressed in different languages. When we look into the writings of the Christian Fathers who lived during the first two hundred years after Christ, all of whom, if we except Tertullian, wrote in Greek, we find them generally using the word presbuteroþ to designate an Elder. Now this is precisely the same word which the advocates of Prelacy apply to the "second order," as they express it,of their "clergy," always called by them "Presbyters." And when Presbyterians translate this word by the term Elder,[1] and consider it as used, at least in many cases, to designate that class of officers which forms the subject of this Essay, they are considered and represented, by some illiterate and narrow minded persons, as chargeable with an unfair, if not a deceptive use of a term. This charge is manifestly unjust. It will never be repeated by any candid individual, who is acquainted with the Greek language. This is the very word which is almost invariably used by the translators of the Septuagint, all through the Old Testament, to designate Elders who, confessedly had nothing to do with preaching. In truth, it was a general title of office among the Jews, and it was a general title of office among the early Christians, as any one will immediately perceive by a candid perusal of the New Testament. And the fact is, that if Presbyterians wrote in Greek, they would of course, employ this very term to express their Ruling Elder. The word "Elder" is the natural, literal, and, we may almost say, the only proper term by which to express the meaning of the Greek title presbuteroþ. And even when we meet in some of the early Fathers with passages in which the officers of the Church are enumerated as consisting of Episkopoi, Presbuteroi, kai Diakonoi it may be said, with perfect truth, that if Presbyterians, at the present day, were called upon to enumerate the standing officers in all their Churches, which are completely organized agreeably to their public standards-they would, beyond all doubt, if they used the Greek language, represent their regular ecclesiastical officers as every where consisting of Episkopoi, Presbuteroi, kai Diakonoi; meaning by Episkopoi a parochial Pastor or Overseer, in which sense Prelatists themselves acknowledge the title to have been generally used in the apostolic age; and meaning by the title presbuteros, Ruling Elder, which we have no doubt has been shown, and will be yet further shown to be, in many cases, the proper interpretation of the word. When, therefore, we thus translate the word in some of the following quotations, let no one feel as if we were taking an unwarrantable liberty. No imputation of this kind, tssuredly, will be made by any reader of competent learning to judge in the case. The second preliminary remark is, that, perhaps, no class of Church officers would be, on the whole, so likely to fall into disrepute after the apostolic age, and be discontinued, as that which is now under consideration. We know that the purity of the Church began to decline immediately after the apostolic age. Nay, while the Apostles were still alive, "the mystery of iniquity" had already begun "to work." Corruption, both in faith and practice, had crept in, and, in some places, to an alarming and most distressing extent. And, after their departure, it soon "came in like a flood." The discipline of the Church became relaxed, and, after a while, in a great measure prostrated. The hints dropped by several writers in the second century, and the strongly colored and revolting pictures given by Origen and Cyprian, of the state of the Church in their own times, present a view of this subject which need no comment. Now, in such a state of things, was it not natural that the office of those whose peculiar duty it was to inspect the members of the Church; to take cognizance of all their aberrations; and to maintain a pure and scriptural discipline, should be unpopular, and finally as much as possible crowded out of public view, discredited, and gradually laid aside. But this is not all. Shortly after the apostolic age, several ecclesiastical officers, as is confessed on all hands, were either invented or modified, so as to suit the declining spirituality of the times. To mention but a single example. The Deacons began to claim higher dignity and powers. Sub-Deacons were introduced to perform some of those functions which had originally belonged to Deacons, but which they had become too proud to perform. Was it either unnatural, then, or improbable-since things of a similar kind actually took place-that in the course of the undeniable degeneracy which was now reigning, the Ruling Elders of the Church should find the employment to which they had been originally destined, irksome both to themselves and others; by no means adapted to gratify either the love of gain, or the love of pleasure which seemed to be the order of the day;-and that both parties gradually united in dropping the inspection and discipline once committed to their hands, and in turning their attention to objects more adapted to the taste of ambitious, worldly minded Churchmen. And this result would be, at once, more likely to occur, and might have occurred with less opposition and noise, if we suppose, as some learned men have done, that Ruling and Teaching Elders, from the beginning, not only both bore the general name of Elders, but were both set apart to their office with the same formalities. If this were the case, then there was nothing to change, in virtually discarding the office of Ruling Elder, but gradually to neglect all their appropriate duties, and in an equally gradual manner to slide into the assumption of duties, and especially that of public preaching which, in the primitive Church, they had not been expected to perform. Keeping these things in mind, let us examine whether some, both of the early and the late Fathers, do not express tbemseves in a manner which renders it probable, or rather certain, that they had in view the class of Elders of which we are speaking. In the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, who lived toward the close of the first century, to the Church at Corinth, we find the worthy father remonstrating with the members of that Church for having risen up against their Elders, and thrust them out of office-perhaps for the very reason just hinted at-that they found their inspection and rule uncomfortable. Accordingly Clemens addresses the Corinthian Christians in the following manner:-"It is a shame, my beloved, yea, a very great shame, to hear that the most firm and ancient Church of the Corinthians should be led by one or two persons, to rise tip against their Elders."-(presbuterouþ..) Again; "Let the flock of Christ enjoy peace with the Elders (presbuterwn) that are set over it." Again; "Do ye, therefore, who first laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to your Elders, and be instructed into repentance, bending the knee of your hearts;" Epist. 47. 54. 57. In these extracts we find an entire coincidence with the language of the New Testament; a plain indication that in every Church there was a plurality of Elders; and a distinct recognition of the idea that these Elders were rulers, in other words, held a station of authority and government over "the flock" of which they were officers. In the Epistles of Ignatius, who lived at the close of the first, and the beginning of the second century, we may find much said about Elders, (presbuteroi.) The following is a specimen of the manner in which he speaks of them, in connexion with the other classes of Church officers. "Obey your Bishop and the Presbytery (the Eldership) with an entire affection;" Epistle to the Ephesians, 20. "I exhort you that you study to do all things in a divine concord: your Bishop presiding in the place of God, your Elders in the place of the council of the Apostles, and your Deacons, most dear to me, being intrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ." Again; "Do nothing without your Bishop and Elders;" Epistle to the Magnesians, 6.7. "It is, therefore, necessary, that, as ye do, so without your Bishop you should do nothing; also be ye subject to your Elders, as the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope." Again; "Let all reverence the Deacons as Jesus Christ, and the Bishop as the Father, and the Elders as the Sam\nhedrim of God, and the college of the Apostles." Again; "Fare ye well in Jesus Christ; being subject to your Bishop as to the command of God, and so likewise to the Presbytery, (or Eldership;") Epistle to the Trallians, 2. 3. 13. "Which also I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, which is our eternal and undefiled joy; especially if they are at unity with the Bisop and Elders, who are with him, and the Deacons appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ. Again; "There is one cup, and one altar, and also one Bishop, together with his Eldership, and the Deacons, my fellow-servants." Again; "I cried whilst I was among you; I spake with a loud voice, Attend to the Bishop, to the Eldership, and to the Deacons;" Epistle to the Philadelphians, Pref. 4. 7. See that ye all follow your Bishop, as Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Presbytery (or Eldership) as the Apostles; and reverence the Deacons as the command of God." Again; "It is not lawful without the Bishop either to baptize, or to celebrate the holy communion." Again; "I salute your very worthy Bishop; and your venerable Eldership, and your Deacons, my fellow-servants; Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8. 12. "My soul be security for them who submit to their Bishop, with their Elders and Deacons;" Epistle to Polycarp,6. The friends of Prelacy have long been in the habit of insisting much on these and similar quotations from Ignatius, as affording decisive support for their system. But I must think that their confidence in this witness has not the smallest solid ground. [2] For, let it be remembered that these several Epistles were directed, not to large, prelatical dioceses, but to single parishes, or congregations; that in each of these Churches there are represented as being, a Bishop, a Presbytery, or bench of Elders, and a plurality of Deacons; and, therefore, that it is parochial episcopacy, and not diocesan, or prelatical, that is here described. And, accordingly, we learn from different parts of these Epistles, that, in the time of Ignatius, each Bishop had under his pastoral charge, but "one altar," "one cup," "one loaf," i.e. one communion table, and that the people under his care habitually came together to "one Place," in other words, formed "one assembly." Agreeably to this view of the subject, it is worthy of notice that Ignatius calls the Presbyters, or Elders of each Church which he addresses, the sunedrion qeou, that is the Sanhedrim, or council of God. But with what propriety could he designate them by this title-tbe popular title of a well known Jewish ecclesiastical court,-if they did not constitute a corresponding court in the Christian Church; and if the whole body of ecclesiastical officers which he addressed from time to time were not the rulers of a single flock? The truth is, the whole language of Ignatius, in reference to the officers of whom he speaks is STRICTLY PRESBYTERIAN and cannot be considered as affording countenance to any other system without doing violence to its natural import, Accordingly, it is worthy of notice, that the learned Mr. Joseph Mede, a very able and zealous divine of the Church of England, and a decisive advocate of diocesan Episcopacy, gives a representation of the state of things in the time of Ignatius, which, in substances falls in with our account of the character of the Churches addressed by that Father. "It should seem," says he, "that in those first times, before dioceses were divided into those lesser and subordinate Churches, which we call parishes, and Presbyters assigned to them, they had only one altar to a Church, taking Church for the company or corporation of the faithful, united under one Bishop or Pastor; and that was in the city or place where the Bishop bad his see and residence. Unless this were so, whence came it else, that a scbismatical Bishop was said, constituere, or collocare aliud altare? And that a Bishop and an Altar are made correlatives?" [3] The, same fact is asserted by Bishop Stillingfleet, in his Sermon against Separation."Tbough, when the Churches increased," says he, "the occasional meetings were frequent in several places; yet still there was but one Church, and one Altar, and one Baptistery, and one Bishop, with many Presbyters attending him. Which is so plain in antiquity, as to the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves, that none but a great stranger to the history of the Church can call it in question. It is true, after some time, in the great cities, they had distinct places allotted, and Presbyters fixed among them;-and such allotments were called Tituli at Rome, Laurae at Alexandria, and parishes in other places. But these, were never thought, then, to be new Churches, or to have any independent government in themselves; but were all in subjection to the Bishop, aiad his college of Presbyters; of which multitudes of examples might be brought from the most authentic testimonies of antiquity, if a thing so evident needed any proof at all. And yet this distribution, (into distinct Tituli,) even in cities, was looked on as so uncommon in those elder times, that Epiphanius takes notice of it as an extraordinary thing at Alexandria; and therefore it is probably supposed that there was no such thing in all the cities of Crete in his time. That the Elders spoken of so frequently by Ignatius, were all the officers of a single parish or Congregation, is also evident, not only from the title which he gives to the body of Elders; but also from the duties which be represents as incumbent on the Bishop with whom these Elders were connected. It is represented as the duty of the Bishop to be present ivith his flock whenever they came together; to conduct their prayers, and to preside in all their religious assemblies. He is spoken of as the only person who was authorized, in ordinary cases, to administer Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper; as the person by whom all marriages among the people of his charge were celebrated; whose dutv it was to be personally acquainted with all his flock; who was bound to take notice, with his own eye, of those who were absent from public worship; to attend to the wants of the widows and all the poor of his congregation; to seek out all by name, and not to overlook even the servant men and maids under his care; to instruct the children; to reconcile differences, and, in short, to attend to all those objects, in detail, which are considered as devolving on every faithful parish minister. Now, all these representations so plainly apply to the pastor of a single Church, and are so evidently impossible to be realized by any other person, that it would be a waste of time, and an insult to common sense, to attempt a more formal establishment of the position. But if the Bisbop of Ignatius, be a simple parochial Bishop, in other words, the ordinary pastor of a congregation; and if the Presbytery, or bench of Elders of which he so frequently speaks, are to be considered as all belonging to a single parish;-then we can scarcely avoid the conclusion, that they were not all of them employed in public preaching; but that their principal employment was, as assistants of the pastor, and in union with him, to discharge the duties of Inspectors and Rulers of the Church. Again; Polycarp, writing to the Church of Philippi, most evidently and unequivocally conveys the idea, that there was a plurality of Presbyters, (or Elders,) not only in his own Church, but also in that to which he wrote; and that they were the regularly appointed ecclesiastical rulers. He addressed them thus: "Let the Elders be tender and merciful, cornpassionate towards all, reclaiming those which have fallen into errors; visiting all that are weak; not negligent of the widow and the orphan, and of him that is poor; but ever providing what is honest in the sight of God and men; abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons, and uprigbteous judgment; avoiding covetousness; not hastily believing a report against any man; not rigid in judgment; knowing that we are all faulty, and obnoxious to judgment." [4] Cypriain, in his 29th Epistle, directed "to his brethren, the Elders and Deacons, expresses himself in the following terms:- "You are to take notice that I have ordained Saturus, a reader, and the confessor Optatus, a sub-Deacon; whom we had all before agreed to place in the rank and degree next to that of the clergy. Upon Easter day, we made one or two trials of Saturus in reading when we were approving our readers before the teaching Presbyters; and then appointed Optatus from among the readers, to be a teacher of the hearers." On this passage, the Rev. Mr. Marshall, the Episcopal translator and commentator of Cyprian, remarks:-"It is hence, I think, apparent that all Presbyters were not teachers, but assisted the Bishop in other parts of his office." And Bishop Fell, another editor and commentator of Cyprian, remarks on the same passage in the following words:-"Inter Presbyteros rectores et doctores olim distinxisse videtur divus Paulus; I Tim. v. 17." i.e. St. Paul appears to have made a distinction, in ancient times, between teaching and ruling Elders, in 1 Timothy v. 17.-Here two learned Episcopal divines explicitly acknowledged the distinction between teaching and ruling Elders in the primitive Church; and one of them an eminent Bishop, not only allows that Cyprian referred to this distinction but also quotes as an authority for it the principal text which Presbyterians adduce for the same purpose. There is another passage in Cyprian’s 40th Epistle, which the very learned authors of the Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici [5] consider as containing an allusion to the office in question, and which may not be unworthy of notice. At the time when Cyprian wrote this Letter, he was in a state of exile from his Church. It is directed to the Elders, Deacons, and People at large, of his congregation; and contains an expression of his wish that one Numidicus should be reckoned, or have a place assigned him with the Presbyters, or Elders of that Church, and sit with the clergy. And yet it would appear that this was only as a ruling, and not as a teaching Elder that he was to be received by them; for Cyprian subjoins--He shall be promoted, if God permit, to a more distinguished place in his religion, (or his religious function,) when, by the protection of Providence, I shall return." Here, it seems, the Presbytery, or Eldership in that Church were directed immediately to receive, or set apart, this man to the office of Elder among them; and their absent pastor, or Bishop, promises that when he returns, Numidicus shall be promoted to a still higher office. Now the only supposable promotion in this case was to the office of a Teaching Elder. That the passage is very naturally susceptible of this construction, none will deny, At any rate, it is adopted by some of the most mature divines and scholars in England, of the seventeenth century; however unceremoniously it may have been since rejected by less competent judges. Accordingly, it is worthy of notice, that the famous Henry Dodwell, one of the most learned and zealous Episcopal writers in the British empire, of the seventeenth century, notwithstanding his determined opposition to every thing peculiarly Presbyterian; yet, in his celebrated Dissertations on Cyprian, freely grants, that, in the days of that Father there were Elders or Presbyters in the Christian Church who did not preach. He represents this fact as undoubtedly taught by Cyprian, in his Epistles, and particularly refers, for proof, to the first of the passages cited in a preceding page. Nay, he expresses a full persuasion that a similar fact existed in the apostolic Church, and quotes 1 Timothy 5:17, as a decisive confirmation of his opinion. [6] The notion, then, that all testimony supposed to be derived from Cyprian in favor of non-preaching Elders, is a dream of modern sectaries, for the purpose of carrying a favorite point in Church government., is plainly not tenable. Some of the best talents and most mature learning in the Christian Church, without any leaning to Presbyterian opinions, have decisively interpreted that Father, as setting forth such a class of Elders. Hippolytus, who was nearly contemporary with Cyprian, repeatedly speaks of these Elders as existing, and as exercising authority in his day. In his Tract "Against the heresy of a certain Noetus," he states, in the beginning of the work, that Noetus being charged with certain heretical opinions, the "Elders (presbuteroi) cited him to appear, and examined him in the presence of the Church;" that Noetus having at first denied, but afterwards openly avowed the opinions imputed to him,-" the Elders summoned him a second time, condemned him, and cast him out of the Church." It seems, then, that in the third century there were Elders, whose duty it was to examine, try, and excommunicate such members of the Church as were found delinquent with respect to either doctrine or morals. In this case, a part, at least, of the trial, seems to have been conducted "in the presence of the Church," of which they were rulers; but still the trial, conviction and excommunication were by the Elders. Origen, who, it is well known, flourished a little more than two hundred years after Christ, in the following passage, has a plain reference to the class of officers under consideration. "There are some Rulers appointed whose duty it is to inquire concerning the manners and conversation of those who are admitted, that they may debar from the congregation such as commit filthiness." [7] This passage is replete with important and conclusive testimony. It not only proves, that, in the time of Origen, there were Rulers in the Christian Church; but that the chief and peculiar business of these Rulers was precisely that which we assign to Ruling Elders, viz.: inspecting the members of the Church; watching over all its spiritual interests; admitting to its communion those who, on inquiry, were found worthy; and debarring those who were in any way immoral. It is perfectly evident from this passage alone, that, in the days of this learned Father, the government and discipline of the Church were not conducted by the body of the communicants at large, but by a BENCH OF RULERS. The same important fact is also indubitably implied in the language of Origen in another place. In his seventh Homily on Joshua, he speaks of one who, having, been thrice admonished,. and being unwilling to repent, was cut off front the Church by its rulers." Those who cut off then, from the communion of the Church, and restored the penitent, in the time of Origen were not the body of the communicants, but a bench of Elders. This great historical fact is, moreover, explicitly established, as having existed in the third century, (the age of Origen,) by the Magdeburgh Centuriators, a body of very learned Lutheran Divines, contemporary with Melancthon, and whose authority as ecclesiastical historians, is deservedly high. "The right" say they "of deciding respecting such as were to be excommunicated, or of receiving, upon their repentance, such as had fallen, was vested in the Elders of the Church. [8] In the Gesta Purgationis Caeciliani et Felicis, preserved at the end of Optatus, and commonly referred to the beginning of the fourth century, we meet with the following enumeration of Church officers: "Presbyteri, Diaconi et Seniores," i.e. The Presbyters, the Deacons and the Elders." And a little after is added:-"Adhibite conclericos, et Seniores plebis, ecclesiasticos viros, et inquirant diligenterquae sint istae dissentiones," i.e. "Call the fellow clergymen and Elders of the people, ecclesiastical men, and let them inquire diligently what are these dissentions." In that assembly, likewise, several letters were produced and read; one addressed, Clero et Senioribus, i.e. "to the clergy and the Elders;" and another Clericis et Senioribus, i.e. "to the Clergymen and the Elders." Here, then, is a class of men expressly recognized as ecclesiastical men, or Church officers; who are styled Elders; who were constituent members of a solemn ecclesiastical assembly, or judicatory; who are expressly charged with inquiring into matters connected with the discipline of the Church; and yet carefully distinguished from the Clergy, with whom they met, and officially united in the transaction of business. If these be not the Elders of whom we are in search, we may give up all the, rules of evidence. Some, indeed, have said, that the phrase ecclesticos viros, in one of the passages last cited, was not intended to designate Church officers at all; that this phrase was early introduced to distinguish "men of the Church," i. e. Christians from Pagans, and other enemies of Christ: and that it probably had some such meaning, and nothing more, in the. ancient records from which the foregoing extracts are made. It is freely granted that the phrase, ecclesiastici viri, was, for a time employed, in the Christian Church, as well as by the surrounding heathen, in the sense, and for the purpose just mentioned. That is, when Christians were’spoken of, as distinguished from Jews, Infidels, Heretics, &c., they were called ecclesiastical men, importing, that they did not belong to Jewish Synagogues,or to the Heathen Temples, or to Herretical sects; but were adherents, or members of the Church of Christ. But it is well known, that thi slanguatge was never employed in this sense among Chrsitans themselves, when distinguishing one class of their own body from anohter. When used in this case, it always deisgnated men in ecclesiastical office. [9] Besides, in the passage before us, there can be no doubt that the phrase under consideration was used in the latter sense, and not in the former. For the ecclesiastical men, in these passages are represented as joined with the clergy in ecclesiastical functions; especially as directed to investigate and settle ecclesiastical dissentions. Surely this could neither be required or expected of men who sustained no office, and were, of course, invested with no authority in the Church. Another objection which has been confidently urged against that construction which we have put upon the extracts form the Gesta Purgationis, &c. is that the Seniors or Elders, of which they speak, are mentioned AFTER DEACONS, and, therefore, are to be considered as inferior to them. "Now," says these objectors, "the Ruling Elders of the Presbyterian Church are always considered and represented, by the advocates of that denomination, as above Deacons, rather than below them, on the scale of ecclesiastical precedence. Of course, the Senior here spoken of, cannot belong to the calss of officers for which they contend." To this objection it is sufficient to reply, that the mere order in which titles are arranged, cannot be considered as decisive of the relative rank with which these titles are connected. At once to illustrate and confirm this remark, a single example will suffice. In the Epistles of Ignatius, when he speaks of Bislops, or Pastors, Elders and Deacons, no intelligent reader supposes that he means to represent the second and third of these classes of offices as inferior to the first. Yet, in his Epistle to the Trallians, be speaks thus:-"Let all reverence the Deacons as Jesus Christ; and the Bishop as the Father; and the Presbyters as the Sanbedrim of God, and the college of the Apostles." This may argue carelessness or haste in writing; or it may argue a mind in the writer, less intent on ecclesiastical precedence, than on more important matters; but it surely cannot be considered as deciding the relative standing of the different officers of whom he speaks. Besides,let it be recollected, that the date of these Gesta was about the year of Christ, 303, when the Office of Ruling Elder, if we may credit the very explicit testimony of Ambrose, which will be stated presently, was going gradually out of use. If so nothing was more natural than that the writers and speakers of that day should be disposed to throw it on the back ground, and rather degrade than advance its appropriate rank in the scale of ecclesiastical honor. There is also a passage in Optatus, of the African Church, who flourished a little after the middle of the fourth century, which corroborates the foregoing quotations. It is as follows:-"The Church had many ornaments of gold and silver, which she could neither bury in the earth, nor carry away with her, which she committed to the Elders, (Senioribus,) as to faithful persons." [10] There can scarcely be a doubt that these were not mere aged persons but official men; and, especially, as we know, from the writings of Cyprian, who resided in the same country, that there were such officers in the African Church, a few years before. Ambrose, who lived in the fourth century, [11] in his commentary on 1 Timothy 5:1, has the following passage: "For, indeed, among all nations old age is honorable. Hence it is that the Synagogue, and afterwards the Church, had Elders, without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church; which by what negligence it grew into disuse I know not, unless, perhaps, by the sloth, or rather by the pride of the Teachers, while they alone wished to appear something." The great body of the Prelatists, as well as some others, have labored hard to divest this passage of its plain and pointed testimony in favor of the office of Ruling Elder. They insist upon it that the pious Father had no reference whatever to ecclesiastical officers, but only to aged persons, and that he meant to say nothing more than that, formerly, in the Synagogue, and afterwards in the Church, there were old men, whom it was customary to consult; which practice, however, at the time in which he wrote, was generally laid aside. This perversion of an obvious meaning is really so strange and extravagant that the formality of a serious refutation seems scarcely necessary. Can any reflecting man believe that Hilary designed only to inform his readers that in the Jewish Synagogues, there were actually persons who had attained a considerable age; that this was also, afterwards the case in the Christian Church; and that these aged persons were generally consulted? This would have been a sage remark indeed! Was there ever a community of any extent, either ecclesiastical or civil, which did not include some aged persons? Or was there ever a state of society, or an age of the world, in which the practice of consulting the aged and experienced had fallen into disuse? That thinking, candid minds, should be able to satisfy tbemselves with such a gloss, is truly wonderful. It is certainly no argument in favor of this construction of the language of Ambrose, that he prefaces his statement respecting the Synagogue and the Church, by remarking, that "among all nations old age is honorable."’ Surely no rcmark could be more natural or appropriate, when he was about to state, that from the earliest period of the Christian Church, and long before in the Synagogue, all their affairs had been managed by colleges of Elders, (a title importing a kind of homage to age and experience,) without whose council nothing was done. But there is a clause in this extract from Ambrose, which precludes all doubt that he intended to allude to a class of Church officers, and not merely to old age. It is this:-"Which by what negligence it grew into disuse, I know not, unless, perhaps, by the sloth, or rather by the pride of the Teachers, who wished alone to appear something." It is very conceivable and obvious that both the pride and the sloth of the Teachers, or Teaching Elders, should render them willing to get rid of a bench of officers of equal power with themselves, as Rulers in the Church, and, consequently, able to control their wishes in cases of discipline. But it cannot easily be conceived why either sloth or pride should render any so particularly averse to all consultation with the aged and experienced, in preference to the young, on the affairs of the Church; especially if these aged persons bore no office, and there was, of course, no official obligation to be governed by their advice, as the gloss under consideration supposes. It being evident, then, that a class of officers was here intended, the question arises, what class of Presbyters, or Elders, was that which had grown into disuse in the fourth century? Not teaching Presbyters, surely; for every one knows that that class of Presbyters had not become obsolete in Ambrose’s time. His own writings amply attest the reverse. And every one also knows that this class of Church officers has never, been laid aside, or even diminished in number, to the present day. It is worthy of very particular notice here also, as no small confirmation of the construction which we put upon the words of Ambrose, that all the most learned and able of the Reformers, and a great number of others, the most competent judges in such matters, from the Reformation to the present time, have concurred in adopting the same construction, and have considered the worthy Father as referring to a class of Elders who held the place of inspectors and rulers in the Church. Learned Lutherans, and Episcopalians, as well as Calvinists, almost without number, have united in the interpretation of this Father, which we have given, with a degree of harmony truly wonderful, if that interpretation be entirely erroneous. Is it less likely that Luther, and Melancthon, and Bucer, and Whitgift, and Zanchius, and Peter Martyr, who had no sectarian or private views to serve, should be able correctly to read and understand Ambrose, than that modern and more superficial scholars should be betrayed into a mistaken construction, on the side in favor of which their feelings were strongly enlisted? No disrespect whatever is intended to the latter; but it cannot be doubted that a great preponderancy of testimony, both as to numbers and competency, is on the side of the former. Augustine, Bishop of Ilippo, who also lived toward the close of the fourth century, often refers to this class of officers in his writings. Thus in his work, Contra Cresconium Grammaticum, Lib. iii. Cap. 56, he speaks of "Peregrinus, Presbyter, et Seniores Ecclesiae Musticanae regionis;" i.e. "Peregrine; the Presbvtcr, and the Elders of the Church of the Mustacan district." And again, be addresses one of his Epistles intended for his Church at Hippo, in the following nianner:-"Dilectissimis Fratribus, Clero, Senioribus et universae Plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis;" Epist. 137; i.e. To the beloved brethren, the Clergy, the Elders and all the people of the Church at Hippo."’ There were some Elders, then, in the time of Avgustine, whom he distinguishes from other Presbyters, and whom he also distinguishes from the Clergy. And, lcst any should suppose that the Elders here spoken of were not officers, but mere private members of the Church, he distinguishes them from the plebs universa of the Church. Augustine, also, in another place, (De Verb. Dom. Serm. 19,) speaks thus:-"Cum ob errorem aliquem a Senioribus arguuntur, et imputatur alicui de illis, cur ebrius fuerit? cur res alienas pervaserit?" &c., i.e. "When thev are reprehended for any error by the Elders, and are upbraided with having been drunk, or with having been guilty of theft, &c." Can any one doubt that, Augtustine is here speaking, not of mere aged persons, but of Church officers, whose duty it was to inspect the morals of the members of the Church, and to "upbraid," or reprove those who had been reprehensible in their deportment? It would be easy to produce, from the same Father, a number of other quotations equally to our purpose. But Bingham, in his Origines Ecclesiastiae, Bishop Taylor, in his Episcopacy Asserted, and other learned Prelatists, have rendered this unnecessary, by making an explicit acknowledgment, that Augustine repeatedly mentions these Seniors or Elders, as belonging to other Churches as well as his own in his time and that the same kind of Elders are frequently referred to by other writers, both before and after Augustine; as then existing in the Church; as holding in it some kind of official station and yet as distinguished from clergymen. It is true, indeed, that Bingham insists upon it that these were not Ruling Elders, in our sense of the word; but that they held some kind of office in the Church, and yet were not public preachers, he explicitly grants. We ask nothing more. This is quite sufficient for our purpose. The ancient work, entitled Apostolical Constitutions, although by no means of Apostolical origin, was probably composed sometime between the second and fifth centuries. The following significant and pointed rule, extracted from that work, will be considered by the intelligent reader as by no means equivocal in its aspect:-"To Presbyters also, when they labor assiduously in the word and doctrine, let a double portion be assigned." [12] Here is, obviously, a distinction between Presbyters who are employed in teaching, and those who are not so employed. To what duties the others devoted themselves is not stated; but it is evident that teaching made no part of their ordinary occupation, We may take for granted that their duty was to assist in the other spiritual concerns of the Church, viz.: in maintaining good order and discipline. This is precisely the distinction which Presbyterians make, and which they believe to have been made in the primitive Church. Accordingly the Presbyters, in the same relic of Christian antiquity, and in a subsequent part of the same chapter, are called "the Counsellors of the Bishop, or Pastor; and the Sanhedrim, or Senate of the Church:" expressions which entirely harmonize with our views of the office of Elder in the ancient Church. To the same class of officers, Isodore of Hispala, who flourished in the sixth century, seems to allude, when, in giving directions as to the manner in which pastors should conduct their official instructions, be says:-Prius docendi sunt Seniores plebis, ut per ecos infra positi facilius doceantur;" i.e. "The Eld.ers of the people are first to be taught, that by them such as are placed under them, may be, more easily instructed." Here again, these Seniores are evidently spoken of as Church officers, who were set over the people, and yet occupied a station inferior to that of the pastors, or public preachers. Nor does this class of officers appear to have entirely ceased in the Church at as late a period as that of Gregory the great, who %vrote in the latter part of the sixth century. In one of his Epistles he gives the following direction:-"If any thing should come to your ears concerning any clergyman, which may be justly considered as matter of offence, do not easily believe it; but let truth be diligently investigated by the Elders of the Church, who may be at hand, and then, if the character of the act demand it, let the proper punishment fall on the offender." [13] Here there is evidently a very distinct reference to such a class of officers as that of which we are speaking. They are distinguished from clergymen; and yet they are represented as ecclesiastical officers, to whom it properly pertained to investigate ecclesiastical offences, and to give advice and direction in peculiarly delicate cases of discipline. At an earlier period of the Church, indeed, these Elders, as well as all other classes of ecclesiastical men, were styled clergymen; as we shall have occasion more fully to show hereafter: but from the fourth century and onward, Elders of this class declined in numbers and in popularity, and not long afterwards were in a great measure laid aside, excepting by the humble and devoted Witnesses of the Truth, of whose testimony we shall speak in the next chapter. There is another species of evidence here worthy of notice. The representation which the fathers give of the manner in which the Bishop or Pastor and his Elders were commonly seated, when the Church was assembled and during the solemnities of public worship, afford very strong evidence that the mass of the Elders were such as it is the object of this Essay to establish. We are told by several of the early Fathers, that when the Church was convened for public worship, the Bishop, or Pastor, was commonly seated on the middle of a raised bench, or long semi-circular seat, at one end of the Church; that his Elders were seated on each side of him, on the same seat, or on seats immediately adjoining, and commonly a little lower; and that the Deacons commonly stood in front of this bench, ready to give any notice, to execute any order, or to perform any service which the Pastor or Elders might think proper to direct. This practice was evidently drawn from the Jewish Synagogue. And, indeed, the order of assembling, sitting, and worship in the Christian assemblies, for the first two or three centuries, so strikingly resembled that of the Synagogue, that Christian Churches were frequently contemned, and opposed as Synagogues in disguise." [14] This general fact is so well attested by the early Christian writers, that it is unnecessary to detain the reader by any formal proof of it. Now, if in every Church, when assembled in ordinary circumstances, there were present a Pastor, Overseer, or Bishop, and a body of Elders, sitting, with him, and counselling and aiding him in the inspection and discipline of the Church; it is hardly necessary to say, that these Elder could not all have been such Presbyters as the friends of Prelacy contend for, as their "second order of clergy." The supposition is absurd. They could only have been such a bench of pious and venerable men, as were chiefly employed in overseeing and ruling; and corresponding, substantially, with the Elders of the Presbyterian Church. It is true, indeed, the advocates of Prelacy endeavor to persuade us that these Presbyters were the stated preachers in the several congregations or worshipping assemblies which were, as they suppose, comprehended in the Bishop’s charge, But this supposition is wholly unsupported. Nay, it is directy contrary to the whole current of early testimony on this subject. The very same writers who inform us that there were any Presbyters at all in the Christian Church within the first three hundred years, represent a PLURALITY OF THEM as sitting with the Bishop or Pastor, and PRESENT IN EVERY WORSHIPPING ASSEMBLY. There is no system with which this statement can be made essentially to agree, but that which is received among Presbyterians. Another strong argument in support of the doctrine of Ruling Elders, as drawn from the early Fathers, is found in the abundant evidence which their writings furnish, that, during the first three or four centuries after Christ, the great body of the Christian Presbyters did not ordinarily preach, indeed, never but by the special permission of the Bishop or Pastor. The following statement by the learned Bingham, in his Origines Ecclesiastae, Book ii. chapter iii. section 4. will be found conclusive on this point: "The like observation may be made upon the office of PREACHING. Tbis was in the first place the Bishop’s office, which they commonly discharged themselves especially in the African Churches. Which is the reason we so frequently meet with the phrase, Tractante Episcopo, the Bishop preaching, in the writings of Cyprian. For then it was so much the office and custom of Bishops to preach, that no Presbyter was permitted to preach in their presence, till the time of St. Austin, who, whilst he was a Presbyter was authorized by Valerius, his Bishop, to preach before him. But that, as Possidius, the writer of his life observes, was so contrary to the use and custom of the African Churches, that many Bishops were highly offended at it, and spoke against it; till the consequences proved that such a permission was of good use and service to the Church; and then several other Bishops granted their Presbyters power and privilege to preach before them. So that it was then a favor for the Presbyters to preach in the presence of the Bishops, and wholly at the Bishop’s discretion, whether they would permit them or not; and when they did preach, it was wholly potestate accepta, by the power and authority of the Bishops that appointed them. In the Eastern Churches Presbyters were more commonly employed to preach, as Possidius observes, when he says Valerius brought the custom into Africa from their example. And St. Jerome intimates as much, when he complains of it as an ill custom only in some Churches to forbid Presbyters to preach. Chrysostom preached several of his elaborate discourses at Antioch, while be was but a Presbyter; and so did Atticus at Constantinople: and the same is observed to have been granted to the Presbyters of Alexandria and Caesarea, in Cappadocia, and Cyprus, and other places. But still it was but a grant of the Bishops; and Presbyters did it by their authority and commission. And whenever Bishops saw just reason to forbid them, they had power to limit or withdraw their commission again:-as both Socrates and Sozomen testify, who say that at Alexandria Presbyters were forbidden to preach from the time that Arius raised a disturbance in the Church. Thus we see what a power Bishops anciently challenged and exercised over Presbyters in the common and ordinary offices of the Church: particularly for preaching, Bishops always esteemed it THEIR OFFICE as much as any other." This statement is amply illustrated and confirmed by the learned author by numerous references to early writers of the highest reputation, which it is altogether unnecessary to recite, on account of the notoriety of the fact alleged. Can such a statement be contemplated a moment without perceiving, that the mass of the Presbyters or Elders, during the times here spoken of, were a very different class of officers from those commonly styled Presbyters," in the Papacy afterwards, and in more modern Prelatical Churches? The very circumstance of preaching making no part of their ordinary function; nay, that, in ordinary cases, they were never allowed to do it, but in virtue of a special permission, which is evidently the import of the whole account, unless we make nonsense of it; places it beyond all doubt that the authority which they received at ordination, did not really commission them to preach at all; but that the Bishop only was the commissioned preacher. This is exactly what Presbyterians say.-And if ever Ruling Elders or Deacons among us, conduct social worship, and address the people in public, it is always under the direction of the Bishop or Pastor, who may encourage or arrest it as he pleases. It is vain to say, that Presbyters in the Protestant Episcopal Church at the present day cannot preach, or perform any ecclesiastical act without the Bishop’s permission. This is an idle evasion. The fact is that every one knows, that their original ordination, as Presbyters, or "Priests,"’ as they are called-conveys the full power to preach, administer sacraments, and perform every duty of the ordinary parochial ministration, statedly, and without any further let or impediment. The cases then, are wholly unlike. There were, evidently, in the days of Ignatius and Cyprian, of Chrysostom and Augustine, of Socrates and Sozomen, some Elders who did not ordinarily preach, and were not considered as authorized to engage in this part of the public service, without a special permission; and who stood, not exactly, indeed, but very much on the same ground, as to this matter, with the Elders of our denomination. The truth is, some of the very same writers who inform us that Elders and Deacons were not ordinarily allowed to preach during the first three or four centuries;-also inform us, that laymen, in cases of necessity, might preach by the Bishop’s permission. This at once illustrates and strengthens the Presbyterian argument. For the same authority which might give a special permission in each case, or a general permission, for a time, to an Elder or Deacon to preach; which permission, it seems, might be revoked at pleasure, without touching the official standing of the individual much less deposing him from office;-might also authorize the merest layman in the whole parish to perform the same service, whenever it was judged expedient to give the license. The truth of the matter seems to have been this. A large majority of the officers called Elders, in the three first centuries, were, no doubt, Ruling Elders-ordained, it is probable, in the same manner with the Teaching Elders, i.e., with "the laying on of hands," and the same external solemnity in every respect. They were not qualified, and were not expected, when ordained, to be preachers; but were selected, on account of their piety, gravity, prudence, and experience to assist in inspection and government. When, however, the Bishop or Pastor, who was the stated preacher, was sick, or absent, be might direct a Ruling Elder to take his place, on a single occasion, or for a few sabbaths. But this function made no part of their stated work; and they seldom engaged in it. After a while, however, these Elders, like the Bishops on the one hand, and the Deacons on the other, began to aspire; were more and more frequently permitted to preach; until, at length, non-preaching Elders were chiefly banished from the Church. As this was a gradual thing, they were, of course, retained in some Churches longer than others. They were, probably, first laid aside in large cities, where ambition was most prevalent, laxity of morals most indulged, and strict discipline most unpopular. In this way things proceeded, until this class of officers was almost wholly lost sight of in the Christian community. One more testimony, by no means unimportant, of the existence of this office in the primitive Church, is to be found in the Rev. Dr. Buchanan’s account of the Syrian Christians, contained in his Asiatic Researches. It will be borne in mind that the learned and pious author considers those Christians as having settled in the East, within the first three centuries after Christ, before the corruptions of the Church of Rome bad been introduced, and when the original simplicity of Gospel order had been but in a small degree invaded. Separating from the Western Church at that early period, and remaining, for many centuries, almost wholly secluded from tbe rest of the world, they were found in a great measure free from the innovations and superstitions of the papacy. Now, if Ruling Elders had any existence in the Christian Church within the first three hundred years, as Ambrose expressly declares they had, we might expect to find the Syrian Christians, in their seclusion, retaining some traces at least of this office in their Churches. Accordingly, Dr. Buchanan in describing the circumstances of a visit which he paid one of the Churches of this simple and highly interesting people, speaks as follows:-"When we arrived, I was received at the door of the Church by three Kasheeshas, that is Presbyters, or Priests, who were habited in like manner, in white vestments. Their names were Jesu, Zecharias, and Urias, which they wrote down in my journal, each of them adding to his name the title Kasheesha. There were also present two Shumshanas, or Deacons. The Elder Priest was a very intelligent man, of reverend appearance, having a long white beard, and of an affable and engaging deportment. The three principal Christians, or Lay-Elders, belonging to the Church, were named Abraham, Thomas and Alexandros." [15] This remarkable fact, it is believed, belongs most properly to the present chapter. For if these simple Syrian Christians were really settled in the East, as early as Dr. Buchanan seems, with good reason, to suppose, and were, for many centuries entirely secluded from all foreign influence; we may consider them as having in operation among them, substantially, that ecclesiastical system which existed through the greater part of the Christian Church at the close of the third, and the beginning of the fourth century. A kind of testimony which, of course, falls in with our purpose in examining the testimony of the early ages of the Church. Such then, is the amount of the testimony from the Christian Fathers. They tell us, with a unanimity and frequency truly remarkable, that, in every Church, there was a bench or college of Elders:-That they sat, with the Bishop or Pastor, as an ecclesiastical judicatory, and with him ruled the Church:-That this bench or body of rulers was called by various names in different parts of the world;-such as, Ecclesice Consessus-the Session or Consistory of the Church; twn presbuterwn sunedrion, the court or Sanhedrim of the Elders;-Ecclesiae Senatus, the Senate of the Church;-boulh ekklhsiaþ the Council of the Church, &c., &c.:-That they were always present with the Bishop or Pastor when he presided in public worship:-That he did nothing of importance without consultng them:-That they seldom or never preached, unless in cases of necessity, or when specially requested to do so by the pastor:-That they were more frequently than otherwise called clergymen, like the Elders who "labored in the word and doctrine," but sometimes distinguished from the clergy:-That, however, whether called clergymen or not, they were "ecclesiastical men," that is, set apart for ecclesiastical purposes, devoted to the spiritual rule and edification of the Church:-That all questions of discipline, such as admitting members into the Church, inspecting their Christian deportment, and censuring, suspending and excommunicating, were decided by these Elders: and, finally, from all it is apparent, that as discipline became unpopular, and ecclesiastics more aspiring, the ruling part of the Elder’s office was gradually laid aside, and the teaching part alone retained. FOOTNOTES 1.It is worthy of notice that whenever the word presbuteros occurs in the New Testament, our translation, when an ecclesiastical officer is meant, always renders it Elder. So far as is recollected, this is invariably done. 2.Intelligent readers are no doubt, aware that the genuineness of the Epistles of Ignatius has been called in question by a great majority of Protestant divines, and is not only really but deeply questionable. All inquiry, however, on this subject is waved for the present. 3.Discourse on Church Government, p. 48. 4.Epistle to the Philippians, Sect. 6. 5.Jus Divinum, &c. p. 171, 172. 6.Dissertationes Cyprianicoe, vi. Sect. 4, 5, 6. 7.Contra Cesum. Lib. iii. p. 142. Edit. Cantab. 1677. 8.Cent. iii. Cap. vii. p. 151. 9.BINGHAM’s Origines Ecclesiasticae, Book i. chapter i. section 8. 10.OPTAT, Lib. i. p 41. edit. Paris, 1631. 11.It is not forgotten that learned men have generally considered the real name of this writer as Hilary. Yet as the name of Ambrose is more frequently given to him, especially by many writers hereafter to be quoted, the latter name will be more intelligible, and, therefore, more convenient. 12.Apostol Constit. Lib. ii. Cap. 28. 13.Epistolae, Lib. ii. Epist. 19 -- quoted from teh Politica Ecclesiasitca of VOETIUS, Par. ii. Lib. ii.. Tract. iii. 14.Thorndike’s Discourse on Religious Assemblies. p. 57. 15.Christian Researches in Asia, p. 75. N. York Edit. 12mo. 1812. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 22: 03.05. TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE TRUTH DURING THE DARK AGES ======================================================================== CHAPTER V. TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE TRUTH, DURING THE DARK AGES. It has been the habit of zealous and high-toned Prelatists, for more than two centuries past, as welt as of some Independents, to assert, that Ruling Elders were unknown in the Christian Church until about the year 1541 ; that then Calvin invented the order, and introduced it into the Church of Geneva. And some worthy men, of other denominations, have allowed themselves, with more haste than good advisement, to adopt and repeat the assertion. It is an assertion which, undoubtedly, cannot be made good; as the following testimonies will probably satisfy every impartial reader. At how early a period the Old Waldenses took their rise is uncertain. In some of their Confessions of Faith, and other ecclesiastical documents. dated at the commencement, or soon after the commencement, of the Reformation by Luther, they speak of their Doctrine and Order as having been handed down from father to son for more than five hundred years. But Reinerius, who himself lived about two hundred and fifty years before Luther, who had once resided among the, Waldenses, but afterwards became one of their bitterest persecutors, seems to ascribe to that people a much earlier origin. "They are more pernicious," says he, "to the Church of Rome than any other set of heretics: for three reasons:-1. Because they are older than any other sect; for some say that they have been ever since the time of Pope Sylvester, (who was raised to the Papal chair in 314;) and others say, from the time of the Apostles. [1] 2. Because they are more extensively spread than any other sect; there being scarcely a country into which they have not crept. 3. Because other sects are abominable to God for their blasphemies; but the Waldenses are more pious than any other heretics; they believe truly of God, live justly before men, and receive all the articles of the creed; only they hate the Church of Rome." Now, John Paul Perrin, the well known historian of the Waldenses, and who was himself one of the ministers of that people, in a number of places recognizes the office of Elder, distinguished from that of Pastor, or Teacher, as retained in their Churches. He expressly and repeatedly represents their Synods as composed of Ministers and Elders. The same writer tells us that, in the year 1476, the Hussites, being engaged in separating and reforming their Churches from the Church of Rome, understood that there were some Churches of the ancient Waldenses in Austria, in which the purity of the gospel was retained, and in which there were many eminent Pastors. In order to ascertain the truth of this account, they (the Hussites) sent two of their Ministers, with two Elders, to inquire arid ascertain what those flocks or congregations were.[2] The same historian, in the same work, speaks of the Ministers, and Elders of the Bohemian Churches.[3] Now the Bohemian Brethren, it is well known, were a branch of the same people called Waldenses.[4] They had removed from Picardy, in the north of France, about two hundred years before the time of Huss and Jerome, to Bohemia, and there, in conjunction with many natives of the country, whom they brought over to their opinions, established a number of pure Churches, which long maintained the simplicity of the gospel. The undoubted existence of Ruling Elders, then, among the Bohemian Brethren, affords in itself, strong presumptive proof that the same class of officers existed in other branches of the same body. And, accordingly, a Synod, of which we have an account, as held in Piedmont, in Italy, in 1570, is represented, repeatedly, as made up of "Pastors and Elders." Again; in the Form of Government of the same people, in the chapter on Excommunication, we find the following direction respecting the disorderly, who refuse to listen to private admonition:-"Tell it to the Church," that is, to the "Guides, whereby the Church is ruled;" and that we may be at no loss who these "Rulers" were, we are. told, in a preceding chapter, that they were Elders chosen from among the people for the purpose of governing; and informed that they were distinct from the pastors. The testimony of Perrin and others, is supported by that of M. Gillis, another historian of the Waldenses, and also one of their Pastors. In the Confession of faith of that people, inserted at length in the "Addition" to this work, and stated by the historian to have been the Confession of the Ancient, as well as of the Modern Waldenses, it is declared, (p. 490-Art. 31,) that "It is necessary for the Church to have Pastors, to preach God’s word, to administer the sacraments, and to watch over the sheep of Jesus Christ; and also Elders and Deacons, according to the rules of good and holy Church discipline, and the practice of the primitive Church." Sir Samuel Moreland, who visited the Waldenses in the year 1656, and took unwearied pains to learn from themselves their History, as well as their Doctrine and Order; informs us that, besides their Synodical meetings, which took place once a year, when all candidates for the pastoral office were commonly ordained, they had also Consistories in their respective Churches, by means of which pure Discipline was constantly maintained.[5] Accordingly, the Rev. Dr. Ranken, in his laboriously learned History of France, gives the following account of the Waldenses and Albigenses, whom he very properly represents as the same people. "Their government and discipline were extremely simple. The youth intended for the ministry among them, were placed under the inspection of some of the elder barbes, or pastors, who trained them chiefly to the knowledge of the Scriptures; and when satisfied of their proficiency, they received them as preachers, with imposition of hands. Their pastors were maintained by the voluntary offerings of the people. The whole Church assembled once a year, to treat of their general affairs. Contributions were then obtained; and the common fund was divided, for the year, among not only the fixed pastors; but such as were itinerant, and had no particular district or charge. If any of them had fallen into scandal or sin, they were prohibited from preaching, and thrown out of the society. The pastors were assisted in their inspection of the people’s morals, by Elders, whom probably both pastors and people elected, and set apart for that purpose."[6] Further; not only does Perrin speak of the Ministers and Elders of the Bohemian Churches, thereby plainly intimating that they had a class of Elders distinct from their Pastors, or Preachers; but the same thing is placed beyond the possibility of doubt or question by the Bohemian Brethren themselves, who, in the year 1535, presented a Confession of their Faith, to Ferdinand, king of Hungary and Bohemia, with a friendly and highly commendatory Preface by Luther; and who, a number of years afterward published their "Plan of Government and Discipline" which contains the following paragraph:- "Elders (Presbyteri, seu Censores morum) are honest, grave, pious men, chosen out of the whole congregation, that they may act as guardians of all the rest. To them authority is given, (either alone, or in connexion with the Pastor) to admonish and rebuke those who transgress the prescribed rules, also to reconcile those who are at variance, and to restore to order whatever irregularity they may have noticed. Likewise in secular matters, relating to domestic concerns, the younger men and youths are in the habit of asking their counsel, and of being faithfully advised by them. From the example and practice of the ancient Church, we believe that this ought always to be done; See Exodus 18:21; Deuteronomy 1:13; 1 Corinthians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 6:4-5; 1 Timothy 5:17." This, they say, at the close, "is the ecclesiastical order which they and their forefathers had had established among them for two hundred years;[7] which they derived from the word of God; which they maintained through much persecution, and with much patience, and which they had observed with much happy fruit to themselves, and to the people of God.[8] And that all mistake might be precluded respecting the real import of the above stated clauses, the Bohemian historian and commentator, Comenius, makes the following remarks on the Elders in question:- Presbyter, a Greek term,.signifying the same with Senior, in Latin, (an Elder,) is applied by the Apostles both to the Pastors of the Church, and to those who assisted them in taking care of the flock, who do not labor in the word and doctrine; 1 Timothy 5:17. Such are our Elders they are styled Judges of the congregation, or Censors of the people, and also Ruling Elders. I am not ignorant, indeed, that Hugo Grotius, has labored hard to prove that, in the Apostles days, there were no other Presbyters than Pastors; and that he assigns a different meaning to the passage in 1 Timothy 5:17. Yet, inasmuch as he finally confesses, that, although such Elders of the Church as sit with the Pastors in Ecclesiastical Judicatories, be an institution of human prudence, they are, nevertheless, very useful, and ought by all means to be retained, I hope no one will easily find any reasonable objection. To guard against abuses, he subjoins very judicious cautions, at the close of chapter xi. of the book which he entitled, De Imperio Summarum Protestatum circa Sacra."[9] In precisely the same manner are both the theory and practice of the Bohemian Brethren understood by the celebrated Martin Bucer, a very learned Lutheran divine, whose fame, throughout Europe, induced Archbishop Cranmer to invite him to England, during the progress of the Reformation in that country, where he received patronage and preferment, and was held in high estimation. Bucer was a contemporary of the Bohemian worthies who published the exhibition of their faith and practice above quoted, and, of course, had every opportunity of knowing both its letter and spirit. He speaks of it in the following terms:- "The Bohemian Brethren, (Picardi,)[10] who published a Confession of their faith, in the year 1535, with a Preface by Luther, and who almost alone preserved in the world the purity of the doctrine, and the vigor of the discipline of Christ, observed an excellent rule for which we are compelled to give them credit, and especially to praise that God who thus wrought by them, notwithstanding those brethren are preposterously despised by some learned men. The rule which they observe was this: besides Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, they had, in each Church, a bench or College of men, excelling in gravity, and prudence, who performed the duties of admonishing and correcting offenders composing differences, and judicially deciding in cases of dispute. Of this kind of Elders, Hilary (Ambrose) wrote, when he said-"Therefore the Synagogue and afterwards the Church had Elders, without whose counsel nothing was done."[11] It would seem difficult to deny or resist this testimony that the Bohemian Brethren held to Ruling Elders, and actually maintained this class of officers in their Churches. Could Bucer, whom Mr. Middleton, in his Biographia Evangelica, represents as "a man of immense learning;" and who is spoken of, by Bishop Burnet, as, "Perhaps, inferior to none of all the Reformers for learning;"-could he have been ignorant, either of the real meaning of a public document, put forth in his own time, or of the public and uniform practice of a body of pious people, whom he seems to have regarded with so much respect and affection, as witnesses for God in a dark world? It cannot be imagined. And what gives additional weight to the testimony of this illustrious man is, that he seems to have had no interest whatever in vindicating this class of Church officers; for it is not known that he ever had any special inducement, from a sense of reputation, or any other cause, to exert himself in maintaining them; and the latter part of his life was spent in England, in the service of the established Church of that kingdom, in the bosom of which he died. As a further confirmation of Bucer’s judgment in reference to the Bohemian Brethren, the celebrated John Francis Buddaeus, an eminently learned Lutheran divine of Germany, of the seventeenth century, who gave an edition, with a large preface, of the work of Comenius, in which the History of the Bohemian Brethren, and their Form of Government, are published, evidently understands their plan in reference to the office of Ruling Elder, precisely as Bucer, and other learned men have understood it. He employs the greater part of his preface in recommending this office. And, although he does not seem prepared to allow that it existed, as a separate office, in the apostolic Church, yet he thinks that, virtually, and in substance, it did make a part of the apostolic system of supervision and order. He thinks, moreover, that, without some such office, it is wholly impossible to maintain pure morals, and sound discipline in the Church of God; and that the Bohemian Brethren, rendered a most important service to the cause of truth and piety in maintaining it in their ecclesiastical system.[12] Luther, in some of his early writings, had expressed an unfavorable opinion of the Bohemian Brethren; but upon being more fully informed of their Doctrine and Order, and more especially of their provision for maintaining sound discipline, by means of their Eldership in each congregation, he changed his opinion, and became willing both to speak and to write strongly in their favor. Hence, his highly commendatory Preface, to their "Confession of Faith of which mention has been already made. And hence, at a still later period, the following strong expressions in favor of the same people. "There hath not arisen any people, since the times of the Apostles, whose Church hath come nearer to the apostolical doctrine and order, than the Brethren of Bohemia." And again; "although these Brethren do not excel us in purity of doctrine, (all the articles of faith with us being sincerely and purely taken out of the Word of God,) yet in the ordinary discipline of the Church which they use, and whereby they happily govern the Churches, they go far beyond us, and are, in this respect, far more praise-worthy. And we cannot but acknowledge and yield this to them, for the Glory of God, and of his truth; whereas our people of Germany cannot be persuaded to be willing to take the yoke of discipline upon them."[13] It is presumed that no one, after impartially weighing the foregoing testimonies, will listen, for one moment with any respect to the allegation, that the plan of a Bench of Elders for ruling the Church and conducting its discipline, was invented by Calvin. But we may go further. The truth is that, instead of the Waldenses, or Bohemian Brethren taking this order of officers from Calvin, it may be affirmed, that PRECISELY THE REVERSE WAS THE FACT. We have satisfactory evidence that Calvin took the hint from the Bohemian Brethren; and that the system which he afterwards established in Geneva, was really suggested and prompted by the example of those pious sufferers and witnesses for the truth, who had this class of officers in their Churches long before Calvin’s day. This will be made clearly to appear from the following statement. When Calvin first settled in Geneva, in 1536, he found the Reformed Religion already introduced, and, to a considerable extent, supported, under the ministry of Farel and Viret, two bold and faithful advocates of evangelical truth. Such, however, was the opposition made to the doctrines which they preached, and especially to the purity of discipline which they struggled hard to establish, by the licentious part of the inhabitants, among whom were some the leading Magistrates that, in 1538, Calvin and his Colleagues were expelled from their places in the Genevan Church, because they refused to administer the Lord’s Supper to the vilest of the population who chose to demand the privilege. In a paroxysm of popular fury, those faithful ministers of Christ were commanded to leave the city within two clays. During this temporary triumph of error and proflagacy Calvin retired to Strasburg, where he was appointed Professor of Divinity and Pastor of a Church, and where he remained nearly four years. In 1540, the year before be was recalled to Geneva, he corresponded with the Bohemian Brethren, and made himself particularly acquainted with their plan of Church government, which he regarded with deep interest; an interest, no doubt greatly augmented by the sufferings which he bad recently undergone in fruitless efforts to maintain the purity of ecclesiastical discipline; in which efforts he had been baffled chiefly by the want of such an efficient system as the Bohemian Churches possessed. In the course of this correspondence, while yet in exile for his fidelity, Calvin addressed the Bohemian Pastors in the following pointed terms:-"I heartily congratulate your Churches, upon which, besides sound doctrine, God hath bestowed so many excellent gifts. Of these gifts, it is none of the least to have such Pastors to govern and order them; to have a people themselves so well affected and disposed;-to be constituted under so noble a form of government;-to be adorned with the most excellent discipline, which we justly call most excellent, and, indeed, the only bond by which obedience can be preserved. I am sure we find with us, by woful experience, what the worth of it is, by the want of it; nor yet can we by any means attain to it. On this account it is, that I am often faint in my mind, and feeble in the discharge of the duties of my office. Indeed I should quite despair, did not this comfort me, that the edification of the Church is always the work of the Lord, which He himself will carry on by his own power, though all help beside should fail. Yet still it is a great and rare blessing to be aided by so necessary a help. Therefore I shall not consider our Church as properly strengthened, until they can be bound together by that bond." And the pious historian, after giving this extract from the venerable Reformer, adds: "It so happened, in the course of divine providence, that, not long afterwards, this eminent man was recalled to minister in the Church of Geneva, where he established THE VERY SAME KIND OF DISCIPLINE, which is now famed throughout the world."[14] Testimony more direct and conclusive could scarcely be desired. Comenius, himself a Bishop of the Bohemian Brethren, surely knew what kind of Eldership it was which was established among the Churches of his own denomination. He says it was the very same with that which Calvin afterwards established in Geneva. We know, too, that this venerable man before he was expelled from Geneva in 1538, and, while he was struggling and suffering so much want of an efficient discipline, made no attempt to introduce the institution in question. But, during his painful exile, his attention is forcibly turned to the Bohemian plan. He is greatly pleased with it; speaks he in the strongest terms of its excellence; declares that has no hope of any Church prospering until it is introduced; and the very next year, on his return, makes it one of the conditions of his resuming his pastoral charge, that this plan of conducting the discipline of the Church by a bench of Elders, shall be received with him, and thus causes it to be adopted in Geneva. And yet the historian of the Waldenses, John Paul Perrin, has been reproached, and insinuations made unfavorable to his honesty, because he has represented the Bohemian Brethren as having ecclesiastical Elders distinct from their Ministers of the gospel. How utterly unjust such reproaches are, every one must now see. If there were ever Elders in Geneva, they were found in the Churches of Bohemia. Nor is it any solid objection to the fact, as we have stated it, that they had some other features in their system of Church order, which were not strictly Presbyterian. All that the historian has to do is with facts. Having stated these, ho is answerable for nothing more. That those Churches gave the title of Seniors, but more frequently of Antistites to certain elderly clergyman, who were peculiarly venerable in their character, and who chiefly took the lead in all ordinations, is, no doubt, true; that, in their plan of Church government, they distinguished their Diaconi from their Eleemosynarii; and that they include in the list of their ecclesiastical offices, some which are strictly secular, is also manifest. But surely none of these invalidate the fact, that they had Ruling.Flders; a fact stated in a manner which it is impossible either to doubt or mistake. Thus we have good evidence, that ALL the most distinguished and faithful witnesses for the truth, during the dark ages, with whose faith and order we have any minute acquaintance, carefully maintained the office for which we are contending; that some of them, at least, considered it as of Divine appointment, and accordingly quote in its support Scriptural authority: and that they appear, with good reason, to have regarded it as one of the most efficient means, under the Divine blessing, of promoting the spiritual order and edification of the Church. ENDNOTES 1. Reinerius flourished about A. D., 1250, more than 250 years before the Reformation; and, at that time, he speaks of the Waldenses as an ANCIENT PEOPLE, of too remote an origin to be traced with distinctness and certainty. 2. History of the Old Waldenses, Part ii. Book 1, Chap. 10. Book 2, Chap. 4. Book 5, Chap. 7. 3. Part ii. Book 2. chapter 9, 10. 4. History of the Waldenses, 4to. 1655, published by order of Cromwell. 5. History of the Evangelical Churches of Piedmont, Book i. chapter viii. 6. History of France, Vol. iii. P. 203, 204. 7. The "Plan of Government and Discipline," from which the above extracts are made, was drawn up by their "general Synod" in 1616, and printed in 1632. When, therefore, they declare that they and their forefathers had enjoyed the same order for two hundred years, it carries back the date of this system to 1416, that is, to the time of John Huss; and, of course, nearly a century before the birth of Calvin. 8. Jo. Amos Comenii Historia Fratrum Bohemorum Ratio Disciplinoe Ordinisque, &c. 11. 56, 68. 9. Annotationes ad Rationem Ordinis Fratrum Bohemorum, ad Cap. i. p. 68. 10. Bucer styles these worthy people Fratres Picardi, in reference to their origin from the Waldenses, or rather the branch called Albigenses in France, to which those who migrated to Bohemia belonged. But the people to whom he refers are ascertained with unerring certainty by the "Confession o Faith" which he so precisely describes. 11. Scriptura duo Adversaria Latomi, &c. in Cap. De Ecclesioe Autoritate, p. 159. 12. Jo. Francisici Buddaei, Praefatio de instauranda Disciplina Ecclesiastica -- Passim. 13. Joh. A. Comenii Historia Bohem. Fart. Sect. 82. 14. Joh. A. Comenii Historia Bohem. Frat. Sect. 80. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 23: 03.06 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS, AND OTHER LEARNED AND DISINTERESTED WITNESSES ======================================================================== CHAPTER VI. TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS, & OTHER LEARNED AND DISINTERESTED WITNESSES, NEARLY CONTEMPORARY WITH THEM. We have seen how utterly groundless is the assertion, that Ruling Elders were invented and first introduced by Calvin at Geneva, If there be any truth in history, they were in use long before Calvin was born, and in the purest Churches on earth, to say nothing of their apostolical origin. Nor is this all. It may further be maintained, that a great majority of the Reformers, in organizing those Churches which separated from the Church of Rome, either actually introduced this class of officers, or, in their published writings, freely and fully declared in its favor. And this was the case, as we shall presently see, not merely on the part of those who followed Calvin, both as to time and opinion: but also on the part of those who either preceded, or had no ecclesiastical connexion whatever, with that illustrious man; and who were far from agreeing with him in many other particulars. Now this is surely a marvellous fact, if, as some respectable writers would persuade us to believe, the office in question is a mere figment of Genevan contrivance, toward the middle of the sixteenth century. The first Reformer whose testimony I shall adduce, in favor of this office, is Ulrick Zwingle, the celebrated leader in the work of Reformation in Switzerland. And I mention him first, because, as he never was connected with Calvin; nay, as he was removed by death, in 1531, five years before Calvin ever saw Geneva, or appeared in the ranks of the Reformers, and ten years before the introduction of Ruling Elders into that city, he cannot be suspected of speaking as the humble imitator of that justly honored individual. On the subject of Ruling Elders, Zwingle speaks thus:-The title of Presbyter or Elder, as used in Scripture, is not rightly understood by those who consider it as applicable only to those who preside in preaching: For it is evident that the term is also sometimes used to designate Elders, of another kind, that is, Senators, Leaders, or Counsellors. So we read Acts xv., where it is said, the Apostles and Elders come together to consider of this matter. Here we see, that the Elders spoken of are to be considered as Senators or Counsellors. It is evident that the presbuteroi mentioned in this place were not Ministers of the word; but that they were aged, prudent and venerable men, who, in directing and managing the affairs of the Church, were the same thing as the Senators in our cities. And the title Elder is used in the same sense in many other places in the Acts of the Apostles."[1] Again; Oecolampadius, who also died before Calvin appeared as an active Reformer, and of course before the introduction of Ruling Elders in the Church of Geneva, speaks thus, in an Oration which he pronounced before the Senate of Basil, in 1530, about a year before his death. "But it is evident that those which are here intended, are certain Seniors or Elders such as were in the Apostle’s days, and who of old time were called presbuteroi, whose judgment, being that of the most prudent part of the Church, was considered as the decision of the whole Church." Here, again, is the testimony of a man, who could not have been influenced by any knowledge of the opinions of Calvin, for Calvin had, as yet, published no opinions on the subject:-and who yet speaks in very unequivocal terms of a class of officers, as not only existing afterwards, but as of apostolical institution; which, according to some, were not known in the "Church, either in theory or practice, for ten years after the decease of this distinguished reformer. The testimony of Martin Bucer, as one of the most venerable and active of the Reformers, properly belongs to this branch of the subject. But as his sentiments were so fully detailed in the quotation from him, presented in the preceding chapter, it is not deemed necessary to repeat the statement here. From that extract it is evident, not only that he approved of the office of Ruling Elder, as of eminent use in the Church; but also that he considered Ambrose as asserting that officers of this class were found in the primitive Church, and that he agreed with the pious Father in maintaining this assertion. Here was another eminently learned man, and a contemporary of Calvin, who bears testimony, that Ruling Elders were in use, in the purest portion of the Christian Church, as a laudable and scriptural institution, centuries before the Reformer of Geneva was born. The character of Peter Martyr, a celebrated Protestant divine of Italy, whose high reputation induced Edward VI., to invite him to England, where he was made Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church, speaks of Ruling Elders in the following decisive terms:-"The Church" (speaking of the Primitive Church) "had its Elders, or, if I may so speak, its Senate, who consulted about things which were for edification for the time being. Paul describes this kind of ministry; not only in the 12th chapter of the Epistles to the Romans, but also in the first Epistle to Timothy, where he thus writes:-Let the Elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor, especially those that labor in the word and doctrine. Which words appear to me to signify, that there were then some Elders who taught and preached the word of God, and another class of Elders who did not teach, but only ruled in the Church. Concerning these, Ambrose speaks, when he expounds this passage in Timothy. Nay, he inquires whether it was owing to the pride or the sloth of the sacerdotal order that they had then almost ceased in the Church."[2] The celebrated John A Lasco, a devoted and eminentlv useful Reformer, is also a decisive witness on the same side. A Lasco was a Polish nobleman, of excellent education, and great learning. He was offered two Bishoprics, one in Poland, and another in Hungary: but he forsook his native country, and all the secular and ecclesiastical honors which awaited him, from love to the reformed religion. In his youth he enjoyed the special friendship of Erasmus, who speaks of him in one of his letters, (Erasmi Epist. Lib. 28. Ephesians 3:1-21,) as a man of uncommon excellence and worth. The Protestant Churches in the Low Countries being scattered in consequence of the agitation produced by the celebrated ordinance, called the Interim, published by Charles V., A Lasco was invited to England, by King Edward VI., at the instance of Archbishop Cranmer. He accepted the invitation, and was chosen Superintendent[3] of the German, French and Italian congregations erected in London, which are said to have consisted, in the aggregate, of more than three thousand souls. He afterwards published an account of the form of government and worship adopted in those congregations. The affairs of each it is distinctly stated in that account, were managed by a Pastor, Ruling Elders, and Deacons, and each of these classes of officers was considered as of divine appointment. We also learn, from his statement, that the Ruling Elders and Deacons of these Churches, as well as the Pastors, were ordained by the imposition of hands. He further informs us, that, in the administration of the Lord’s Supper, in the Churches under his superintendency, the communicants sat at the table; and he occupies a number of pages in showing that this posture ought to be preferred to kneeling. In short he declares "We have laid aside all the relics of Popery, with its mummeries, and we have studied the greatest possible simplicity in ceremonies." Notwithstanding the publication of these sentiments, and the establishment of these practices marking so great a non-conformity with the Church of England, A Lasco was highly esteemed, and warmly patronized, by Archbishop Cranmer, and also by the King, who granted him Letters Patent, constituting him and the other ministers of the foreign congregations, a body corporate, and giving them important privileges and powers. These letters may be seen among the Original Records subjoined to Burnet’s History of the Reformation, ii. 202. The following remarks by A Lasco himself, will serve at once to explain the design of the King in granting, his royal sanction to these people, and also his own view of the principles upon which he and his brethren acted in founding the Churches in question. "When I was called by the king, and when certain laws of the country stood in the way, so that the public rites of divine worship used under the Papacy, could not be immediately purged out, (which the king himself greatly desired,) and when I was anxious and earnest in my solicitations for the foreign Churches, it was, at length, his pleasure, that the public rites of the English Churches should be reformed by degrees, as far as could be accomplished by the laws of the country; but that strangers, who were not strictly and to the same extent bound by these laws, should have Churches granted to them, in which they should freely regulate all things WHOLLY ACCORDING TO APOSTOLICAL DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE, without any regard to the rites of the country; that by this means the English Churches also might be excited to embrace apostolical purity, by the unanimous consent of all the estates of the kingdom. Of this project, the king himself, from his great piety, was both the chief author and the defender. For although it was almost universally acceptable to the King’s Council, and the Archbishop of Canterbury promoted it with all his might, there were not wanting some who took it ill, and would have opposed it, had not his majesty checked them by his authority, and by the reasons which he adduced in favor of the design." Again, in the Appendix to the same book, p. 649, he says:-"The care of our Church was committed to us chiefly with this view, that in the ministration thereof we should, follow the rules of the Divine Word, and apostolical observance, rather than any rites of other Churches. In fine, we were admonished, both by the king himself, and his chief nobility, to use this great liberty granted to us in our ministry, rightly and faithfully; not to please men, but for the glory of God, by promoting the reformation of his worship."[4] On the whole, we have in this case a witness as unexceptionable and weighty as can well be desired. A man of eminent learning, piety and devotedness. A man formed, not in the school of Calvin, but of Zuingle. A man who, when the transactions and publications above alluded to, occurred, lived in England, where Ruling Elders were unknown: and who, yet, in these circumstances, declared himself in favor of this class of officers, as of Divine appointment, and as important to the purity and edification of the Church. But there is a still more conclusive fact in reference to this stage of the Reformation in England. A Lasco, it will be observed, asserts, that both king Edward, and Archbishop Cranmer, were strongly favorable to the plan of discipline which he and others had introduced into the Churches of Foreign Protestants in England. In confirmation of this statement, there is evidence that Cranmer, and the rest of the Commissioners in Edward’s reign, did directly propose the introduction of Ruling Elders in the national Church. They drew up a body of laws, which, though not finally ratified, partly on account of opposing influence, and partly from the premature decease of the monarch; yet clearly show the opinion and wishes of Cranmer and his associates, One of the proposed laws is as follows:-"After evening prayers, on which all shall attend in their own parish Churches, the principal minister or Parson, and the Deacon, if they are present: or, in case of their absence, the Curate and the Elders, shall consider how the money given for pious uses had best be laid out; and then let discipline be exercised. For those whose sin has been public, and given offence to the whole Church, should be brought to a sense of it, and publicly undergo the punishment of it, that so the Church may be the better for their correction. After that the minister shall withdraw, with some of the Elders, and consult how all other persons who are disorderly in their life and conversation may be conversed with; first by some sober and good men in a brotherly manner according to the direction of Christ in the Gospel; and if they hearken to their advice, God is to be praised for it; but if they go on in their wickedness, they are to be restrained by that severe punishment, which is in the Gospel prescribed for such obstinacy."[5] The testimony of Calvin will next be introduced. As he is charged with being the inventor of this class of officers, the weight of his opinion as a witness in its favor, will probably be deemed small by its opposers. But there is one point of view in which his testimony will surely be regarded with deep respect, and, may I not add, as decisive? That he was a man of maturc and profound learning, no one can doubt. Joseph. Scaliger, himself a prodigy of erudition, pronounced him to have been the most learned man in Europe in his day; and, particularly, "that no man understood ecclesiastical history so well." Now, it is certain that Calvin did not consider the office of Ruling Elder as originating with himself; but that he regarded it as an apostolical institution; that he refers to Scripture for its support; and that be quotes Ambrose, (whose testimony has been so often referred to,) as an unquestionable witness for the existence of the office under consideration in the primitive Church. The following extracts from his Commentary and his Institutions, will fully establish what is here asserted. In his exposition of 1 Timothy 5:17, he speaks thus "From this passage we may gather that there were then two kinds of Presbyters, because they were not all ordained to the work of teaching. For the words plainly mean that some ruled well, to whom no part of the public instruction was committed. And verily there were chosen from among the people, grave and approved men, who, in common council, and joint anthority with the Pastors, administered the discipline of the Church, and acted the part of censors for the correction of morals. This practice Ambrose complains, had fallen into disuse, through the idolence, or rather the pride of the teaching elders, who wished alone to, be distinguished. In his Institutions, (Book iv. Chapter iii.,) he has the following passage, equally explicit. "In calling those who preside over Churches by the appellations of "Bishops," "Elders,"’ and "Pastors," without any distinction, I have followed the usage of the Scriptures, which apply all these terms to express the same meaning. For to all who discharge the ministry of the word, they give the title of "Bishops." So when Paul enjoins Titus to "ordain Elders in every city," he immediately adds, "For a Bishop must be blameless." So, in another place, he salutes more Bishops than one in one Church. And in the Acts of the Apostles, he is declared to have sent for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, whom, in his address to them, he calls "Bishops." Here it must be observed, that we have enumerated only those offices which consist in the ministry of the word; nor does Paul mention any other in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians which we have quoted. But in the Epistle to the Romans, and the first Epistle to the Corinthians, he enumerates others, as "powers," "gifts of healing," "interpretation of tongues," "governments," "care of the poor." Those functions which are merely temporary, I omit, as foreign to our present subject. But there are two which perpetually remain, "governments," and "the care of the poor." "Governors," I apprehend to have, been persons of advanced years, selected from the people, to unite with the Bishops in giving admonitions and exercising discipline. For no other interpretation can be given of that injunction, "He that ruleth, let him do it with diligence." For from the beginning, every Church has had its senate, or council composed of pious, grave, and holy men, who were invested with that jurisdiction, for the correction of vices, of which we shall soon treat. Now, that this was not the regulation of a single age, experience itself demonstrates. This office of government is necessary, therefore, in every age." I ask, was Calvin, honest, or dishonest, in these declarations? If he had invented and introduced the office himself, could he have been ignorant of the fact? And whether it was so or not, who may reasonably be considered as best able to judge-HIMSELF, or those who live nearly three hundred years after him? And who would be most likely to know whether it were of ancient or modern origin;-the most learned man then, perhaps, in the world;-or men with not a tenth part of his erudition, at the present day? The truth is, these passages, considered in connexion with that quoted in a former chapter, in which he speaks of himself, in reference to this office, as following the example of the pious Witnesses of the truth who preceded him;-prove, either, that Calvin did not consider himself as the inventor of the office, but believed that it bad been in the Church in all ages;-or that he was gratuitously and profligately regardless of the truth to a degree never laid to his charge. Nor is the testimony to the primitive existence of the class of officers, confined to those of the Reformers who were favorable to their continuance in the Church. Some, by no means friendly to their restoration, were yet constrained to acknowledge their early origin. That there were Ruling Elders in the primitive Church, is explicitly granted by Archbishop Whitgift, a warm and learned friend of diocesan Episcopacy. "I know," says he, "that in the Primitive Church, they had in every Church certain Seniors, to whom the government of the Congregation was committed; but that was before there was any Christian Prince or Magistrate that openly professed the Gospel; and before there was any Church by public authority established." And again:-"Both the name and office of Seniors were extinguished before Ambrose’s time, as he himself doth testify, writing upon the fifth of the first Epistle to Timothy. Indeed, as Ambrose saith, the Synagogite, and afterwards the Church, had Seniors, without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church; but that was before his time, and before there was any Christian Magistrate, or any Church established."[6] The learned and acute Archbishop, it seems, was not only convinced that there was Ruling Elders, distinct from Preaching Elders, in the Primitive Church, but with all his erudition and discernment, he understood Ambrose just as the friends of this class of officers now understand him. There is another testimony on this subject, from one of the most conspicious and active friends of the Reformation in England, which is worthy of particular notice. I refer to that of the Rev. Dean Nowell, who flourished in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and whose celebrated Catechism, drawn up in 1562, obtained, perhaps as much currency and respect as any publication of that period. Nor are we to consider it as expressing the sentiments of the illustrious divine whose name it bears, alone; for it was unanimously approved and sanctioned by the same lower house of Convocation which passed the 39 Articles of the Church of England, and directed to be published and used as containing the true doctrine of that Church. In this Catechism, toward the close, when speaking of the evils of retaining unworthy members in the Church, the following questions and answers occur:- "Q. What remedy for this evil heart can be devised and applied?" "A. In Churches well constituted and governed, there was, as I before said, a certain plan and order of governnment appointed and observed. Elders were chosen, that is, ecclesiastical rulers, who conducted and maintained the discipline of the Church. To these pertained authority, reproof and chastisement; and they, with the concurrence of the Pastor, if they knew any who, by false opinions, troublesome errors, foolish superstitions, or vicious and profligate lives, were likely to bring a great public scandal on the Church of God, and who could not approach the Lord’s Supper without a manifest profanation, repelled them from the communion, and no more admitted them until, by public penitence, they gave satisfaction to the Church." "Q. What is to be done?" (when those who have been excluded from the Church, repent, and desire to be restored to its communion.) "A. That they may be received again into the Church, and to the enjoyment of its holv mysteries, from which they have been deservedly cast out, they ought humbly to supplicate and pray. And, on the whole there ought to be such moderation used in administering public penance, that neither by too much severity the offender may be reduced to despondency; nor by too much lenity, the discipline of the Church relaxed, its authority diminished, and others encouraged and incited to similar offences. But when, in the judgment of the Elders and of the Pastor, proper satisfaction shall be made, by the chastisement of the offender, for an example to others, he, may be admitted again to the communion of the Church."[7] Nothing can be more unequivocal or decisive than this testimony. In the opinion not only of the writer of the Catechism before us, but also of the leading clergy of the Church of England, who sanctioned it, and enjoined its general use, there ought to be, in every Church, besides the Pastor, a bench of Elders, or ecclesiastical Rulers, whose duty it should be to preside over the discipline, and, in conjunction with the Pastor. to receive, admonish, suspend, excommunicate, and restore members,-in a manner precisely agreeable to the well known practice of the Presbyterian Church. In truth, Dr. Nowell could scarcely have expressed in more distinct and unqualified terms his approbation of this part of our system, than in telling us, what, in his judgment, and that of his brethren, every well regulated Church ought to have. Ursinus, a learned German divine, contemporary with Luther and Melancthon, speaks a language still more to our purpose. "Ministers," says he, "are either immediately called of God, or mediately, through the instrumentality of the Church. Of the former class, were Prophets and Apostles. Of the latter class there are five kinds, viz: Evangelists, Bishops, or Pastors, Teachers, Ruling Elders, and Deacons. Evangelists are ministers appointed to go forth and preach the gospel to a number of Churches. Bishops, are ministers ordained to preach the word of God, and administer the sacraments, in particular Churches. Teachers are ministers appointed merely to fulfil the function of teaching in particular Churches. Ruling Elders are ministers elected by the voice of the Church, to assist in conducting discipline, and to order a variety of necessary matters in the Church. Deacons are ministers elected by the Church, to take care of the poor, and distribute alms."[8] In the Confession of Saxony, drawn up by Melancthon, in l551, and subscribed by a large number of Lutheran divines and Churches, we find this class of officers recognized, and represented as in use in those Churches. Speaking of the exercise of discipline, in its various branches, they say:-"That these things may be done orderly, there be also Consistories appointed in our Churches." Of these Consistories, a majority of members, it is well known, were Ruling Elders. Szegeden, a very eminent Lutheran divine, of Hungary, contemporary with Luther, also speaks very decisively of the apostolic institution of Ruling Elders. The following passage is sufficient to exhibit his sentiments. "The ancient Church had Presbyters, or Elders, of which the Apostle speaks, 1 Corinthians 5:4. And these Elders were of two kinds. One class of them preached the gospel, administered the sacraments, and governed the Church, the same as Bishops; for Bishops and Presbyters are the same order. But another class of Elders consisted of grave and upright men, taken from among the laity, who, together with the preaching Elders before mentioned, consulted respecting the affairs of the Church, and devoted their labor to admonishing, correcting, and taking care of the flock of Christ."[9] The Magdeburgh Centuriators, who were eminently learned Lutheran divines, contemporary with Melancthon, and who have been regarded, for three hundred years, as among the highest authorities on questions of ecclesiastical history, speak in the following decisive terms with regard to the office in question. And although the extract has been given in a former page; yet as it is brief and pointed, it may not be improper to assign it a place in this connexion. Speaking of the third century, they say:-"The right of deciding respecting such as were to be excommunicated, or of receiving, upon their repentance, such as had fallen, was vested in the Elders of the Church."[10] The learned Francis Junius, a distinguished divine and professor of Theology of the Church of Holland, who lived at the commencement of the Reformation in that country, and was, of course, contemporary with Martyr, Bucer, Melancthon, &c., wrote very fully and explicitly in favor of the office of Ruling Elder. In his work entitled Ecclesiastici, he decisively, and with great learning, maintains, that Pastors, Ruling Elders and Deacons, are the only three spiritual orders of Church Officers; that Pastors, or ministers of the word and sacraments, are the highest order, and, of course, are invested with the power of ordaining; that the second class, are men of distinguished piety and prudence, chosen from among the members of the Church, to assist the Pastor in the government of the Church; and that the Deacons are appointed to collect and distribute the alms of the Church. He affirms that these three orders are set forth in Scripture, and existed in the primitive Church: and that the disuse of Ruling Elders, as well as the introduction of Prelacy, is a departure from the primitive model.[11] The Protestant Churches of Hungary and Transylvania, although, in organizing their Churches, they did not actually adopt and introduce the office of Ruling Elder; yet in the Preface, and other statements, published with their ecclesiastical Formularies, they spoke, in the most unequivocal terms, both of the value, and the early origin of this class of officers. The following extract may be considered as a fair specimen of their testimony on this subject. "Most other nations, belonging to the Evangelical Confession, have been in the habit of choosing and constituting Elders, in every village and city, agreeably to the practice of the Old Church, and also of the New Testament: men sound in the faith, blameless, the husbands of one wife, having faithful children, chargeable with no crime, grave, prudent, &c.-It is made the official duty of these men diligently to watch over the lives and conversation of all the members of the Church, to rebuke the dissolute, and, if need be, to refer their case to the Pastors and to the whole Eldership, &c." Here they make a clear distinction between these Elders and the Pastors, of the Churches, and represent the former as assistants to the latter in the spiritual concerns of the Church. They then proceed to state why a class of officers, so useful, in most cases so necessary, and which they also considered as having existed in the apostolic, Church, was not received among them.[12] The character of Jerome Zanchius, a learned divine of Italy of the sixteenth century, who greatly distingushed himself among the Reformers, is so well known, that a detailed account of his great accomplishments and reputation is unnecessary. On the subject before us, he speaks thus:-"The whole ministry of the Christian Church may be divided into three classes. The first consists of those who dispense the word and sacraments, corresponding with those who, under the Old Testament, were called Priests and Levites; and under the New Testament, Apostles, Pastors, and Teachers. The second consists of those whose peculiar office it is to take care of the discipline of the Church, to inspect the lives and conversation of all, and to take care that all live in a manner becoming Christians: and also, if at any time there should be a necessity for it, in the absence of the Pastor, to instruct the people. There were such, under the Old Testament in the Synagogue; and such also were the Senators who were added to the Bishop in the administration of the New Testament Church. These officers are styled Presbyters, (Presbyteri,) and Elders, (Seniores,) of which the Apostle speaks, besides other places, in 1 Timothy 5:17; Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. In this passage the Apostle manifestly speaks of two sorts or classes of Elders, as he was understood by Ambrose and others, among the ancients, and by almost all our modern Protestant Divines, as Bullinger Peter Martyr, &c., &c.[13] The most cursory reader of this extract will not fail to take notice, not only that Zanchius evidently approved of this office, but that he thought it of Divine appointment; that he interpreted as we do the famous passage in Ambrose, which the opposers of Ruling Elders have expended so much ingenuity in laboring to explain away; and that he considered ALMOST ALL THE REFORMED DIVINES as being of the SAME OPINION WITH HIMSELF. The high reputation of Paraeus, a learned and pious German divine, contemporary with Melancthon and Zanchius, is also well known. His testimony respecting the office under consideration is very explicit. In his Commentary on Romans xii. 8, he observes:-"Here the Apostle understands the function of that class of Elders, who, united with the Pastors, watch over and correct the morals and discipline of the Church. For there were two classes of Elders, as may be gathered from 1 Timothy 5:17. Some who labored in the word and doctrine, who were to be accounted worthy of double honor; such as Teachers, Pastors, or Bishops; the others, such as labored in conducting discipline, who are here called governments." And in his Commentary on 1 Corinthians 12:28, he says: "The Apostle here, undoubtedly, speaks of the Elders who presided in the administration of discipline. For the primitive Church had its Senate, who attended to the morals of the congregation, while the Apostles and Teachers were left at leisure to preach. This the Apostle indicates very clearly in 1 Timothy 5:17, where two classes of Presbyters are represented as constituted. The governments here spoken of were not of Princes or Praetors, armed with the sword, but grave, experienced men, exercising authority over others, chosen out of the Church, by the consent of the Church, to assist the Pastors in conducting discipline, and to alleviate their burdens." The celebrated Piscator, who held a distinguished place among the divines who adorned Germany, and maintained the Protestant cause, in the sixteenth century, is equally decisive, as an advocate of the office under consideration. ln his Commentary on 1 Timothy 5:17, he says:-"The Apostle distributes Elders into two classes-those who preside in maintaining ecclesiastical discipline, but did not publicly teach; and those who both taught, and co-operated in ruling, and were therefore worthy of a great honor, and a more liberal support than the others." Few ministers of the Church of England, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, were more distinguished for talents, learning and piety, than Thomas Cartwright, Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, the opponent of the high prelatical claims of Archbishop Whitgift, and concerning whom the celebrated Beza pronounced, that he thought "the sun did not sbine upon a more learned man." This eminent divine, commenting on Matthew 18:17, Tell it unto the Church, &c., thus remarks:-"Theophylact upon this place, interpreteth, Tell the Church, that is many, because this assembly taketh knowledge of this and other things, by their mouths, that is, their governors. Chrysostom also saith, that to tell the Church is to tell the governors thereof. It is, therefore, to be understood, that these governors of the Church, which were set over every several assembly in the time of the law, were of two sorts for some had the handling of the word; some other watching against the offences of the Church, did, by common council with the ministers of the word, take order against the same. Those governing Elders are divers times in the story of the gospel made mention of, under the title of "Rulers of the Synagogue." And this manner of government, because it was to be translated into the Church of Christ, under the gospel, our Saviour, by the order at that time used among the Jews, declareth what after should be done in his Church. Agreeably hereunto the Apostle both declared the Lord’s ordinance in his behalf, and put the same in practice, in ordaining to every several Church, beside the ministry of the word, certain of the chiefest men which should assist the work of the Lord’s building. This was also faithfully practised of the Churches after the Apostle’s times, as long as they remained in any good and allowable soundness of doctrine. And being fallen from the Churches, especially from certain of them, the want thereof is sharply and bitterly cast into the teeth of the Church’s teachers,-by whose ambition that came to pass."[14] And as proof of this the author quotes in the margin that very passage of Ambrose, cited in the preceding section, and which has always given so much trouble to Prelatists and Independents. The same writer, in his Second Reply to Whitgift, speaking of the class of Elders under consideration, expresses himself thus:-"For proof of these Church Elders, which, being occupied in the government, had nothing to do with the Word, the testimony of Ambrose, is so clear and open, that he which doth not give place unto it, must needs be thought as a bat, or an owl, or some other nightbird, to delight in darkness. His saying is, that the Elders fell away by the ambition of the Doctors; whereby opposing the Elders to Doctors, which taught, he plainly declareth, that they had not to do with the Word: whereupon it is manifest that it was the use, in the best reformed Churches, certain hundred years after the times of the Apostles, to have an Eldership which meddled not with the word, nor administration of sacraments.[15] The testimony of the Rev. Richard Greenham, a divine of the Church of England, who flourished in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and who was greatly revered both for his learning and piety, is very unequivocal and pointed on this subject. It is in these words:-"The Apostle St. Paul, doth notably amplify the honor due to the true and faithful minister. The Elders that rule well, (saith be,) let them be had in double honor, specially they which labor in the word and doctrine; 1 Timothy 5:17. As if he should say, let those Elders which are appointed to watch and look to the manners and behaviour of the children of God, if they execute this charge faithfully, be had in double honor; but above all, let the faithful ministers, such as labor in the word, be honored: for why? the other are overseers of your outward behaviour, but these have another manner of office; they watch over your souls which tendeth to the salvation both of body and soul." And again:-"The rulers of the Church are called the Church, to whom discipline appertaineth. Not the whole company of the Jews, but the Rulers of the Synagogue, are called the Church of the Jews.[16] The celebrated Estius, the learned Popish expositor and Professor at Douay, in his Commentary on 1 Timothy 5:17 delivers the following opinion:-From this passage it may be gathered that, in the time of the Apostles there, were certain Presbyters in the Church who ruled well, and were worthy of double honor, and who yet did not labor in the word and doctrine; neither do the heretics of the present day (meaning the Protestants) deny this." And, in speaking of the establishment of this class of Elders in Geneva, about half a century before he wrote, he seems only to blame Calvin for considering and styling them laymen. He expresses a decisive opinion, that the Elders spoken of by Paul, in this place, were ecclesiastical men, set apart by ecclesiastical rites, and devoted to ecclesiastical duties; but they did not preach,. And he explicitly acknowledges that Ambrose, in the fourth century, speaks of such Elders as having existed long before his day. It is worthy of remark, that the same learned Romanist, in another work, not only avows, in the most distinct manner, his belief in the apostolic appointment of non-preaching Elders, and quotes 1 Timothy 5:17, in support of his opinion; but he also refers to Jerome, and Augustine, as witnesses to the same fact.[17] The, opinion of the learned Professor Whitaker, a divine of the Church of England, who flourished in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, as to the true meaning, of 1 Timothy 5:17, was given, at length, in a preceding page. The same distinguished divine, in writing against Dury) expresses himself thus, concerning the office under consideration. "Art thou so ignorant as not to know that in the Church of Christ there ought to be Elders who should devote themselves to the work of government alone, and not to the administration of the word or sacraments, as we are taught in 1 Timothy 5:17?"[18] To these testimonies might be added many more, from learned men of the samedistinguished character with those already mentioned, and to the same effect. Chemnitius, of Germany; Salmasius, of Holland; Marloratus, and Danaeus, of France; Hemmingius. of Denmark,[19]-with a long list of similar names, might all be cited as warm advocates of the class of Elders under consideration, and almost all of them decisive advocates of its divine authority. Nor are these individual suffrages, though numerous and unequivocal, all that can be alleged in favor of our cause. The great body of the Protestant Churches, when they came to organize their several systems in a state of separation from the Papacy, and from each other, differing, as they did, in many other respects, were almost unanimous in adopting and maintaining the office of Ruling Elder. Instead of this office being confined, as many appear to suppose, to the ecclesiastical establishments of Geneva and Scotland, it was generally introduced, with the Reformation, by Lutherans as well as Calvinists; and is generally retained to the present day, in almost all the Protestant Churches, excepting that of England. Those of France, Germany, Holland, Switzerland, &c., received this class of Elders early, and expressly represented them in their public, Confessions, as founded on the word of God. It is probably safe to affirm, that, at the period of the Reformation, more than three-fourths of the whole Protestant world declared in favor of this office, not merely as expedient but as warranted by Scripture, and as necessary to the order and edification of the Church. Does all this, it may be confidently asked, look like the office in question being a mere Genevan innovation? How shall we reconcile with this extraordinary position, the undoubted fact, that Lutherans and Reformed, in every part of Europe; those who never saw Calvin as well as those who were within the sphere of his aquaintance and influence; nay, some of those who died before the illustrious Reformer of Geneva ever appeared at all either as a writer or preacher;-are found among the decisive zealous advocates of the office in question, and quoting, as of conclusive authority, in its favor, the principal passages of Scripture, and the principal Father, relied on by Presbyterians to establish its Apostolical warrant, and its actual existence in the early ages of the ancient Church? Truly, it is difficult to conceive how any one, who seriously and impartially weighs these facts, can resist the impression, that an Institution, in behalf of which so many eminently learned and pious men, of different and distant countries, without concert with each other, and without any common interest to serve, in reference to this matter, have so remarkably concurred in opinion, must have some solid foundation, both in the inspired volume, and in the nature and necessities of the Church. FOOTNOTES 1.This quotation from Zuingle, is taken from the Politicae Ecclesiasticae of Voetius, in which it is cited for the same purpose as here; as copy of the works of the Swiss Reformer not being at present within the reach of the writer of the Essay. 2.P. Martyris Loci Communes. Class. iv. Cap. 1. Sect. 2. 3.It is worthy of notice here that although a Superintendent was regarded by A Lasco as one who had the inspection of several congregations; yet "he was greater than his brethren only in respect of his greater trouble and care, not having more authority than the other Elders, either as to the Ministry of the word and sacraments, or as to the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, to which he was subject equally with the rest." 4.See M’CRIE’s Life of Knox, Vol. i. p. 392-396. See also, GISBERTI VOETTI Politicae Ecclesiasitcae. Tom. i. 420-422. See also, Forma et Ratio totius Ecclesiasticae Ministerii EDVARDI SECTI in Peregrinorum, maxime Germanorum Eccles. Also, De Ordinatione Ecclesiarum Peregrinarum in Anglia. Epist. Dedicat. et. p. 649. 5.PEIRCE’s Vindication of the Dissenters, p. 23. BAXTER’s Treatise of Episcopacy, part. ii. p. 112. Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, ex authoritate Regis, Hen. viii. et. Edv. vi. 4to. 1640. 6.Defense against Cartwright, p. 638, 651. 7.See Bishop RANDOLPH’s Enchiridion Theologicum. Vol. i. 326, 327. Third Edition. 8.URSINI Corpus Doctrinae. Par. iii. p. 721. 9.SZEGEDENI Loci Communes. p. 197. Edit. quint. folio-- Basil, 1608. 10.Cent. iii. cap. vii. p. 151. 11.Ecclesiastici, sive de nat. et administrat. Ecclesiae &c Lib. ii. Cap. 2, 3, 4. 12.See G. VOETII Polit. Eccles. Par. ii. Lib. ii. Tract. iii. 13.ZANCHII Opera. Tom. iv. In Quartum Praeceptum, p. 727. 14.CARTWRIGHT’s Commentary on the New Testament -- Against the Rhemists. 15.Second Reply. Part Second, p. 44. 4to. 1577. 16.Works. p. 352, 342. fol. 1612. 17.ESTII Sententiarum Commentaria. Lib. iv. Par. 2. Sect. 21. 18.Contra Duraeum, Lib. ix. p. 807. 19.See these writers, as well as a number of others, referred to in the Politicae Ecclesiasticae of Voetius. Par. ii. Lib. ii. Tract. iii. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 24: 03.07. TESTIMONY OF EMINENT DIVINES SINCE THE TIME OF THE REFORMERS ======================================================================== CHAPTER VII. TESTIMONY OF EMINENT DIVINES SINCE THE TIME OF THE REFORMERS. While we justly attach so much importance to the persons and services of the Reformers, and recur with the deepest reverence to their opinions, we owe scarcely less respect to the judgment of a number of other men, who have lived since their time, and of whom the world was not worthy. Men whose testimony can never be quoted but with veneration, and whose characters give an ample pledge of research at once profound and honest. To the decision of a few of these illustrious men on the subject before us, the attention of the reader is respectfully requested. The decisive opinion of Dr. Owen, undoubtedly one of the greatest divines that ever adorned the British nation, in favor of the scriptural warrant of the office of Ruling Elder, was given in a preceding section, and need not now be repeated. I may, however, add, that the more weight ought to be attached to this opinion on account of Dr. Owen’s ecclesiastical connexions, which, as is well known, were by no means adapted to give him a bias on the side of Presbyterian order. The venerable and eminently pious Richard Baxter, was no Presbyterian. Yet he expresses himself in the following very unequivocal language, on the subject under consideration. "When I plead, that the order of subject Presbyters, (or lay-Elders,) was not instituted in Scripture times, and consequently that it is not of divine institution, I mean, that, as a distinct office, or species of Church ministers, it is not a divine institution, nor a lawful institution of man; but that, among men in the same office, some might, prudentially, be chosen to an eminency of degree, as to the exercise; and that according to the difference of their advantages, there might be a disparity in the use of their authority and gifts, I think was done in Scripture times, and might have been after, if it had not then. And my judgment is, that, ordinarily, every particular Church (such as our parish Churches are) had more Elders than one, but not such store of men of eminent gifts, as that all these Elders could be such. But as if half a dozen of the most judicious persons of this parish were ordained to be Elders, of the same office with myself; but because they are not equally fit for public preaching, should most employ themselves in the rest of the oversight, consenting that the public preaching lie most upon me, and that I be the moderator of them, for order in circumstantials. This I think was the true Episcopacy and Presbytery of the first times."[1] Although it may be doubted whether this venerable man be correct in his whole view of this subject; yet it will be observed by every attentive reader, that in maintaining the existence of a plurality of Elders in each Church, in primitive times, and that a great part of these Elders were not, in fact, employed in preaching, but in inspecting and ruling, he concedes every thing that can be deemed essential in relation to the office which we are considering. The Puritan Congregationalists of England, about the year 1605, in the summary of their Faith and Order, entitled, English Puritanism, drawn up by the venerable Mr. Bradshaw, translated into Latin for the benefit of the foreign Protestants, by the learned Dr. Ames, and intended to express the sense of the general body of the Puritans, speak thus on the subject of Ruling Elders. "Since even in the best constituted Churches, they know that not a few enormous offences will arise, which, if not timely met, will do injury both to those who believe, and those who are inquiring; while, at the same time, they see that the authority of a single person in a parish, resembling the papal, is contrary to the will of Christ: they think, as the case itself requires, and as appointed of God, that others also should be selected from the Church, as officers, who may be associated with the ministers in the spiritual government." These are inspectors, epitimhtai, a kind of censors, whose duty it is, together with the ministers of the word, as well to watch over the conduct of all the brethren as to judge between them. And they think that this office is instituted, that each may take the more heed to himself and his ways, while the ministers enjoy more leisure for study and devotion, and obtain, through the assistance of their co-adjutors, a more accurate view of the state of the flock; since it is the peculiar duty of the inspectors to be always watchful over the manners and conduct of all the members of the Church." "To this office they think that none should be preferred, but men very eminent for gravity and prudence, established in the faith; of tried integrity; whose sanctity of life and upright example are well known to the whole society." "In the choice of these Elders, respect should always be had to their outward circumstances. They should be able to support themselves in some respectable manner; though it will not be an objection to them that they pursue some mechanical art, provided they be morally qualified."[2] Nor were these venerable men the only Independents who declared, in the most decisive manner, in favor of this class of officers. The celebrated Dr. Thomas Goodwin, one of the Westminster Assembly of divines, and who is styled by Anthony A. Wood, a very "Atlas and Patriarch of Independency," is well known to have been one of the most learned and influential Independents of the seventeenth century, and, one of the most voluminous and instructive writers of his class. In his "Church Order Explained in a way of catechism," the following passage occurs:-"What sort of Bishops hath God set in his Church?" Answer, Two; some Pastors and Teachers; some Ruling Elders, under two heads; some labor in word and doctrine, and of those, some are Pastors, some Teachers, others RULE ONLY, and labor not in the word and doctrine."-Again; "what is the office and work of the Ruling Elder? Answer, seeing the kingdom of God is not of this world, but heavenly and spiritual, and the government of his kingdom is not lordly, but stewardly and ministerial; and to labor in the ministry of exhortation and doctrine is the proper work of the Pastors and Teachers; it remaineth, therefore, to be the office and work of the Ruling Elders to assist the Pastors and Teachers in diligent attendance to all other aids of rule besides exhortation and doctrine, as becometh good stewards of the household of God. As, first, to open and shut the doors of God’s house, by admission of members, by ordination of officers, by excommunication of notorious and obstinate offenders. Secondly, to see that none live in the Church inordinately, without a calling, or idle in their calling. Thirdly, to prevent and heal offences, whether in life or doctrine, that might corrupt their own Church, or other Churches. Fourthly, to prepare matters for the Church’s consideration and to moderate the carriage of all matters in the Church assemblies. Finally, to feed the flock of God, by a word of admonition, and, as they shall be called to visit and pray with their sick brethren. The ground of all this is laid down in Romans 12:8 where the Apostle, besides him who exhorteth and teacheth, maketh mention of another officer, who ruleth with diligence, and is distinct from the Pastors and Teachers, and that is the sum of his work to rule with diligence. Thus you see the whole duty of these Ruling Elders, and how they are to assist the Pastors and Teachers in all other acts of rule besides word and doctrine. Use 1. From hence observe the great bounty of God unto Pastors and Teachers, that God hath not left them alone in the Church, as Martha complains to Christ that Mary had left her alone to serve: the ministers of the Church have no such cause to complain: for, as he gave the Levites to the Priests, to help them in their service, so hath he given Ruling Elders to such as labor in the word and doctrine, that they might have assistance from them in ruling the Church of God. Use 2. It may serve to answer a cavil that some have against this office, who say, that, if God hath given these officers to the Church, he would then have set down the limits of these officers, and not have sent them forth with illimited power. To which it is answered, that their power is strongly limited, as a stewardly or ministerial power and office. It is the power of the keys, which Christ hath expressed in his word, and it consisteth in those things that have been spoken of God’s house, to open and shut the doors of God’s house, by admission of members, &c. This is such a rule as is no small help to the spirits and hearts of those who labor in doctrine; and no small help it is also to the whole Church of God; and when they are wanting, many evils will grow, and those without the possibility of redress and amendment, much idleness, much confusion, many offences. Though other ministers have been in the Church, we may see how much, in the want of these officers, the Churches have been corrupted."[3] The character of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, one of the most learned and pious Fathers of New-England, and a distinguished advocate of Independency, is too well known to require remark. In his work entitled "A Survey of Church Discipline," &c., he speaks thus of the office under consideration:-"We begin with tile Ruling Elder’s place, for that carries a kind of simplicity with it. There be more ingredients required to make up the office of Pastor and Doctor, and therefore we shall take leave to trade in the first, quo simplicius ac prius. That there is such an office and officer appointed by Christ, as the Scriptures are plain to him, whose spirit and apprehension is not possessed and forestalled with prejudice. The first argument we have from Romans 12:7, which gives in witness to this truth, where all these officers are numbered and named expressly. The second argument is taken from 1 Corinthians 12:28. The scope of the place, and the Apostle’s intendment is, to lay open the several offices and officers that the Lord hath set in his Church, and so many chief members, out of which the Church is constituted as an entire body." And, after making some other remarks for the right discovery of the Apostle’s proceeding and purpose, he adds:-"From which premises, the dispute issues thus. As Apostles, Prophets and Teachers are distinct, so are Helps and Governments distinct: for the Spirit puts them in the same ranks, as having a parity of reason which appertains to them all. But they were distinct offices, and found in persons as distinct officers, as verse 30- Are all Apostles? Are all Teachers? Therefore, the same is true of Governors. A third argument is taken from the famous place, 1 Timothy v. 17 which is full to our purpose in hand, and intended by the Holy Spirit of the Lord, to make evident the station and office of Ruling Elders, unto the end of the world."[4] The praise of the Rev. John Cotton, one of the most distinguished of the first ministers of New-England, was in all the Churches, in his time. In a small work, entitled, "Questions and Answers on Church Government, begun 25th Nov. 1634," the following passages occur. "Quest. What sorts of ministers or officers hath God set in his Church? Answer. The ministers and officers of the Church are some of them extraordinary, as Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists; some ordinary, as Bishops and Deacons. Quest. What sorts of Bishops hath God ordained in his Church? Answer. There are three sorts of them, according as there be three sorts of Elders in the Church, though under two heads; some Pastors, some Teachers, some Ruling Elders. That is to say, such Elders as labor in the word and doctrine, and such is rule in the Church of God; 1 Timothy 1:13; 1 Corinthians 12:28; Romans 12:7-8; 1 Timothy 5:17. Quest. What is the work of a Ruling Elder? Answer. Seeing the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but heavenly and spiritual; and the government of his kingdom is not lordly, but stewardly and ministerial; and to labor in the administration of exhortation and doctrine is the proper work of Pastor and Teacher-it remains to be the office of the Ruling Elder to assist the Pastor and Teacher in all other acts of rule besides, as becomes good stewards of the household of God. And therefore, to put instances, as, First, To open and shut the doors of God’s house, by admission of members, by ordination of officers, by excommunication of notorious and obstinate offenders. Secondly, To see that none live in the Church inordinately, without a calling, or idly in their calling. Thirdly, To prevent or heal offences. Fourthly, To prepare matters for the Church’s consideration, and to moderate the carriage of all things in the Church assemblies. Fifthly, To feed the flock of God with the word of admonition, and, as they shall be called, to visit and pray over the sick brethren."[5] The venerable John Davenport, it is well known, held a distinguished place among the early lights of the Massachusetts and Connecticut Churches. In a treatise entitled "The Power of Congregational Churches asserted and vindicated, &c.," although his plan did not require, or even admit, that he should treat expressly and at length on the officers of the Church; yet he repeatedly, and in the most unequivocal manner alludes to the office of Ruling Elder, as belonging to the Church by divine appointment; as altogether distinct from the office of both Teaching Elder and Deacon; and as being of indispensable importance to the edification of the Church.[6] Nor are these the sentiments of detached individuals merely. They were adopted and published, about the same time, by public bodies, in the most solemn manner. In a work entitled Church Government, and Church Covenant discussed, in an answer of the Elders of the several Churches of New- England, to two and thirty questions sent over to them by divers ministers in England, to declare their judgment thereon:" In this treatise, Ruling Elders are spoken of, as of divine institution, and as actually existing, at the time, in the Churches of New-England. The fifteenth question is:-"Whether do you give the exercise of all Church power of government, to the whole Church, or to the Presbyters thereof alone?" To which it is answered:-"We do believe that Christ hath ordained that there should be a Presbytery or Eldership; 1 Timothy 4:14; and that in every Church, Titus 1:5; Acts 14:28; 1 Corinthians 11:28, whose work is to teach and rule the Church by the word and laws of Christ, 1 Timothy 5:17, and unto whom, as teaching and ruling, all the people ought to be obedient, and submit themselves; Hebrews 13:17. And, therefore, a government merely popular, or democratical, (which divines and orthodox writers do so much condemn, in Morillius, and such like,) is far from the practice of these Churches, and, we believe, far from the mind of Christ." The twenty-third question is, "What authority or eminency have your preaching Elders above your sole Ruling Elders; or are they both equal? Answer. It is not the manner of Elders among us, whether Ruling only, or ruling and Teaching also, to strive for authority or pre-eminence one above another.-As for the people’s duty toward their Elders, it is taught them plainly in that place, 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, as also in that of 1 Timothy 5:17; and this word (especially) shews them that, as they are to account all their Elders worthy of double honor, so in special manner their Teaching or Preaching Elders."[7] But there is another testimony of the same class, of still higher authority. In a volume entitled, "The Result of three Synods, held by the Elders, and Messengers of the Churches of Massachusetts Province, New-England," there is abundant evidence to the same effect. These Synods met in 1648, 1662, and 1679: Each of them was called by the General Court, or Legislature of the Province, and the results published by the court, with their sanction. The Synod of 1648, consisting of the divines of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and which drew up what is commonly known as the Cambridge Platform, distinctly recognized the office under consideration as of divine appointment. It speaks as follows, (chapter vii.) "The Ruling Elders office is distinct from the office of Pastor and Teacher. Ruling Elders are not so called to exclude the Pastors and Teachers from ruling; because ruling and government is common to these with the other: whereas attending to teach and preach the word, is peculiar unto the former; Romans 12:7-9; 1 Timothy 5:17; 1 Corinthians 12:27; Hebrews 13:17."- The Synod of 1679 gave its sanction, most unequivocally to the same doctrine; not only by unanimously renewing their approbation of the Platform of 1648, but also by new acts of the most decisive character. Two questions proposed to the Synod of 1679 were, First, "What are the evils that have provoked the Lord to bring his judgments on New-England? Secondly, What is to be done, that so many evils may be removed? In their answer to the second question, the Synod say, "It is requisite that the utmost endeavours should be used, in order to a full supply of officers in the Church, according to Christ’s institution. The defect of these Churches, on this account, is very lamentable; there being, in most of the Churches, only one Teaching officer, for the burdens of the whole congregation to lie upon. The Lord Christ would not have instituted Pastors, Teachers, and Ruling Elders, (nor the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church,) if He had not seen that there was need of them for the good of his people. And, therefore, for men to think they can do well enough without them, is both to break the second Commandment, and to reflect upon the wisdom of Christ, as if he did appoint unnecessary offices in his Church."[8] It may not be improper to add, that this Synod, assembled in consequence of the "General Court of the Colony having called upon all the Churches therein to send their Elders and Messengers, that they might meet in form of a Synod, in order to a most serious inquiry into the questions propounded to them; and that the Result, when proposed, was read once and again, each paragraph being duly and distinctly weighed in `the balance of the sanctuary,’ and then, upon mature deliberation, the whole unanimously voted, as to the substance and scope thereof"[9] It is well known that in the Westminster Assembly of divines there was a small number of learned and zealous Independents, who opposed some of the most prominent features in the Presbyterian form of government with much ardor and pertinacity, and who protracted the debates respecting them for many weeks. But it is equally well known, that all the most able of those divines were warm advocates of the office of Ruling Elder, not only as a useful office, but as of divine institution. The recorded opinion of one of them, the Rev. Dr. Goodwin, has been already stated. No less pointed in maintaining the same opinion, were Messieurs, Bridge, Burroughs, and Nye, forming with Dr. Gooodwin, a majority of the whole number. And, accordingly, in their "Reasons against the Third Proposition concerning Presbyterial government," they admit, that "the Scripture says much of two sorts of Elders, Teaching and Ruling; and in some places so plain, as if of purpose to distinguish them; and, further, that the whole Reformed Churches had these different Elders."[10] The following very explicit extract from the well known work of the learned Herbert Thorndike, (a divine of the Church of England,) on "Religious Assemblies," chapter iv. p. 117, will show his opinion on the subject before us. Speaking of the language of the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 12:28, he says:-"There is no reason to doubt that the men whom the Apostle here calleth doctors, are those of the Presbyters which had the abilities of preaching and teaching the people at their assemblies; that those of the Presbyters that preached not, are here called by the Apostle governments." The following remarks of the Rev. Cotton Mather, well known as an eminent Congregationalist of Massachusetts, and author of the Magnalia Christi Americana, have too much point, and convey too much instruction, to be omitted in this list of testimonies. "There are some who cannot see any such officer as what we call a Ruling Elder, directed and appointed in the word of God; and partly through a prejudice against the office; and partly, indeed chiefly, through a penury of men well qualified for the discharge of it, as it has been heretofore understood and applied, our Churches are now generally destitute of such helps in government. But unless a Church have divers Elders, the Church government must needs become pendantic or popular. And that a Church’s needing but one Elder, is an opinion, CONTRARY NOT ONLY TO THE SENSE OF THE FAITHFUL IN ALL AGES, but also to the LAW OF THE SCRIPTURES, where there can be nothing plainer than Elders who rule well, and are worthy of double honor, though they do not labor in the word and doctrine: whereas, if there were any teaching Elders, who do not labor in the word and doctrine, they would be so far from worthy of double honor, that they would not be worthy of any honor at all. Towards the adjusting of the difference which has thus been in the judgments of judicious men, some essays have been made, and one particularly in such terms as these. Let it be first recognized, that all the other Church Officers are the assistants of the Pastor, who was himself intrusted with the whole care of all, until the further pity and kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, joined other officers unto him for his assistance in it. I suppose none will be so absurd as to deny this at least, that all the Church Officers are to take the advice of the Pastor with them. Upon which I subjoin, that a man may be a distinct officer from his Pastor, and yet not have a distinct office from him. The Pastor may be the Ruling Elder, and yet he may have Elders to assist him in ruling, and in the actual discharge of some things which they are able and proper to be serviceable to him in. This consideration being laid, I will persuade myself, every Pastor among us will allow me, that there is much work to be done for God in preparing of what belongs to the admission and exclusion of Church members; in carefully inspecting the way and walk of them all, and the first appearance of evil with them; in preventing the very beginnings of ill blood among them, and instructing of all from house to house, more privately, and warning of all persons unto the things more peculiarly incumbent on them: in visiting all the afflicted, and informing of, and consulting with the ministers, for the welfare of the whole flock. And they must allow me, that this work is too heavy for any one man; and that more than one man, yea all our Churches, do suffer beyond measure, because no more of this work is thoroughly performed. Moreover, they will acknowledge to me, that it is an usual thing with a prudent and faithful Pastor himself, to single out some of the more grave, solid, aged brethren in his congregation, to assist him in many parts of this work, on many occasions in a year; nor will such a Pastor, ordinarily, do any important thing in his government, without having first heard the counsels of such brethren. In short, there are few discreet Pastors, but what make many occasional Ruling Elders every year. I say, then, suppose the Church, by a vote, recommend some such brethren, the fittest they have, and always more than one, unto the stated assistance of their Pastor, in the Church rule, wherein they may be helps unto him. I do not propose that they should be biennial, or triennial only, though I know very famous Churches throughout Europe have them so. Yea, and what if they should by solemn fasting and prayer be commended unto the benediction of God in what service they have to do? What objection can be made, against the lawfulness? I think none can be made against the usefulness of such a thing. Truly, for my part,-if 1 Timothy 5:1-25 would not bear me out, when conscience, both of my duty and my weakness made me desire such assistance, I would see whether the first chapter of Deuteronomy would not."[11] After these strong attestations in favor of the office of Ruling Elder from the most pious and learned of the early Independents, or Congregationalists, of New-England-it will naturally occur to every reader, as an interesting question, how it came to pass, that Churches which once unanimously held such opinions, laid so much stress on them, and practised accordingly, for about three-fourths of a century, should have, long since, as unanimously, discontinued the office? The first company of emigrants, in 1620, brought a Ruling Elder with them; and the office was universally retained for many years afterwards. Yet, in 1702, when Dr. Cotton Mather published the first edition of his Magnalia, it had been, as would seem, from the quotation just made, in a great measure, laid aside; and before the middle of the eighteenth century, it had entirely disappeared from the Churches of New-England. A well informed and discerning Friend has suggested, that the chief reason of this remarkable fact, is probably to be traced to another fact alluded to in the following extract. In a small volume, printed in Boston, in 1700, and entitled, "The Order of the gospel, professed and practised by the Churches of Christ in Nev-England, &c.;" by Increase Mather, President of Harvard College, and Teacher of a Church in Boston:-In this work, one of the questions discussed is:-"Whether or not our Brethren, and not the Elders of the Churches only, are to judge concerning the qualifications and fitness of those who are admitted into their communion?" In answering it, he says:-"If only Elders have power to judge who are fit to come to the sacrament, or to join to the Churches; then, in case there is but one Elder in a Church, (as there are very few Churches in New-England that have more Elders than one,) the sole power will reside in that one man’s hands."[12] On this passage, the Friend above referred to remarks, "I am inclined to think that he here means Ruling Elders; for, 1. Several Churches (whether in consequence of the recommendation of the Synod of 1679, I do not know) had then two ministers. 2. This question and answer of Dr. I. Mather’s is annexed to a reprint in Boston (now lying before me) of "A Vindication of the divine authority of Ruling Elders in the Church of Christ, asserted by the ministers and Elders met together in a Provincial Assembly, Nov. 2d. 1649, and printed in London, 1650." But whether this was his meaning or not, it is abundantly evident from various other sources, that the Churches of New-England, while they retained the office of Ruling Elder, had but one such Elder at a time, and his business was especially to attend to discipline. The office was, of course, an unwelcome one; and it became more and more difficult to find men willing to assume it." It appears, then, that our excellent brethren, the Puritan Independents, while they zealously maintained the divine warrant and the great importance of the Ruling Elder’s office, misapprehended its real nature, and placed it under an aspect before the Churches evidently adapted to discredit and destroy it. Instead of appointing a plurality of these Ruling Elders, they seldom or never had more than one in each Church; and instead of uniting the Pastor with him, and forming a regular judicial bench for regulating the affairs of the Church, they seemed to have placed each in a sphere entirely separate, and independent of each other; nay, to have made the offices of Teacher and Ruler, wear an appearance of being rivals for influence and power. Certain it is, that the views entertained by each, of his proper department of duty, often, in fact, brought them into collision, and made the situation of the Ruler both uncomfortable and useless. Can it be matter of surprise, that, in these circumstances, the office of Ruling Elder in the congregational Churches of New-England, gained but little favor with the body of the people; that it came to be considered as, at once, odious and useless; would be undertaken by few; and, at length, fell into entire disuse? The testimony of the Rev. Dr. John Edwards, an eminently pious and learned divine of the Church of England, who flourished during the latter half of the seventeenth century, is equally decisive in favor of this office. His language is as follows:- "This office of a Ruling Elder is according to the practice of the Church of God among the Jews, his own people. It is certain that there was this kind of Elders under that economy.-There were two sorts of Elders among the Jews, the Ruling ones, who governed in their Assemblies and Synagogues, and the Teaching ones, who read and expounded the Scriptures. Accordingly, Dr. Lightfoot, in his Harmony of the New Testament, inclines to interpret 1 Timothy 5:17, of the Elders in the Christian congregations, who answer to the lay-Elders in the Jewish Synagogue. For this learned writer, who was well versed in the Jewish customs and practices, tells us, that in every Synagogue among the Jews, there were Elders that ruled chiefly in the affairs of the Synagogue, and other Elders, that labored in the word and doctrine." "And so it was in the Christian Church; there was a mixture of Clergy and Laity in their consults about Church matters, as we see frequently in the Acts of the Apostles. The Christian Church retained this usage, for which they quote St. Augustine’s, 137th Epistle, where he mentions the Clergy and the Elders, and the people. So in his third book against Cresconius, he mentions Deacons and Seniors, that is lay-Elders, for he distinguishes them from other Presbyters. One of his Epistles to his Church in Hippo is thus superscribed, `To the Clergy and the Elders.’ See chapter 56th, in the fore-named book against Cresconius, where he mentions Peregrinus, the Presbyter, and the Elders (Seniores,)[13] And nothing can be plainer than that of St. Ambrose-`Both the Synagogue and afterwards the Church, had their Elders, without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church, &c.’ Further, we read of these Seniors in the writings of Optatus, p. 41, and in the Epistles annexed to him, which the reader may consult. Thus it appears that this was an ANCIENT OFFICE in the Church) and NOT INVENTED BY CALVIN, as some have thought and writ."[14] "And then as to the reason of the thing, there should be no ground of quarrelling with this office in the Church, seeing it is useful. It was instituted for the ease of the preaching Elders, that they might not be overburdened with business, and that they might more conveniently apply themselves to that employment which is purely ecclesiastical and spiritual. Truly if there was no such office mentioned in the Scripture, we might reasonably wish for such a one, it being so useful and serviceable to the great purposes of religion. What can be more desirable than that there should be one or more appointed to observe the conversation of the flock, in order to the exercising of discipline. The Pastor himself cannot be supposed to have an eye on every one of his charge; and, therefore, it is fitting, that those who are fellow-members, and daily converse with one another; and, therefore, are capable of acquainting themselves with their manners and behaviour, there should be chosen these Elders I am speaking of, to inspect the carriage and department of the flock."[15] The judgment of the Rev. Dr. Jerome Kromayer, a very learned Lutheran divine, and Professor of Divinity in the University of Leipsic, who lived in the seventeenth century, is very decisive in favor of the apostolical institution of Ruling Elders. "Of Presbyters, or Elders," says he, "there were formerly two kinds, those who taught, and those who exercised the office of rulers in the Church. This is taught in 1 Timothy 5:17; Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine. The latter were the same as our Ministers; the, former, were like the members of our Consistories.[16] A similar testimony may be adduced from Frederick Baldwin, another distinguished Lutheran divine and Professor, of the same century, who is no less decisive in favor of the class of officers under consideration.[17] The celebrated John Casper Suicer, an eminently learned German divine and Professor, in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, after speaking particularly of Teaching Presbyters or Elders, in the first place, proceeds to speak of another class of Elders, who, (he says,) "chosen from among the people, (or laity,) are united with the Pastors, or Ministers of the Word, that they may be guardians of the discipline of the Church. To these the Apostle Paul refers in 1 Timothy 5:17, where, by the Elders who labor in the word and doctrine, he evidently understands that class of Elders of which we have spoken in the preceding section: and by those who rule well, he plainly refers to the class of which we now speak. For if he had intended to speak of only one class, why did be add, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine? This class are also designated by the term proistamenous, in Romans xii. 8, and by the term kubernhseis, in 1 Corinthians 12:29."[18] The very explicit testimony of Dr. Whitby, of the Church of England, was produced in a preceding chapter, when we were discussing the scriptural evidence in favor of the office under consideration. It need not, therefore, here be repeated, excepting simply to remind the reader of its decisive character. The concessions also of Bishop Fell, the Rev. Mr. Marshall, and the celebrated Mr. Dodwell, of the same Church, will also, in this connexion, be borne in mind. They may be found in the fourth chapter, in connexion with the testimony from the Fathers. The pious and excellent Dr. Watts, though not a Presbyterian, must be considered as indirectly doing homage to this part of the Presbyterian system, when he says, (in his Treatise on the Foundation of the Christian Church, p. 125,) "If it happens that there is but one Minister or Presbyter in a Church, or if the ministers are young men of small experience in the world, it is useful and proper that some of the eldest, gravest, and wisest members be deputed, by the Church, to join with and assist the ministers in the care and management of that affair, (the admission and exclusion of members.") The Rev. Dr. Doddridge, universally known as an eminently learned and pious divine of England, of the Independent denomination, in reference to the office in question speaks thus:-"It seems to be solidly argued, from 1 Timothy 5:17, that there were, in the primitive Church, some Elders, who did not use to preach. Nothing very express is said concerning them: only it seems to be intimated, James 5:14, that they prayed with the sick. It may be very expedient, even on the principles of human prudence, to appoint some of the more grave and honorable members of the society to join with the Pastor in the oversight of it, who may constitute a kind of council with him, to deliberate on affairs in which the society is concerned, and prepare them for being brought before the Church for its decision, to pray with the sick, to reconcile differences, &c."[19] The same distinguished writer, in his Commentary on 1 Timothy 5:17, has the following remark:-"Especially they who labor, &c. This seems to intimate that there were some who, though they presided in the Church, were not employed in preaching. Limborch, indeed, is of opinion that kopiwntes signifies those who did even fatigue themselves with their extraordinary labors, which some might not do, who yet, in the general, presided well, supposing preaching to be a part of their work. But it seems to me much more natural to follow the former interpretation." The celebrated Professor Neander, of Berlin, was mentioned in a preceding chapter, as probably, the most profoundly learned Christian antiquarian now living. In addition to the quotation from him presented in that chapter, the following, from the same work, is worthy of notice. "That the name episkopos was of the same signification with presbuteros, is manifest from those places in the New Testament where these words are exchanged the one for the other; Acts 20:17, Acts 20:28; Titus 1:5, Titus 1:7; and from those passages where, after the office of Bishop that of Deacon is mentioned; so that no other office can be imagined between them. If the name episkopos had been used to distinguish any of these Elders from the rest as a ruler in the Church Senate, a primus inter pares, this use of it interchangeably with presbuteros would not have obtained." "These Presbyters, or Bishops, had the oversight of the whole Church, in all its general concerns; but the office of teaching was not appropriated exclusively to them; for, as we have above remarked, all Christians had a right to speak in their meetings for the edification of the members. It does not follow from this, however, that all the Church members were capable of giving instruction: and it is important to distinguish a faculty for instruction which was under the command of an individual, from the miraculous and sudden impulse of inspiration, as in prophesy, and the gift of tongues; and which might be bestowed upon those not remarkably favored by natural gifts. The care of the Churches, the preservation and extension of pure evangelical truth, and the defence of it against the various forms of error, which early appeared, could not be left entirely to depend upon these extraordinary and often transient impulses The weakness of human nature to which was committed the treasure of the gospel, as in "earthen vessels," seemed to render it necessary that there should be, in every Church, some possessed of the natural endowments necessary to instruct their brethren in the truth, to warn and exhort them against error, and lead them forward in the way of life. Such endowments presuppose a previous course of instruction, clearness and acuteness of thought, and a power to communicate their ideas; and when these were present, and the Spirit of God was imparted to animate and sanctify, the man became possessed of the charisma didiaskalias Those possessed of this charisma were, on this account, calculated for all the purposes above alluded to, without excluding the remainder from exercising the gift imparted to them, of whatever kind it might be. On this account, the charisma didaskalias, and the situation of teachers, (didaskaloi) who were distinguished by this gift, was represented as something entirely distinct and peculiar. (1 Corinthians 12:28; 1 Corinthians 14:6; Ephesians 4:11) All members of a Church could, at times, speak before their brethren, either to call upon God, or to praise him, when so inclined; but only a few were didaskaloi, in the full sense of that term." "It is very clear, too, that this talent for teaching, was different from. that of governing, (i.e. charisma kubernhsews) which was especially necessary for him who took his seat in the Council of the Church, that is for a presbuteros or episkopos. One might possess the knowledge of external matters-the tact, the Christian prudence necessary for this duty, without the mental qualities so peculiarly desirable in a teacher. In the first apostolic Church, from which every thing like mere arbitrary arrangements concerning rank were very distant, and all offices were looked upon only as they promised the attainment of the great end of the Christian faith, the offices of teacher and ruler, didaskalos and poimhn were separated. For this distinction, see Romans 12:7-8. In noticing this well defined distinction, we may be led to the opinion, that originally, those called, by way of preference, teachers, did not belong to the class of rulers, or overseers. Also, it is not clearly proved that they did always belong to the class of presbuteroi. Only this is CERTAIN-that it was considered as desirable that, AMONG THE RULERS THERE SHOULD BE THOSE CAPABLE OF TEACHING ALSO. When it is enjoined upon the Presbyters in general, as in the farewell of Paul to the Church of Ephesus, (Acts 20:1-38) to watch over the Church and preserve its doctrine pure, it does not necessarily follow that the duty of teaching, in its strict sense, was insisted on; but rather a general superintendence of the affairs of that body. But when, in the Epistle to Titus, it is demanded in an episkopos that he not only `hold fast the form of sound words’ in his private capacity, but that he should be able to strengthen others therein; to overcome opposers, and `convince gainsayers,’ it seems to be implied that he should possess the `gift of teaching.’ This must have been, in many situations of the Churches, exposed as they were to errors of every kind, highly desirable. And on this account, in 1 Timothy 5:17, those among the presbuteroi, who united the gift of teaching (didaskalia) with that of governing, (kubernhsis) were to be especially honored. This distinction of the two gifts shows that they were not constantly or necessarily united."[20] The same writer says:-"We find another office in the apostolic times-that of Deacons. The duties of this office were from the first only external, (Acts vi.,) as it seems to have taken its rise for the sole purpose of attending to the distribution of alms. The care of the poor, however, and of the sick, and many other external duties were, in process of time, imposed upon those in this station. Besides the Deacons, there were also Deaconesses appointed, who could have free access to the female part of the Church, which was, on account of the peculiar manners of the East, denied, to a great extent, to men. Here the female had an opportunity of exercising her powers for the extension of the true faith, without overstepping the bounds of modesty and propriety, and in a field otherwise inaccessible. It was their duty, too, as experienced Christian mothers, to give advice and support to the younger women, as seems to have been the case from Tertullian, De Virgin. Veland. c. 9."[21] Only one authority more shall be adduced on this subject, and that shall be from the pen of our venerable and eloquent countryman, the Rev. Dr. Dwight, whose character for learning, talents, and piety, needs no attestation from the writer of this Essay. Though himself a Congregationalist, and without any other inducement to declare in favor of Ruling Elders, than that which the force of truth presented, he expresses himself concerning their office in the following unequivocal terms:-"Ruling Elders are, in my apprehension, SCRIPTURAL OFFICERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH; and I cannot but think our DEFECTION, with respect to these officers, from the practice of the first settlers of New-England, an ERROR IN ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT."[22] This array of witnesses might be greatly extended, were it proper to detain the reader with further extracts. But it is presumed that those which have been produced are abundantly sufficient. It will be observed that no Presbyterian has been cited as an authority in this case. The names, indeed, of multitudes of that denomination, might have been produced, equal to any others that can be shown on the catalogue of piety, talents, and learning. But the testimony of more impartial witnesses may be preferred. Recourse has been had, then, to those who could not possibly have been swayed by a Presbyterian bias. And a sufficiency of such has been produced, it is hoped, to make a deep impression on candid minds. Romanists, Protestant Episcopalians, Lutherans and Independents, have all most remarkably concurred in vindicating an office, the due admission and scriptural use of which are, perhaps, of more importance to the best interests of the Church of God, than this, or any other single volume can fully display. FOOTNOTES 1.Disputations of Church government. -- Advertisement, p. 4, 5, 4to. 1659. 2.NEAL’s History of the Puritans, Vol. i. p. 449. 4to. Edit. 3.Church Order Explained, &c, page 16, 19, 22, to be found in the 4th Vol. of his Works, four vols. fol. London, 1697. 4.Survey, &c, part ii. p. 6. 8. 10. 11. 4to. London, 1648. 5.A Treatise, 1. Of Faith. 2. Twelve Fundamental Articles of Christian Religion. 3. A Doctrinal Conclusion. 4. Questions and Answers on Church Government. -- p. 20, 21. 6.The power of Congregational Churches, &c p. 56. 81. 94. 115. 12mo. London, 1672. 7.The Power of Congregational Churches, &c p. 47. 48. 76. 8.Result of Three Synods, &c, p. 109. 9.Preface, p. 5. 6. 10.Reasons, &c. p. 3. 40. 11.Magnalia, &c Book v. Part ii, p. 206, 207. octavo edition 1820. 12.Order of the Gospel, &c. p. 25. 13.It will not escape the notice of the discerning reader that these testimonies from Augustine, Ambrose, and Optatus, which some have ventured, very unceremoniously, to treat with contempt, when brought forward on this subject, are regarded by this very learned Episcopalian, as evidence of the most conclusive character. 14.The old and hacknied allegation, which has been the theme of high-toned Episcopalians and Independents for more than two hundred years, that Calvin invented and first introduced Ruling Elders, it will be observed is confidently rejected by this truly learned Episcopal Divine, who, from his ecclesiastical connexion, cannot be supposed to have had any other inducement to adopt the opinion which he has expressed, than his love of truth. 15.Theologica Reformata, Vol. i. Ninth Article of the Creed, p. 526, 528. 16.Historia Ecclesiastica, auctore HIERONYMO KROMAYERO, D.D.S.S.T.D. in Acad. Leips. 4to. p. 59. 17.FRED. BALDUINI Institut. Ministrorum Verbi. Cap. 10. 18.SUICERI Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, Art. presbuteros 19.Lectures on Divinity, Proposition 150 Scholium 5th. 20.It is worthy of notice that this profound ecclesiastical historian, in another place, quotes Hilary (Ambrose) as speaking of the Ruling Elders, in the Synagogue, and in the Church, and interprets him as plainly teaching the distinction here made between teaching and ruling Elders, substantially as we have done in a preceding chapter. 21.Kirchengeschichte 22.Theology Explained and Defended, Vol. iv. p. 399. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 25: 03.08. RULING ELDERS ABSOLUUTELY NECESSARY IN THE CHURCH ======================================================================== CHAPTER VIII. RULING ELDERS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY IN THE CHURCH. By this is meant, that the laws which Christ has appointed for the government and edification of his people, cannot possibly be executed without such a class of officers in fact, whatever name they may bear. But that which is the necessary result of a divine institution, is of equal authority with the institution itself. All powers or instruments really indispensable to the faithful and plenary execution of laws which an infinitely wise Governor has enacted must be considered as implied in those laws, even should they not be formally specified. Now, all serious impartial readers of the Bible believe, that besides the preaching of the gospel, and the administration of the sacraments, there is very much to be done for promoting the order, purity, and edification of the Church, by the maintenance of a scriptural discipline. They believe that the best interest of every ecclesiastical community requires, that there be a constant and faithful inspection of all the members and families of the Church; that the negligent be admonished; that wanderers be reclaimed; that scandals be removed; that irregularities be corrected; that differences be reconciled; and every proper measure adopted to bind the whole body together by the ties of Christian purity and charity. They consider it as vitally important that there be added to the labors of the Pulpit, those of teaching "from house to house," visiting the sick, conversing with serious inquirers, catechising children, learning as far as possible the character and state of every member, even the poorest and most obscure, of the flock, and endeavoring, by all scriptural means, to promote the knowledge, holiness, comfort and spiritual welfare of every individual. They believe, in fine, that none ought to be admitted to the communiion of the Church, without a careful examination in reference to their knowledge, orthodoxy, good moral character, and hopeful piety; that none ouoht to be permitted to remain in the bosom of the Church, without maintaining, in some tolerable degree, a character proper for professing Christians; that none ought to be suspended from the enjoyment of Church privileges but after a fair trial; and that none should be finally excommunicated from the covenanted family of Christ, without the most patient inquiry, and every suitable effort to bring them to repentance and reformation. It is no doubt true, that the very suggestion of the necessity and importance of discipline in the Church is odious to many who bear the Christian name. The worldly and careless portion of every Church consider the interposition of ecclesiastical inspection and authority in reference to the lives and conversation of its members, as officious and offensive meddling with private concerns. They would much rather retain their external standing, as proffesors of religion, and, at the same time, pursue their unhallowed pleasures without control. They never wish to see a minister, as such, but in the Pulpit; or any Church officer in any other place than his seat in the sanctuary. To such persons, the entire absence of the class of officers for which we are pleading, together with the exercise of all their appropriate functions, would be matter rather of felicitation than regret. Hence the violent opposition made to the introduction of Ruling Elders into the Church of Geneva, by the wordly and licentious part of her members. And hence the insuperable repugnance to the establishment of sound and scriptural discipline manifested so repeatedly, and to this day, by some of the largest national Churches of Europe. But I need not say to those who take their views of the Christian Church and its real prosperity, from the Bible, and from the best experience, that enlightened, and faithful discipline is, not only important, but absolutely essential to the purity and edification of the body of Christ. It ought to be regarded as one of the most precious means of grace, by which offenders are humbled, softened, and brought to repentance; the Church purged of unworthy members; offences removed; the honor of Christ promoted; real Christians stimulated and improved in their spiritual course, faithful testimony borne against error and crime and the professing family of Christ made to appear holy and beautiful in the view of the world. Without wholesome discipline, for removing offences, and excluding the corrupt and profane, there may be an assembly, but there cannot be a Church. The truth is, the exercise of a faithful watch and care over the purity of each other in doctrine, worship, and life, is one of the principal purposes for which the Christian Church was established, and on account of which it is highly prized. by every enlightened believer. And, I have no doubt, it may be safely affirmed, that a large part of all that is holy in the Church, at the present day, either in faith or practice, may be ascribed, under God, as much to sound ecclesiastical discipline, as to the faithful preaching of the gospel. And if the maintenance of discipline be all important to the interests of true religion, it is a matter of no less importance that it be conducted with mildness, prudence, and wisdom. Rashness, precipitancy, undue severity, malice, partiality, popular fury, and attempting to enforce rules which Christ never gave, are among the many evils which have too often marked the dispensation of authority in the Church, and not unfrequently defeated the great purpose of discipline. To conduct it aright, is, undoubtedly, one of the most delicate and arduous parts of ecclesiastical administration; requiring all the piety, judgment, patience, gentleness, maturity of counsel, and prayerfulness which can be brought to bear upon the subject. Now the question is, by whom shall all these multiplied, weighty and indispensable services be performed? Besides the arduous work of public instruction and exhortation, who shall attend to all the numberless and ever-recurring details of inspection, warning and visitation, which are so needful in every Christian community? Will any say, it is the duty of the pastor of each Church to perform them all? The very suggestion is absurd. It is physically impossible for him to do it. He cannot be every where, and know every thing. He cannot perform what is expected from him, and at the same time so watch over his whole flock as to fulfil every duty which the interest of the Church demands. He must "give himself to reading;" he must prepare for the services of the pulpit; he must discharge his various public labors; he must employ much time in private, in instructing and counselling those who apply to him for instruction and advice; and he must act his part in the concerns of the whole Church with which he is connected. Now, is it practicible for anyman, however diligent and active, to do all this, and at the same time to perform the whole work of inspection and government over a congregation of the ordinary size! We might as well expect and demand any impossibility; and impossibilities the great and merciful Head of the Church requires of no man. But even if it were reasonable or possible that a Pastor should, alone, perform all these duties, ought he to be willing to undertake them; or ought the Church to be willing to commit them to him alone? We know that ministers are subject to the same frailties and imperfections with other men. We know, too, that a lovc, of pre-eminence and of power is not only natural to them, in common with others; but that this principle, very early after the days of the Apostles, began to manifest itself as the reigning sin of ecclesiastics, and produced first Prelacy, and afterwards Popery, which has so long and so ignobly enslaved the Church of Christ. Does not this plainly show the folly and danger of yielding undefined power to Pastors alone? Is it wise or safe to constitute one man a despot over a whole Church? Is it proper to intrust to a single individual the weighty and complicated work of inspecting, trying, judging, admitting, condemning, excluding and restoring, without control? Ought the members of a Church to consent that all their rights and privileges in reference to Christian communion, should be subject to the will of a single man, as his partiality, kindness, and favoritism, on the one hand; or his caprice, prejudice, or passion, on the other, might dictate? Such a mode of conducting the government of the Church, to say nothing of its unscriptural character, is, in the highest degree, unreasonable and dangerous. It can hardly fail to exert an influence of the most injurious character, both on the clergy and laity. It tends to nurture in the former, a spirit of selfishness, pride and ambition; and instead of ministers of holiness, love and mercy, to transform them into ecclesiastical tyrants. While its tendency, with regard to the latter, is gradually to beget in them a blind, implicit submission to clerical domination. The ecdesiastical encroachments and despotism of former times, already alluded to, read us a most instructive lesson on this subject. The fact is, committing the whole government of the Church to the hands of Pastors alone, may, be affirmed to carry in it some of the worst seeds of Popery; which, though under the administration of good men, they may not at once lead to palpable mischief, will seldom fail in producing, in the end, the most serious evils, both to those who govern, and those who obey. Accordingly, as was intimated in a preceding chapter, we have no example in Scripture of a Church being comniitted to the government of a single individual. Such a thing was unknown in the Jewish Synagogue. It was unknown in the apostolic age. And it continued to be unknown, until ecclesiastical pride and ambition introduced it, and with it a host of mischiefs to the body of Christ. In all the primitive Churches we find a plurality of "Elders" and we read enough in the early records, in some particular cases, to perceive that these "Elders" were not only chosen by the members of the Church, out of their own number, as their representatatives, to exercise over them the functions of inspection and ruling; but that, whenever they ceased to discharge the duties of their office acceptably, they might be removed from its actual exercise at the pleasure of those by whom they were chosen. Thus plainly evincing, that the constitution of the primitive Church was eminently adapted to guard against ecclesiastical tyranny; and that if that constitution had been preserved, the evils of clerical encroachment would have been avoided. Accordingly, it is remarkable that the pious Ambrose, a venerable Father of the fourth century, quoted in a former chapter, expressly conveys an intimation of this kind, when speaking of the gradual disuse of the office of Ruling Elder. "Which order," says he, "by what negligence it grew into disuse, I know not, unless, perhaps, by the sloth, or rather by the pride of the teachers WHO ALONE WISHED TO APPEAR SOMETHING." "It is a vain apprehension," says the venerable Dr. Owen, "to suppose that one or two teaching officers in a Church, who are obliged to give themselves unto the word and prayer, to labor in the word and doctrine, to preach in and out of season-would be able to take care of, and attend with diligence unto, all those things that do evidently belong unto the rule of theChurch. And hence it is, that Churches at this day do live on the preaching of the word, and are very little sensible of the wisdom, goodness, love and care of Christ in the institution of this rule in the Church, nor are partakers of the benefits of it untot their edification. And the supply which many have hitherto made herein, by persons either unacquainted with their duty, or insensible of their own authority, or cold, if not negligent in their work, doth not answer the end of their institution. And hence it is, that the authority of government, and the benefit of it, are ready to be lost in most Churches. And it is both vainly and presumptuously pleaded, to give countenance unto a neglect of their order, that some Churches do walk in love and peace, and are edified without it; supplying some defects by the prudent aid of some members of them. For it is nothing but a preference of our own wisdom, unto the wisdom and authority of Christ; or at best an unwillingness to make a venture on the warranty of his rule, for fear of some disadvantages that may ensue thereon."[1] If, in order to avoid the evils of the Pastor standing alone in the inspection and government of his Church, it be alledged that the whole body of the Church rnembers may be his auxiliaries in this arduous work; still the diffici.ilties are neither removed nor diminished. For, in the first place, a great majority of all Church members, we may confidently say, are altogether unqualified for rendering the aid to the Pastor which is here contemplated. They have neither the knowledge, the wisdom, nor the prudence necessary for the purpose and to imagine a case of ecclesiastical regimen, in which every weak, childish, and indiscreet individual, who, though serious and well-meaning enough to enjoy the privilege of Christian communion, is wholly unfit to be an inspector and ruler of others, should be associated with the Pastor, in conducting the delicate and arduous work of parochial regulation, is too preposterous to be regarded with favor, by any judicious mind. Can it be believed for a moment, that the all-wise Head of the Church has appointed a form of government for his people in which ignorance, weakness, and total unfitness for the duty assigned them, should always, and almost necessarily, characterize a great majority of those to whom the oversight, and guidance of the Church were committed? Surely this is altogether incredible. And if this consideration possess weight in regard to old and settled Churches, established in countries which have been long favored with the light and order of the Gospel,; how much more to Pagan lands, and to Churches recently gathered from the wilds of Africa, the degraded inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands, or the miserable devotees of Hindoo idolatry? If in the best instructed and best regulated Churches in Christendom, a majority of the members are utterly unqualified to participate in the government of the sacred family; what can be expected of those recent, and necessarily dubious converts from blind heathenism, who must, of course, be babes in knowledge and experience, who are surrounded with ignorance and brutality, and have just been snatched themselves from the same degradation? Surely, if we may say, with propriety, of some nations, who have recently thrown off the chains of slavery, to which they had long been accustomed, that they were not prepared for a republican form of government; with still more confidence can we maintain, that, whoever may be prepared to take part in the government of the Church, the poor novices, in the situation supposed, are totally unqualified. Even if the popular form of ecclesiastical polity could be considered as well adapted to the case of a people of more enlightened and elevated character, which may well be questioned;-it must be pronounced altogether unfit for a Church made up of such materials. Now it is the glory of the Gospel, that it is adapted to all people, and all states of society. Of course, that form of ecclesiastical government which is not of a similar stamp, affords much ground of suspicion that it is not of God, and ought to be rejected. But further; if the greater part of the members of the Church were much better qualified than they commonly are, for co-operating in its government, would their co-operation be likely to be really obtained in a prompt, steady, and faithful manner? All experience. pronounces that it would not. We know that there are few things, in the government and regulation of the Church, more irksome to our natural feelings, than doing what fidelity requires in cases of discipline. When the ministers of religion are called upon to dispense truth, to instruct, to exhort, and to administer sacraments, they engage in that in which we may suppose pious men habitually to delight, and to be always ready to proceed with alacrity. But we may say of the business of ecclesiastical discipline, that it is the "strange work," even of the pious and faithful. It is, in its own nature, an unacceptable and unwelcome employment. To take cognizance of delinquencies in faith or practice; to admonish offenders: to call them, when necessary, before the proper tribunal; to seek out and array proof with fidelity; to drag insidious error, and artful wickedness from their hiding places; and to suspend, or excommunicate from the privileges of the Church, when the honor of religion, and the best interests of the body of Christ, call for these measures;-is painful work to every benevolent mind. It is work in which no man is willing to engage, unless constrained by a sense of duty. Even those who are bound by official obligation to undertake the task are too apt to shrink from it; but where there is no particular obligation lying on any one member of the Church more than another to take an active interest in this work-tbe consequence will probably be, that few will be disposed to engage in the self-denying duty. Where all are equally bound, all may be equally backward, or negligent, without feeling themselves chargeable with any special delinquency. And, what is worthy of notice, those who will be most apt to go forward in this work, and proffer their aid with most readiness, will generally be the bold, the vain, the ardent, the rash, the impetuous;-precisely those who are, of all persons living, the most unfit for such an employment. But even if it were otherwise; if all the members of the Church were equallv forward and active, what might be expected in a religious community, when every member of that community was equally a ruler; and when the most ignorant and childish busy-body among them, might be continually tampering with its government, and fomenting disturbances, with as much potency as the most intelligent and wise? The truth is, in such a community, tranquillity, order and peace could scarcely be expected, long together, to have any place. We could scarcely have a more instructive comment on these remarks than the practice of those Churches which reject Ruling Elders. Our Episcopal brethren reject them. But they are obliged to have their Vestrymen and Church Wardens, who, though no divine warrant is claimed for them, and they are not set apart in the same manner, or formally invested with the same powers with our Ruling Elders, yet they perform many of the same functions, in substance, and are, in fact, official counsellors and helps. True, indeed, these officers are not clothed with the power, and seldom perform any acts, of ecclesiastical discipline, properly so called, yet they may be, and sometimes, perhaps, are, consulted on subjects of this nature. And, where this is not the case, we may say, without impropriety, that, in Churches of that denomination, no discipline is exercised. In the Church of England, as is confessed on all hands, no scriptural discipline exists. The most profligate and vile are not excluded from the communion of the establishment. This is deeply lamented by many of the pious members of that establishment; and at an early period, after the commencement of the Reformation in that country, it was earnestly wished and proposed, as we have seen in a preceding chapter, to introduce Ruling Elders, as a principal means of restoring and maintaining discipline. And although the absence of discipline does not exist, to the same extent, in the Churches of the Protestant Episcopal denomination in the United States; yet, it may be altogether wanting, as to any pure and efficient exercise, in all those Episcopal Churches in which some leading, pious laymen are not habitually consulted and employed in maintaining it. A pious minister, indeed, if that denomination, may and does, conform to his rubrics, in giving the people proper instruction and warning, as to a suitable approach to the communion which he dispenses. But here he is commonly obliged to stop; or, at any rate, does, in practice, usually stop. All efficient inspection of the moral condition of the whole Church, admonishing the careless, bringing back the wanderers, and causing those who persist in error or in vice, to feel the discipline of ecclesiastical correction, is, notoriously, almost unknown in the Churches of the denomination to which we refer. And this deficiency is, manifestly, not owing to the want of intelligent and conscientious piety in many of the ministers of those Churches; but, beyond all doubt, to the entire want of an organization which alone renders the exercise of a faithful and impartial discipline at all practicable. Our Congregational brethren also reject Ruling Elders. Yet it is well known that, while they adopt a form of government which, in theory, allows to every member of the Church an equal share in the exercise of discipline; their most judicious Pastors, warned by painful experience of the troublesome character, and uncertain issues, of popular management, in delicate and difficult cases which involve Christian character,- are careful to have a Committee of the most pious, intelligent and prudent of their Church members, who consider each case of discipline before-hand in private, and prepare it for a public decision; and thus perform, in fact, some of the most important of the duties of Ruling Elders. This is what the venerable Dr. Cotton Mather, doubtless, means when he says, as quoted in a preceding chapter, that "there are few DISCREET Pastors but what make many occasional Ruling Elders every year;" and when he gives it as his opinion, in the same connexion, that without something of this kind, Churches must suffer unspeakably with respect to, discipline. And, where, nothing of this kind is done, the experience of Independent and Congregational Churches, in conducting discipline, it is well known, is often such as is calculated to, give deep and lasting pain to those who love the peace and order of the Church. Strife, tumult and division of the most distressing kind, are often the consequence of attempting to rid the Church of one corrupt member. But perhaps it will be said, let the Pastor habitually call to his aid, in conducting the discipline of the Church, a few of the most judicious and pious of his communicants; those whom he knows to be most conscientious and wise in counsel. But neither is this an adequate remedy. The Pastor may consult such if he please. But he may choose to omit it, and be governed entirely by his own counsels, Or, if he consult any, he may always select his particular friends, who he knows, will encourage and support him in his favorite measures; thus furnishing no real relief in the end. How much better to have a bench of assistant Rulers, regularly chosen by the people, and with whom he shall be bound to take counsel in all important measures. Thus it is that those Churches which reject the class of officers which it is the object of this Essay to recommend, do practically bear witness that it is impossible to conduct discipline in a satisfactory manner, without having a set of individuals, virtually, if not formally, vested with similar powers. Where no such efficient substitute is employed, discipline is either in a great measure neglected; or its maintenance is attended with inconveniencies of the most serious kind. In other words, the opponents of Ruling Elders are obliged either to neglect discipline altogether, or, for maintaining it, to have recourse to auxiliaries of similar character and power, while they deny that there is any divine warrant for them. Now, is it probable, is it credible, that our blessed Lord, and all-wise King and Head of his Church, and his Apostles, guided by his own Spirit, should entirely overlook this necessity, and make no provision for it? It is not credible. We must, then, either suppose, that some such officers as those in question, were divinely appointed; or that means, acknowledged by the practice of all to be indispensable in conducting the best interests of the Church were forgotten or neglected by her divine Head and Lord. Surely the latter cannot be imputed to infinite Wisdom. There are some, however. who acknowledge that there ought to be, and must be, in every Church, in order to the efficient maintenance of discipline, a plurality of Elders. They confess that such a body or bench of Elders was found in the Jewish Synagogue; that a similar Eldership existed in the primitive Church, and that the scriptural government of a Christian congregation cannot be conducted to advantage without it. But they contend that these Presbyters, or Elders, ought all to be of the teaching class; that there is no ground for the distinction between Teaching and Ruling Elders; that every Church ought to be furnished with three or more ministers, all equally authorized to preach, to administer the sacraments and to bear rule. It requires little discernment to see that this plan is wholly impracticable; and that if attempted to be carried into execution, the effect must be, either to destroy the Church, or to degrade, and ultimately to prostrate the ministry. It is with no small difficulty that most Churches are enabled to procure and support one qualified and acceptable minister. Very few would be able to afford a suitable support to two; and none but those of extraordinary wealth, could think seriously of undertaking to sustain three or more. If, therefore, the principle of a plurality of Teaching Elders in each Church were deemed indispensable; and if a regular and adequate training for the sacred office, were also, as now insisted on; and if it were, at the same time, considered as necessary that every minister should receive a competent pecuniary support;-the consequence, as is perfectly manifest, would be, that nineteen out of twenty of our Churches would be utterly unable to maintain the requisite organization, and must, of course, become extinct. Nay, the regular establishment of Gospel ordinance, in Pastoral churches, would be physically possible only in a very few great citiet, or wealthy neighborhoods. Surely this cannot be the system enjoined by that Saviour who said-"to the poor the Gospel is preached." The only remedy for this difficulty would be to reduce the preparation and acquirements for the ministry; to make choice of plain, illiterate men for this office; men of small intellectual and theological furniture; dependant on secular employments for a subsistence; and, therefore, needing little or no support from the Churches which they serve. This is the plan upon which several sects of Christians proceed; and it is easy to see that, upon this plan, the feeblest Churches may have a plurality of such ministers as these, and, indeed, any number of them without being burdened by their pecuniary support. But then, it is equally evident, that the execution of this plan must result in degrading the ministerial character-and in finally banishing all well qualified ministers from the Church. They could no longer be "able ministers of the New Testament-workmen that need not be ashamed." They could no longer "give themselves whollv" to the labors of the sacred office. They could no longer "give themselves to reading," as well as to exhortation and teaching. In short, the inevitable consequence of maintaining, as some do, that there must be a bench, that is, a plurality of Elders, in every Church, for the purpose of inspection and government, as well as of teaching; and, at the same time, that all these Elders must be of the same class,that is, that they must all be equally set apart for teaching and ruling;-cannot fail to be, to bring the ministerial character, and, of course, ultimately, the religion which the ministry is destined to explain and recommend, into general contempt. The Sandemanians, and a few other sects, have, substantially, held the opinion, and made the experiment here stated: and invariably, it is believed, with the result which has been represented as unavoidable. To obviate these difficulties, some have said, Let Deacons, whom all agree to be scriptural officers, be employed to assist the Pastor in conducting the government and discipline of the Church. This profit together with some principles connected with it, will be considered in a subsequent chapter. All that it is deemed necessary or proper to say in this place, is, that an entirely different sphere of duty is assigned to Deacons in the New Testament. No hint is given of their being employed in the government of the Church. For this proposal, therefore, there is not the shadow of a divine warrant. Besides, if we assign to Deacons the real office, in other words, the appropriate functions of Ruling Elders, what is this but granting the thing, and only disputing about the title? If it be granted. that there ought to be a plurality of officers in every Church, whose appropriate duty it is to assist the Pastor in inspecting and ruling the flock of Christ, it is the essence of what is contended for. Their proper title is not worth a contest, except so far as it may be proper to imitate the language of Scripture. If, then, the maintenance of discipline be essential to the purity and edification of the Church; if enlightened, impartial, and efficient inspection and discipline, especially over a large congregation, cannot possibly be maintained by the Pastor alone; if it would be unsafe, and probaby mischievous in its influence on all concerned, to devolve the whole authority and responsibility of conducting the government of a Church on a single individual; if it would, especially, in all probability, essentially injure the clerical character to be thus systematicaUy, made the depository of so much power, without control, and without appeal; if every other mode of furnishing each Church with a plurality of rulers, besides that for which we contend, would either deprive a great majority of our Churches of the means of grace altogether; or, by bringing ministers within their reach, reduce and degrade the ministerial office far below the standard which the Scriptures require:-If these things be so-then we are conducted unavoidably to the conclusion, that such officers as those for which we contend, are absolutely necessary: that, although a Church may exist, and, for a time, may flourish without them; yet, that the best interests of the Church cannot be systematically and steadfastly pursued without those or some other officers of equivalent powers and duties. But all the difficulties which have been supposed, are obviated, and all the advantages referred to, attained, by the plan of employing a judicious class of Ruling Elders in each Church, to assist in counsel and in government. In this plan we have provided a body of grave, pious and prudent men, associated with the Pastor; chosen out of the body of the Church members; carrying with them, in some measure, the feelings and views of their constituents; capable of counselling the Pastor in all delicate and doubtful cases; counteracting any undue influence, or course of measures into which his partiality, prejudice, or want of information might betray him; exonerating him at once from the odium, and the temptation of having all the power of the Church in his own hands; conducting the difficult cases which often arise in the exercise of discipline with the intelligence, calmness, and wisdom, which cannot be expected to prevail in a promiscuous body of communicants; and, in a word, securing to each Church all the principal advantages which might be expected to result from being under the pastoral care of four or five ministers, vested with plenary preaching as well as ruling power; without, at the same time burdening the Church with the pecuniary support of such a number of ordinary Pastors. In a word, the insuperable difficulty of doing without this class of officers, on the one hand; the great and manifest advantages of having them, on the other; and the perfect accordance, of the plan which includes them, with that great representative system, which has pervaded all well regulated society, from its earliest existence, and received the stamp of divine approbation-form a mass of testimony in favor of the office before us, which, independently of other considerations, seems amply sufficient to support its claims. I shall close this chapter with the following extract from Dr. Owen, when speaking of the importance and necessity of the office of Ruling Elders in the Church. "It is evident. " says he, "that neither the purity nor the order, nor the beauty or glory of the Churches of Christ, nor the representation of his own majesty and authority in the government of them, can long be preserved without A MULTIPLICATION OF ELDERS IN THEM, according to the proportion of their respective members, for their rule and guidance. And for want hereof have Churches of old, and of late, either degenerated into anarchy and confusion, their self-rule being managed with vain disputes and jangling, unto their division and ruin; or else given up themselves unto the domination of some prelatical teachers, to rule them at their pleasure, which proved the bane and poison of all the primitive Churches; and they will and must do so in the neglect of this order for the future."[2] We have thus completed our view of the first part of the inquiry before us, viz.: our WARRANT for the office of Ruling Elders. If this office were found in the Old Testament economy;-if it plainly had a place in the apostolic Church;-if a number of the early Fathers evidently recognize its existence in their day;-if the Witnesses for the truth, in the, darkest times, and the great body of the Reformers, sanctioned and retained it as of divine appointment;-if some of the most learned Episcopal and Independent divines, since the Reformation, have borne decisive testimony to this office, as of apostolical authority;-and if some such office be manifestly indispensable to the purity and order of the Church;-we may confidently conclude that our warrant for it is complete. FOOTNOTES 1.True Nature of a Gospel Church, p. 177, 178. 2.OWEN’s True Nature of a Gospel Church, 4to. p. 178, ======================================================================== CHAPTER 26: 03.09. THE NATURE AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICE ======================================================================== CHAPTER IX. THE NATURE AND DUTY OF THE OFFICE Having considered, so much at large, the WARRANT for the office of Ruling Elder, chiefly because there is no part of the subject more contested; we now proceed to other points connected with the general inquiry. And the first of these which presents itself is, the Nature and Duties of the office in question. The essential character of the officer of whom we speak is, that of an Ecclesiastical Ruler. He that ruleth, let him do it with diligence, is the summary of his appropriate functions as laid down in Scripture. The Teaching Elder is, indeed, also a ruler. In addition to this however, he is called to preach the gospel, and administer sacraments. But the particular department assigned to the Ruling Elder is to co-operate with the Pastor in spiritual inspection and government. The Scriptures, as we have Seen, speak not only of "Pastors and Teachers " but also of "governments;"-of "Elders that rule well, but do not labor in the word and doctrine." There is an obvious analogy between the office of Ruler in the Church, and in the civil community. A Justice of the Peace in the latter, has a wide and important range of duties. Besides the function which he discharges when called to take his part on the bench of the judicial court in which he presides, he may be, and often is, employed every day, though less publicly, in correcting abuses, compelling the fraudulent to do justice, restraining, arresting, and punishing criminals, and, in general, carrying into execution the laws, formed to promote public tranquillity and order, which be has sworn to administer faithfully. Strikingly analogous to this, are the duties of the ecclesiastical Ruler. He has no power, indeed, to employ the secular arm in restraining or punishing offenders against the laws of Christ. The kingdom under which be acts, and the authority which he administers, are not of this world. He has, of course, no right to fine, imprison, or externally to molest the most profligate offenders against the Church’s purity or peace; unless they be guilty of what is technically called, "breaking the peace" that is, violating the civil rights of others, and thus rendering themselves liable to the penalty of the civil law. And even when this occurs, the ecclesiastical ruler, as such, has no right to proceed against the offender. He has no other than moral power. He must apply to the civil magistrate for redress, who can only punish for breaking the civil law. Still there is an obvious analogy between his office and that of the civil magistrate. Both are alike an ordinance of God. Both are necessary to social order and comfort. And both are regulated by principles which commend themselves to the good sense and the conscience of those who wish well to social happiness. The Ruling Elder, no less than the Teaching Elder, or Pastor, is to be considered as acting under the authority of Christ, in all that he rightfully does. If the office of which we speak was appointed in the apostolic Church by infinite wisdom; if it be an ordinance of Jesus Christ, just as much as that of the minister of the gospel; then the former, equally with the latter, is Christ’s officer. He has, a right to speak and act in his name; and though elected by the members of the Church, and representing them, in the exercise of ecclesiastical rule; yet he is not to be considered as deriving his authority to rule from them, any more than he who "labors in the word and doctrine" derives his authority to preach and administer other ordinances, from the people who make choice of him as their teacher and guide. There is reason to believe that some, even in the Presbyterian Church, take a different view of this subject. They regard the Teaching Elder as an officer of Christ, and listen to his official instructions as to those of a man appointed by Him, and coming in his name. But with respect to the Ruling Elder, they are wont to regard him as one who holds an office instituted by human prudence alone, and, therefore, as standing on very different ground in the discharge of his official duties, from that which is occupied by the "ambassador of Christ." This is undoubtedly an erroneous view of the subject, and a view which, so far as it prevails, is adapted to exert the most mischievous influence. The truth is, if the office of which we speak be of apostolic authority, we are just as much bound to sustain, honor, and obey the individual who fills it, and discharges its duties according to the Scriptures, as we are to submit to any other officer or institution of our Divine Redeemer. We are by no means, then, to consider Ruling Elders as a mere ecclesiastical convenience, or as a set of counsellors whom the wisdom of man alone has chosen, and who may, therefore, be reverenced and obeyed, as little, or as much, as human caprice may think proper; but as bearing an office of divine appointment,-as the "ministers of God for good" to his Church,-and whose lawful and regular acts ought to command our conscientious obedience. The Ruling Elders of each Church are called to attend to a public and formal, or to a more private sphere of duty. With regard to the first, or the PUBLIC and FORMAL duties of their office, they form, in the Church to which they belong, a bench or judicial Court, called among us the "Church Session," and in some other Presbyterian denominations, the Consistory; both expressions importing a body of ecclesiastical men, sitting and acting together, as the representatives, and for the benefit of the Church. This body of Elders, with the Pastor at their head, and presiding at their meetings, form a judicial assembly, by which all the spiritual interests of the congregation are to be watched over, regulated, and authoritatively determined. Accordingly, it is declared in the ninth chapter of our Form of Government-"The Church Session is charged with maintaining the spiritual government of the congregation; for which purpose they have power to inquire into the knowledge and Christain conduct of the members of the Church; to call before them offenders and witnesses, being members of their own congregation, and to introduce other witnesses, where it may be necessary to bring the process to issue, and when they can be procured to attend; to receive members into the Church; to admonish, to rebuke, to suspend, or exclude from the sacraments, those who are found to deserve censure; to concert the best measures for promoting the spiritual interests of the congregation; and to appoint delegates to the higher judicatories of the Church." This general statement of the powers and duties of the Church Session, it will be perceived, takes in a wide range. Or rather, to speak more properly, it embraces the whole of that authority and duty with which the great Head of the Church has been pleased to invest the governing powers of each particular congregation for the instruction, edification and comfort of the whole body. To the Church Session it belongs to bind and loose; to admit to the conununion of the Church, with all its privileges; to take cognizance of all departure, from the purity of faith or practice; to try, censure, acquit, or excommunicate those who are charged with offences; to consult and determine upon all matters relating to the time, place, and circumstances of worship, and other spiritual concerns; to take order about catechizing children, congregational Fasts or Thanksgiving days, and all other observances, stated or occasional; to correct, as far as possible, every thing that may tend to disorder, or is contrary to edification; and to digest and execute plans for promoting a spirit of inquiry, of reading, of prayer, of order, and of universal holiness among the members of the Church. It is also incumbent on them, when the Church over which they preside is destitute of a Pastor, to take the lead in those measures which may conduce to a choice of a suitable candidate, by calling the people together for the purpose of an election, when they consider them as prepared to make it with advantage. Although, in ordinary cases, the Pastor of the Church may be considered as vested with the right to decide whom he will invite to occupy his pulpit, either when he is present, or occasionally absent; yet, in cases of difficulty or delicacy, and especially when ministers of other denominations apply for the use of the pulpit; it is the prerogative of the Church Session, to consider and decide on the application. And if there be any fixed difference of opinion between the Pastor, and the other members of the Session, in reference to this matter, it is the privilege and duty of either party to request the advice of their Presbytery in the case. In, the Church Session, whether the Pastor be present and presiding or not, every member has an equal voice. The vote of the most humble and retiring Ruling Elder, is of the same avail as that of his Minister. So that no Pastor can carry any measure unless he can obtain the concurrence of a majority of the Eldership. And as the whole spiritual government of each Church is committed to its bench of Elders , the Session is competent to regulate every concern, and to correct every thing which they consider as amiss in the arrangements or affairs of the Church, which admits of correction. Every individual of the Session, is of course, competent to propose any new service, plan, or measure, which he believes will be for the benefit of the congregation, and if a majority of the Elders concur with him in opinion, it may be adopted. If, in any case, however, there should be a difference of opinion between the Pastor and the Elders, as to the propriety or practibility of any measure proposed, and insisted on by the latter, there is an obvious and effectual constitutional remedy. A remedy, however, which ought to be resorted to with prudence, caution and prayer. The opinions and wishes of the Pastor ought, undoubtedly, to be treated with the most respectful delicacy. Still they ought not to be suffered, when it is possible to avoid it, to stand in the way of a great and manifest good. When such an alternative occurs, the remedy alluded to may be applied. On an amicable reference to the Presbytery, that body may decide the case between the parties. And as the members of the Church Session, whether assembled in their judicial capacity or not, are the Pastors Counsellor’s and Colleagues, in all matters relating to the spiritual rule of the Church; so it is their official duty to encourage, sustain and defend him, in the faithful discharge of his duty. It is deplorable, when a minister is assailed for his fidelity, by the profane or the worldly, if any portion of the Eldership, either take part against him, or shrink from his active and determined defence. It is not meant, of course, that they are to consider themselves as bound to sustain him in every thing he may say or do, whether right or wrong; but that, when they really believe him to be faithful, both to truth and duty, they should feel it to be their duty to stand by him, to shield him from the arrows of the wicked, and to encourage him, as far as he obeys Christ. But besides those duties which pertain to Ruling Elders, with the Pastor, in their collective capacity, as a Judicatory of the Church; there are others which are incumbent on them at all times, in the intervals of their judicial meetings, and by the due discharge of which they may be constantly edifying the body of Christ. It is their duty to have an eye of inspection and care over all the members of the congregation; and, for this purpose, to cultivate a universal and intimate acquaintance, as far as may be, with every family in the flock of which they are made "overseers." They are bound to watch over the children and youth, and especially baptized children, with paternal vigilance, recognizing and affectionately addressing them on all proper occasions; giving them, and their parents in reference to them, seasonable counsel, and putting in the Lord’s claim to their hearts and lives as the children of the Church. It is their duty to attend to the case of those who are serious, and disposed to inquire concerning their eternal interest; to converse with them, and, from time to time, to give information concerning them to the Pastor. It is their duty to take notice of, and admonish, in private, those who appear to be growing careless, or falling into habits in any respect criminal, suspicious or unpromising. It is their duty to visit and pray with the sick, as far as their circumstances admit, and to request the attendance of the Pastor on the sick and the dying, when it may be seasonable or desired. It is incumbent on them to assist the Pastor in maintaining meetings for social prayer, to take part in conducting the devotional exercises in those meetings; to preside in them when the Pastor is absent; and, if they are endowed with suitable gifts, under his direction, occasionally to drop a word of instruction and exhortation to the people in those social meetings. If the officers of the Church neglect these meetings, (the importance of which cannot be estimated,) there is every reason to apprehend that they will not be duly honored or attended by the body of the people. It is the duty of Ruling Elders, also, to visit the members of the Church and their families, with the Pastor, if he request it, without him, if he do not; to converse with them to instruct the ignorant; to confirm the wavering; to caution the unwary; to reclaim the wandering; to encourage the timid, and to excite and animate all classes to a faithful and exemplary discharge of duty. It is incumbent on them to consult frequently and freely with their Pastor, on the interests of the flock committed to their charge; to aid him in forming and executing plans for the welfare of the Church; to give him, from time to time such information as he may need, to enable him to perform aright his various and momentous duties; to impart to him, with affectionate respect, their advice; to support him with their influence; to defend his reputation; to enforce his just admonitions; and, in a word, by every means in their power, to promote the comfort, and extend the usefulness of his labors. Although the Church Session is not competent to try the Pastor, in case of his failing into any delinquency, either of doctrine or practice; yet, if the members observe any such delinquency, it is not only their privilege, but their duty, to admonish him, tenderly and respectfully, yet faithfully, in private; and, if necessary, from time to time; and, if the admonition be without effect, and they think the edification of the Church admits and demands a public remedy, they ought to represent the case to the Presbytery, as before suggested in other cases, and request a redress of the grievance. But the functions of the Ruling Elder are not confined to the congregation of which he is one of the rulers. It is his duty at such times, an in such order as as the constitution of the Church requires, to take his seat in the higher judicatories of the Church, and there to exercise his official share of counsel and authority. In every Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, at least as many Ruling as Teaching Elders are entitled to a place; and in all the former, as well as the latter, have an opportunity of exerting an important influence in the great concerns of Zion. Every congregation, whether provided with a Pastor or vacant, is entitled, besides the Pastor, (where there is one,) to be represented by one Ruling Elder, in all meetings of the Presbytery and Synod; and in those bodies, vacant congregations, and those which are supplied with Pastors, are equally represented, each by an Elder, it is manifest that, if the theory of our ecclesiastical constitution be carried into effect, there will always be a greater number of Ruling Elders than of Pastors present. In the General Assembly, according to our constitutional plan, the numbers of each are precisely equal. In these several Judicatories the Ruling, Eider has an equal vote, and the same power, in every respect, with the Pastors. He has the same privilege of originating plans and measures, and of carrying them, provided he can induce a majority of the body to concur in his views; and thus may become the means of imparting his impressions, and producing an influence greatly beyond the particular congregation with which he is connected and, indeed, throughout the bounds of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. This consideration serves to place the nature and the importance of the office in the strongest light. He who bears it, has the interest of the Church, as a spiritual trust, as really and solemnly, though not in all respects to the same extent, committed to him as the Elder who, "labors in the word and doctrine." He not only has it in his power, but is daily called, in the discharge of his official duties, to watch over, inspect, regulate, and edify the body of Christ: to enlighten the ignorant; to admonish the disorderly; to reconcile differences; to correct every moral irregularity and abuse within the bounds of his charge; and to labor without ceasing for the promotion of the cause of truth, piety, and universal righteousness in the Church to which he belongs, and wherever else he has an opportunity of raising his voice, and exerting an influence. But when it is considered that those who bear the office in question, are called upon, in their turn, to sit in the highest Judicatories of the Church; and there to take their part in deliberating and deciding on the most momentous questions which can arise in conducting ecclesiastical affairs:-when we reflect that they are called to deliberate and decide on the conformity of doctrines to the word of God; to assist, as judges, in the trial of heretics, and every class of offenders against the purity of the Gospel; and to take care in their resptive spheres, that all the ordinances of Christ’s house preserved pure and entire:-when, in a word, we recollect that they are ordained for the express purpose of overseeing and guarding the most precious concerns of the Church on earth;-concerns which may have a bearing, not merely on the welfare of a single individual or congregation; but on the great interests of orthodoxy and piety among millions;-we may surely conclude without hesitation, that the office which they sustain is one, the importance of which can scarcely be over-rated; and that the estimate which is commonly made of its nature, duties and responsibility, is far-very far from being adequate. If this view of the nature and importance of the office before us, be admitted, the question very naturally arises, whether it be correct to call this class of Elders, Lay-Elders; or whether they have not such a strictly ecclesiastical character as should prevent the use of that language in speaking of them? This is one of the points in the present discussion, concerning which, the writer of this Essay frankly confesses that he has, in some measure, altered his opinion. Once he was disposed to confine the epithet clerical to Teaching Elders, and to designate those who ruled only, and did not teach, as lay-Elders. But more mature inquiry and reflection have led him first to doubt the correctness of this opinion, and finally to persuade him that so far as the distinction between Clergy and Laity is proper at all, it ought not to be made the point of distinction between these two classes of Elders; and that, when we speak of the one as Clergymen, and the other as Laymen, we are apt to convey an idea altogether erroneous, if not seriously mischievous. Some judicious and pious men have, indeed, expressed serious doubts whether the terms Clergy and Laity ought ever to have been introduced into our theological nomenclature. But it is not easy to see any solid reason for this doubt. Is it wise to contend about terms, when the things intended to be expressed by them are fully understood, and generally admitted? The only question, then, of real importance to be decided here, is this-Does the New Testament draw any distinct line between those who hold spiritual offices in the Church, and those who do not? Does it represent the functions pertaining to those offices as confined to them, or as common to all Christians? Now, it seems impossible to read the Acts of the Apostles, and the several Apostolic Epistles, especially those to Timothy and Titus; and to examine in connexion with these, the writings of the "Apostolic Fathers," without perceiving that the distinction between those who bore office in the Church, and private Christians, was clearly made, and uniformly maintained, from the very origin of the Church. That the terms, Clergy and Laity, are not found in the New Testament, nor in some of the earliest uninspired writers, is freely granted. But is not the distinction intended to be expressed by these terms evidently found in Scripture, and in all the early Fathers? Nothing can be more indubitably clear. The title of "Rulers" in the house of God;-"Ambassadors of Christ;"-"Stewards of the mysteries of God;"-"Bishops, Leaders, Overseers, Elders, Shepherds, Guides, Ministers," &c., as distinguished from those to whom they ministered, are so familiar to all readers of the New Testament, that it would be a waste of time to attempt to illustrate or establish a point so unquestionable. If the inspired writers every where represent certain spiritual offices in the Church as appointed by God; if they represent those who sustain these offices, as alone authorized to perform certain sacred functions; and teach us to consider all others who attempt to perform them, as criminal invaders of a divine ordinance; then surely the whole distinction intended to be expressed by the term Clergy and Laity, is evidently, and most distinctly laid down by the same authority which founded the Church. The word klhros, properly signifies a lot. And as the land of Canaan-the inheritance of the Israelites,-was divided among them by lot, the word, in process of time, came to signify an inheritance. In this figurative, or secondary sense, the term is evidently employed in 1 Peter 5:3. Under the Old Testament dispensation, the peculiar people of God were called (Septuagint translation) his klhros, or inheritance. Of this we have examples in Deuteronomy 4:20, and Deuteronomy 9:29. The term in both these passages, is manifestly applied to the whole body of the nation of Israel, as God’s inheritance, or peculiar people. Clemens Romanus, one of the "Apostolic Fathers," speaking of the Jewish economy, and having occasion to distinguish between the priests and the common people, calls the latter laikoi. Clemens Alexandrinus, towards the close of the second century, speaks of the Apostle John as having set apart such persons for "clergymen" (klhroi as were signified to him by the Holy Ghost. And in the writings of Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, the terms "clergy" and "laity" occur with a frequeney which shows that they were then in general use. Jerome observes, that ministers are called Clerici either because they are peculiarly the lot and portion of the Lord; or because the Lord is their lot, that is their inheritance. Hence that learned and pious Father takes occasion to infer;-"That he who is God’s portion ought so to exhibit himself, that he may be truly said to possess God, and to be possessed by Him."[1] And as we have abundant evidence that eccclesiastical men were familiarly called Clerici, or "Clergymen," from the second century; so we have the same evidence that this term was employed to designate all ecclesiastical men. That is, all persons who had any spiritual office in the Church, were called by the common name of Clerici, or "Clergmen." It was applied, continually to Elders and Deacons, as well as to Bishops or Pastors. Nay, in the third century, when not only the inceptive steps of Prelacy became visible, but when the same spirit of innovation had also brought in a number of inferior orders; such as sub-Deacons, Readers, Acolyths, &c, these interior orders were all Clerici. Cyprian, speaking of a sub-Deacon, and also of a Reader, calls them both Clerici. The ordination of such persons, (for it seems they were all formally ordained,) he calls Ordinationes Clerica; and the letters which he transmitted by them, he styles Literae Clericae. The same fact may be clearly established from the writings of Ambrose, Hilary, and Epiphanius, and from the canons of the Council of Nice. Indeed there seems reason to believe that in the fourth and fifth centuries, and subsequently, the title of Clerici was not only given to all the inferior orders of ecclesiastical men, but was more frequently and punctiliously applied to them, than to their superiors; who were generally addressed by their more distinctive and honorable titles. Those who recollect that learning, during the dark ages was chiefly confined to the ministers of religion; that few, excepting persons of that profession, were able to read and write; and that the whimsical privilege, commonly called "benefit of Clergy," grew out of the rare accomplishment of being able to read;-will be at no loss to trace the etymology of the word clerk (clericus,) or secretary, as used to designate one who officiates as the reader and writer of a public body. To distinguish the mass of private Christians from those who bore office in the Church, they were designated by several names. They were sometimes called laikoi,-laici-laymen, from laos, populus; sometimes idwtai, "private men," from idios, privatus, (Acts 4:13) sometimes Biwtikoi, i.e. "seculars," from Bioþ, which signifies a secular life. Soon after the apostolic age, common Christians were frequently called avdreþ ekklhsiastikoi,-"men of the Church"-i.e. persons not belonging either to Jewish Synagogues, or Pagan temples, or heretical bodies, but members of the Church of Christ. Afterwards, however, the title Ecclesiastics, became gradually appropriated to persons in office in the Church.[2] The quotations made, in a former chapter, from Augustine, and the writings of some other Fathers about his time, in which they seem to distinguish between the Clergy and the Elders, may seem to militate with the foregoing statement. But in reference to these passages, the learned Voetius, while he quotes them, as decisive of the general fact, of the early existence of the Elders under consideration, supposes that the office, in the fourth and fifth centuries, was beginning to fall into disuse; and that, of course, though it was still found in some Churches, it began to be spoken of with less respect, and sometimes to be denied a place among the offices strictly clerical.[3] But, after all, there is no real difficulty as to this point. For although the terms "clergy" and "clerical" were pretty generally applied to all classes of Church officers, even the lowest, in the third, fourth and fifth centuries; yet this was not always the case. Thus in the Apostolical Canons, which were probably composed in the fourth or fifth centuries, there is an express distinction made between the Deacons and the Clergy. In the third and fourth Canons, having ordered what sorts of first-fruits should be sent to the Church, and what to the home of the Bishop and Presbyters, it ordains as follows:-"Now it is manifest that they are to be divided by them among the Deacons and the Clergy." From cases of this kind we may evidently infer that, although all kinds of ecclesiastical officers were generally ranked among the Clergy, during the period just mentioned, yet this was not invariably so; and, of course, no inference can be drawn from occacional diversity of expression as to this matter. Now, if this historical deduction of the titles, Clergy and Laity, be correct, it is plain that, according to early and general usage, Ruling Elders ought not to be styled laymen or lay-Elders. They are as really in office;-they as really bear an office of divine appointment;-an office of a high and spiritual nature;-and an office, the functions of which cannot be rightfully performed, but by those who are regularly set apart to it-as any other officer of the Christian Church. They are as really a portion of God’s lot;-as really set over the laity, or body of the people as the most distinguished and venerated minister of Jesus can be. Whether, therefore, we refer to early usage, or to strict philological import, Ruling Elders are as truly entitled to the name of Clergy, in the only legitimate sense of that term,-that is; they are as truly ecclesiastical officers as those who "labor in the word and doctrine." The scope of the foregoing remarks will not, it is hoped, be mistaken. The author of this Essay has no zeal either for retaining or using the terms Clergy and Laity. So far as the former term has been heretofore used, or may now be intended, to convey the idea of a "privileged order" in the Church;-a dignified body, lifted up, in rank and claim, above the mass of the Churcli members; in a word, as designating a set of men claiming to be vicars of Christ, keepers of the human conscience, and the only channels of grace-he disclaims and abhors it. He is a believer in no such meaning or men, But so far as it is intended to designate those who are clothed with ecclesiastical office, under the authority of Christ, and authorised to discharge some important spiritual functions, which the body of the Church members are not authorized to perform-and to mark the distinction between these two classes-the writer is of the opinion that the language may be defended, and that either that, or some other of equivalent import, ought to be used, nay, must be used if we would be faithful to the New Testament view of ecclesiastical office, as an ordinance of Jesus Christ. And if the term Clergy, in this humble Christian and only becoming, sense, be applied to those who preside in the dispensation of public ordinances; it may with equal propriety, be applied to those who preside with Pastors, in the inspection and rule of the Church. If any should be disposed to remark, on this subject, that the use of the term Clergy is so appropriated, by long established public habit, to a particular class of ecclesiastical oflicers, that there can be no hope that the mass of the community will be reconciled to an extension of the title to Ruling Elders;-the answer is-be it so. The writer of this volume is neither vain enough to expect, nor ambitious enouoh to attempt, a change in the popular language to the amount here supposed. But he protests against the continued use of the term lay-Elder, as really adapted to make an impression. Let the class of officers in question be called Ruling Elders. Let all necessary distinction be made by saying:- "Ministers, or Pastors, Ruling Elders, Deacons, and the Laity, or body of the people." This will be in conformity with ancient usage. This will be maintaining every important principle. This can offend none; and nothing more will be desired by any. Were the foregoing, views of the nature and duties of the Elder’s office generally adopted, duly appreciated, and faithfully carried out into practice, what a mighty s change would be effected in our Zion! With what a different estimate of the obligations and responsibilities which rest upon them, would the candidates for this office enter on their sacred work! And with what different feelings would the mass of the people, and especially all who love the cause of Christ, regard these spiritual Counsellors and Guides, in their daily walks and particularly in their friendly and official visits! This is a change most devoutly to be desired. The interests of the Church are more involved in the prevalence of just opinions and practice in reference to this office, than almost any other that can be named. Were every congregation, besides a wise, pious and faithful Pastor, furnished with eight or ten Elders, to co-operate with him in all his parochial labors, on the plan which has been sketched ; men of wisdom, faith, prayer, and Christian activity; men willing to deny and exert themselves for the welfare of Zion; men alive to the importance of every thing that relates to the orthodoxy, purity, order and spirituality of the Church, and ever on the watch for opportunities of doing good; then, in a word, willing to "take the oversight of the flock in the Lord, and to labor without ceasing for the promotion of its best interests:-Were every Church furnished with a body of such ELDERS-can any one doubt that knowledge, order, piety, and growth in grace, as well as in numbers, would be as common in our Churches as the reverse is now the prevailing state of things in consequence of the want of fidelity on the part of those who are nominally the overseers and guides of the flock? While discussing the nature of this office, and the duties which pertain to it, it seems to be natural to offer a few remarks on the manner in which those who bear it ought to be treated by the members of the Church; in other words, on THE DUTIES WHICH THE CHURCH OWES TO HER RULING ELDERS. And here the discerning and pious mind wilt be at no loss to perceive that these duties are correlative to those which the Rulers owe to the Church. That is, if they are the spiritual Rulers of the Church, and bound to perform daily, and with fidelity and zeal, the duties which belong to this station; it is evident that the members of the Church are bound to recognize them in the same character, and to honor and treat theim as their spiritual guides. Were it, then, in the power of the writer of this volume to address the members of every Presbyterian Church in the United States, he would speak to them in some such language as the following:- CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, Every consideration which has been urged to show the importance and duties belonging to the office of Ruling Elders, ought to remind you of the important duties which you owe to them. Remember, at all times, that they are your ecclesiastical Rulers; Rulers of your own choice yet by no means coming to you in virtue of mere human authority; but in the name and by the appointment of the great Head of the Church, and, of course, the "ministers of God to you for good." In all your views and treatment of them, then, recognize this character. Obey them "in the Lord," that is, for his sake, and as far as they bear rule agreeably to his word. "Esteem them very highly in love for their works sake." And follow them daily with your prayers, that God would bless them, and make them a blessing. Reverence them as your leaders. Bear in mind the importance of their office, the arduousness of their duties, and the difficulties with which they have to contend. Countenance, and sustain them in every act of fidelity; make allowance for their infirmities; and be not unreasonable in your expectations from them. Many are ready to criminate the Elders of the Church, for not taking notice of particular offences, as speedily, or in such manner, as they expect. And this disposition to find fault is sometimes indulged by persons who have never been so faithful themselves as to give that information which they possessed, respecting the alleged offences; or who, when called upon publicly to substantiate that which they have privately disclosed, have drawn back, unwilling to encounter the odium or the pain of appearing as accusers, or even its witnesses. Such persons ought to be the last to criminate Church officers for supposed negligence of discipline. Can your Rulers take notice of that which never comes to their knowledge? Or can you expect them, as prudent men, rashly to set on foot judicial and public investigation of things, concerning which many are ready to whisper in private, but none willing to speak with frankness before a court of Christ? Besides, let it be recollected, that the session of almost every Church is sometimes actually engaged in investigating cases, in removing offences, and in composing differences, which many suppose they are utterly neglecting merely because they do not judge it to be for edification, in all cases, to proclaim what they have done, or are doing, to the congregation at large. Your Elders will sometimes be called-God grant that it may seldom occur!-But they will sometimes be called to the painful exercise of discipline. Be not offended with them for the performance of this duty, Rather make the language of the Psalmist your own: "Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me, it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head." Add not to the bitterness of their official task, by discovering a resentful temper, or by indulging in reproachful language, in return for their fidelity. Surely the nature of the duty is sufficiently self-denying and distressing, without rendering it more so by unfriendly treatment. Receive their private warnings and admonitions with candor and affectionate submission. Treat their public acts, however contrary to your wishes, with respect and reverence. If they be honest and pious men, can they do less than exercise the discipline of Christ’s house, against such of you as walk disorderly? Nay, if you be honest and pious yourselves, can you do less than approve of their faithfulness in excercising that discipline’? If you were aware of all the difficulties which attend this part of the duty of vour Eldership, you would feel for them more tenderly, and judge concerning them more candidly and indulgently than you are often disposed to do. Here you have it in your power, in a very important degree, to lessen their burdens, and to strengthen their hands. When your Elders visit your families, for the purpose of becoming acquainted with them, and of aiding the Pastor in ascertaining the spiritual state of the flock, remember that it is not officious intrusion. It is nothing more than their duty. Receive them, not as if you suspected them of having come as spies or busy intruders, but with respect and cordiality. Convince them, by your treatment, that you are glad to see them, that you wish to encourage them in promoting the best interests of the Church; and that you honor them for their fidelity. Give them an opportunity of seeing your children, and of ascertaining whether your households are making progress in the Christian life. Nay, encourage your children to put themselves in the way of the Elders, that they may be personally known to them, and may become the objects of their affectionate notice, their occasional exhortation, and their pious prayers. Converse with the Elders freely, as with fathers, "who have no greater joy than to see you walking in the truth." And ever give them cause, to retire under the pleasing persuasion, that their office is honored, that their benevolent designs are daily appreciated, and that their labors "are not in vain in the Lord." In short, as every good citizen will make conscience of vindicating the fidelity, and holding up the land of the faithful Magistrate, who firmly and impartially executes the law of the land: so every good Christian ought to feel himself bound in conscience and honor, as well as in duty to his Lord, to strengthen the hands, and encourage the heart of the spiritual Ruler, who evidently seeks, in the fear of God, to promote the purity and edification of the Church. The nature of the office before us also leads to another remark, with which the present chapter will be closed. It is, that there seems to be a peculiar propriety in the Ruling Elders (and the same principle will apply to the Deacons, if there be any of this class of officers in a congregation) having a SEAT ASSIGNED THEM, for SITTING TOGETHER, in a conspicuous part of the Church, near the Pulpit, during the public service, where they can overlook the whole worshipping assembly, and be seen by all. The considerations which recommend this, are numerous. It was invariably so in the Jewish Synagogue, The same practice, as we have seen in a former chapter, was adopted in the early Church, as soon as Christians began to erect houses for public worship. This official and conspicuous accommodation for the Elders is constantly provided in the Dutch Reformed Church, in this country, and it is believed by most of the Reformed Churches on the continent of Europe. It is adapted to keep the congregation on habitually reminded who their Elders are, and of their official authority; and also to remind the Elders themselves, of their functions and duties. And it furnishes a convenient opportunity for the Pastor to consult them on any question which may occur, either before he ascends the Pulpit, or at the close of the service. FOOTNOTES 1.Epist. 2. ad. Nepotian. 5. 2.See STEPHANI Thesaurus, and BINGHAM’s Origenes Ecclesiasticae. 3.Politicae Ecclesiasticae, par. ii. Lib. ii. Tract. iii. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 27: 03.10. DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE OFFICES OF THE RULING ELDER AND DEACON ======================================================================== CHAPTER X. DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE OFFICES OF THE RULING ELDER AND DEACON These offices have been so often confounded, and opinions attempted to be maintained which tend to merge the former in the latter, that it is judged proper to make the difference between them the subject of distinct consideration. The only account that we have in Scripture of the origin of the Deacon’s office is found in the following passage, in Acts 6:1-6. And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said-it is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men, of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom eve may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the Apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. On this plain passage various opinions have been entertained. It will be to our purpose to notice a few of them. I. Some have doubted whether these were the first Deacons chosen by the direction of the inspired Apostles. The learned Dr. Mosheim supposes that the Church of Jerusalem, from its first organization, had its inferior ministers, in other words, its Deacons; and that there is a reference to these, in the fifth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, under the title of young men, (vewteroi, and neaniskoi,) who assisted in the interment of Annanias and Sapphira. He is confident that the Seven Deacons spoken of in the passage just cited, were added to the original number; and that they were intentionally selected from the foreign Jews, in order to silence the complaints on the part of the Grecians, of partiality in the distribution of the offerings made for the relief of the poor. To this opinion there seems to be no good reason for acceding. The objections to it are the following: 1. It is by no means probable that a class of officers of great importance to the comfort and prosperity of the Church, should have been instituted by divine authority, and yet that the original institution should have been passed over by all the inspired writers in entire silence. 2. In this narrative of the election and ordination of the seven Deacons, there is not the most distant allusion to any pre-existing officers of the same character or functions. The murmuring spoken of, seems to have proceeded from the body of the Grecian, or foreign Christians, and to have been directed against the body of the native, or Hebrew Christians. 3. It is evident, from the spirit of the narrative, that the appointment of these Deacons was expressly designed to relieve the Apostles themselves of a laborious service, with which they had been before encumbered, but which interfered with their discharge of higher, and more important duties. Surely the address of the Apostles would have been strange, if not unmeaning, had there been already a body of officers who were intrusted with the whole of this business; and they had only been solicited to appoint an additional number, or to put a more impartial set in the place of the old incumbents. 4. It is plain that these officers were not chosen from among the young men of the Church, as Dr. Mosheim seems to imagine; nor was the office itself one of small trust or dignity. The multitude were directed to "look out for seven men of honest report," or established reputation, "full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom;" and when the Apostle Paul afterwards writes to Timothy, and points out the character of those who ought to be selected for this office, he speaks of them as married men, fathers of families, distinguished for their gravity, men who had been "first proved," and found "blameless" as orthodox, just, temperate, holy men, regulating their own households with firmness and prudence. 5. Dr. Mosheim is not borne out by the best authorities in his interpretation of the words newteroi, and neaniskoi. The most skilful lexicographers assign to them no such official meaning. Besides, the nature and responsibility of the office, and the high qualifications for it pointed out by the Apostles at the time of this first choice, and required by the Apostle Paul afterwards, when writing to Timothy, respecting proper persons to be chosen and set apart as Deacons; by no means answer to the view which Dr. Mosheim takes of the inferiority of the office, or the propriety of bestowing it on young men, as the Church’s servants. 6. Finally; it may be doubted whether there had been any real need of the Deacon’s office, until the time arrived, and the events occured which are recorded in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. But a short time had elapsed since the Church had been organized on the New Testament plan. At its first organization, the number of the poor connected with it was probably small. But very shortly after the day of Pentecost, the number of foreigners, who had come up to the feast, and had there been converted to the Christian faith, was so great, and the number of these who, at a distance from all their wonted pecuniary resources, and their friends, stood in need of pecuniary aid, had also become so considerable, that the task of "imparting to those who had need," became, suddenly, a most arduous employment. This had been accomplished, however, for a short time, under the direction of the Apostles, and without appointing a particular class of officers for the purpose. But, when the foreign Jews came forward, and made complaint of partiality in this business, the Apostles, under the direction of heavenly Wisdom, called upon the "multitude" to make choice of competent persons whom they might appoint over this branch of Christian ministration. This appears to be a plain history of the case, and to resort to Dr. Mosheim’s supposition, is to throw a strange and perplexed aspect over the whole narrative. II. There are others who have doubted whether the "seven," whose election and ordination are recorded in the 6th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where Deacons at all. They allege that the office to which they were chosen and set apart was a mere temporary function, not designed to be a permanent one in the Christian Church, and which, probably, did not last much if any longer than what is commonly called "the community of goods," which existed sometime after the day of Pentecost. Against this supposition, the following reasons are, in my view, conclusive. 1. If this supposition were admitted, then it would follow, that there is no account whatever in the Scriptures of the origin or nature of the Deacon’s office. The office is mentioned again and again in the New Testament; but if the narrative in the beginning of the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, be not a statement of its origin, nature and duties, we have no account of them any where. Can this be considered as probable? 2. Is it likely, judging on the principles, and from the analogy of Scripture, that a short occasional trust, a mere temporary trusteeship, if I may so speak, would be appointed with so much formality and solemnity;-marked not only by a formal election of the people, but also by the prayers and "the laying on of the hands" of the Apostles? What greater solemnities attended an investiture with the highest and most permanent offices in the Christian Church? 3. It is a well known fact, that in the Jewish Synagogue which was assumed as the model of the primitive Church, there was a class of officers, to whom the collection and distribution of alms for the poor, were regularly committed. We may venture to presume, then, that the appointment of similar officers in the Church would be altogether likely. 4. When it is considered what an important and arduous part of the Church’s duty it was, in the apostolic age, and for some time afterwards, to provide for the very numerous poor who looked to her for aid, it is incredible that there should be no class of officers specifically set apart for this purpose. Yet if the "seven" are not of this class, there is no account of any such appointment in the New Testament. 5. The language of some of the earlier, as well as the later Christian Fathers on this subject, clearly evinces that they considered the appointment recorded in the chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, now under consideration, as the appointment of Christian Deacons -- and as exhibiting the nature of that office, and the great purpose for which it was instituted. A small specimen of the manner in which they speak on the subject will be sufficient to establish this position. Hermas, one of the apostolical Fathers in his Similitude, 9,-27, expresses himself thus: -- "For what concerns the tenth mountain, in which were the trees covering the cattle, they are such as have believed, and some of them have been Bishops, that is presidents of the Churches. Then such as have been set over interior ministries, and have protected the poor and the widows. Origen, (Tract. 16, in Matt.,) evidently considered the Deacons as charged with the pecuniary concerns of the Church. "The Deacons," says he, "preside over the money tables of the Church." And again, "Those Deacons, who do not manage well the money of the Churches committed to their care, but act a fraudulent part, and dispense it, not according to justice, but for the purpose of enriching themselves; these act the part of moneychangers, and keepers of those tables which our Lord overturned. For the Deacons were appointed to preside over the tables of the Church, as we are taught in the Acts of the Apostles." Cyprian speaks (Epist. 25.) of a certain Deacon who had been deposed from his "sacred Diaconate, on account of his fraudulent and sacrilegious misapplication of the Church’s money to his own private use; and for his denial of the widow’s and orphan’s pledges deposited with him." And, in another place, (Epist. 3, ad Rogatianum,) he refers the appointment of the first Deacons to this choice and ordination at Jerusalem. It seems, then, that the Deacons, in the days of Cyprian, were intrusted with the care of widows and orphans, and the funds of the Church destined for their relief. It is incidentally stated in the account of the persecution under the emperor Decius, in the third century, that by order of the emperor, Laurentius, one of the Deacons of Rome, was seized, under the expectation of finding the money of the Church, collected for the use of the, poor, in his possession. It is further stated that this money had really been in his possession but that, expecting the storm of persecution, he had distributed it before his seizure. Eusebius; (Lib. ii. cap. 1,) says; -- There were also "seven approved men ordained Deacons, through prayer and the imposition of the Apostle’s hands," and he immediately afterwards speaks of Stephen as one of the number. Dorothoeus, Bishop of Tyre, contemporary with Eusebius, also says; (Lives of the Prophets, &c.,) "Stephen, the first Martyr, and one of the seven Deacons, was stoned by the Jews at Jerusalem, as Luke testifieth in the Acts of the Apostles." Ambrose, in speaking of the fourth century, the time in which he lived, says, (Comment. in Ephes. iv.) "The Deacons do not publicly preach." Chrysostom, who lived in the same century, in his commentary on this very passage, in Acts vi, observes, that "the Deacons had need of great wisdom, although the preaching of the word was not committed to them;" and remarks further, that "it is absurd to suppose that they should have both the offices of preaching and taking care of the poor committed to them, seeing it is impossible for them to discharge both functions adequately." Sozomem, the ecclesiastical historian, who lived in the fifth century, says; (Lib. v. cap. 8.) that "the Deacon’s office was to keep the Church’s goods." In the Apostolical Constitutions, which, though undoubtedly spurious as an apostolical work, may probably be referred to the fourth or fifth centuries, it is recorded; (Lib. 8, cap. 28.) "It is not lawful for the Deacons to baptize, or to administer the Eucharist, or to pronounce the greater or smaller benediction." Jerome, in his letter to Evagrius, calls Deacons "ministers of tables and widows." Oecumenius, a learned commentator, who lived several centuries after Jerome, in his commentary on Acts vi., expresses himself thus: -- "The Apostles laid their hands on those who were chosen Deacons, not to confer on them that rank which they now hold in the Church, but that they might, with all diligence and attention, distribute the necessaries of life to widows and orphans." And the Council of Trullo, in the sixth century, expressly asserts (Can. 16,) that the seven Deacons spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles, are not to be understood of such as ministered in divine service, or in sacred mysteries: but only of such as served tables, and attended the poor. Another consideration, which shows beyond controversy that the early Christians universally considered the "seven" spoken of in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, as the proper New Testament Deacons, is that, for several centuries, many of the largest and most respectable Churches in the world considered themselves as bound, in selecting their Deacons, to confine themselves to the exact number SEVEN, whatever might be their extent and their exigencies, on the avowed principle of conformity to the number of this class of officers first appointed, in the mother Church at Jerusalem. The Council of Neocoesarea enacted it into a canon, that there should be but seven Deacons in any city, however great, because this was according to the rule laid down in the Acts of the Apostles. And the Church of Rome, both before and after this Council, seems also to have looked upon that example as binding; for it is evident from the Epistles of Cornelius, written in the middle of the third century, that there were but seven Deacons in the Church of Rome at that time, though there were forty-six Presbyters. Prudentius intimates that it was so in the time of Sixtus, also, in the year 261; for speaking of Laurentius, the Deacon, he terms him the chief of those "seven men," who had their station near the altar, meaning the Deacons of the Church. Nay, in the fourth and fifth centuries, the custom in that city continued the same, as we learn both from Sozomen and Hilary, the Roman Deacon, who wrote under the nature of Ambrose.[1] 6. The current opinion of all the most learned and judicious Christian Divines, of all denominations for several centuries past, is decisively in favor of considering the passage in Acts vi., as recording the first appointment of the New Testament Deacons. Among all classes of theologians, Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinistic, Presbyterian and Episcopal, this concurrence of opinion approaches so near to unanimity, that we may, without injustice to any other opinion, consider it as the deliberate and harmonious judgment of the Christian Church. The very learned Suicer, a German Professor of the seventeenth century, in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, (Art. Diakonos,) makes the following statement on this subject: -- "In the apostolic Church, Deacons were those who distributed alms to the poor, and took care of them: in other words, they were the treasurers of the Church’s charity. The original institution of this class of officers is set forth in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. With respect to them, the 16th canon of the Council of Constantine (in Trullo) says: -- "They are those to whom the common administering to poverty is committed; not those who administer the sacraments." And Aristinus, in his Synopsis of the Canons of the same Council, Canon 18th, says: -- "Let him who alleges that the seven, of whom mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles, were Deacons, know that the account there given is not of those who administer the sacraments, but of such as ’served tables.’" Zonaras, ad Canon. 16, Trullanum. p. 145, says, those who by the Apostles were appointed to the Diaconate, were not ministers of spiritual things, but ministers and dispensers of meats. Oecumenius also, on the 6th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, says: -- "They laid their hands on the Deacons who had been elected, which office was by no means the same with that which obtains at the present day in the Church, (i.e. under the same name;) but that with the utmost care and diligence, they might distribute what was necessary to the sustenance of orphans and widows." From these considerations, I feel myself warranted in concluding with confidence, that the "seven," chosen at Jerusalem, to "serve tables," were scriptural Deacons, and the first Deacons; and that, of course, every attempt to evade the necessary consequence of admitting this fact, is wholly destitute of support. III. A third opinion held by some on this subject is, that, although the passage recorded in the beginning of the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, is an account of the first appointment of New Testament Deacons; and though their primary function was to take care of the poor, and "serve tables;" yet that the appropriate duties of their office were afterwards enlarged. Thus the Prelatists say, that Philip, one of the "seven," is found, soon after his appointment as Deacon, preaching and baptizing. Hence they infer that these functions of right pertain to the Deacon’s office, and have belonged to it from the beginning. On the other hand, some Independents say, that the word Deacon, according to its Greek etymology, means minister or servant; that this general term may cover a large field of ecclesiastical service; and that New Testament Deacons were, probably, at first intended, and now ought to be employed, to assist the Pastor in counsel and government, as well as in serving the Lord’s table, and attending to the relief of the poor. And even some Presbyterians have expressed the opinion, that our Ruling Elders were a kind of Deacons in disguise, and ought so to be considered and called; and that there ought not to be, and cannot be, consistently with Scripture, any office bearer, charged with the duty of assisting the Pastor in counsel and rule, other than the Deacon. I am fully persuaded that this is an erroneous opinion. It appears to me manifest, not only that it is inconsistent with the form of government of the Presbyterian Church; but what is a much more serious difficulty, that it is altogether irreconcileable with the New Testament. For, 1. An attentive and impartial perusal of the record of this first institution of Deacons, must convince anyone, that preaching, baptizing, or partaking in the spiritual rule and government of the Church, were so far from being embraced in the original destination of the New Testament Deacon, that they were all absolutely precluded, by the very terms, and the whole spirit of the representation given by the inspired historian. The things complained of by the Grecian believers, are not that the PREACHING was defective, or that the GOVERNMENT and DISCIPLINE of the Church were badly managed. Not a hint of this kind is given. The only complaint was, that the poor "WIDOWS had been neglected;" in other words, had not had the due share of attention to their wants, and of relief from the Church’s bounty. To remove all cause of complaint On THIS SCORE, the "seven" were chosen and set apart. The sphere of duty to which they were appointed, was one which the Apostles declared they could not fulfil without "LEAVING THE WORD OF GOD TO SERVE TABLES."[2] They say, therefore, to the members of the Church, "look ye out seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, whom we may appoint OVER THIS BUSINESS," i.e. over the "serving of tables." "And we will give ourselves to PRAYER AND THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD." Now, to suppose that these very Deacons were appointed to officiate in "the ministry of the word and prayer," is an inconsistency, nay an absurdity, so glaring, that the only wonder is how any one can possibly adopt it after reading the passage in question. If the object had been to adopt a supposition fitted to exhibit the Apostles, and the "multitude" too, as acting like insane men, or children, one more directly adapted to answer the end, could not have been thought of. 2. The circumstance of Philip, sometime after his appointment as Deacon, being found preaching and baptizing, in Samaria, and other places, does not afford the smallest presumptive evidence against this conclusion. Soon after his appointment to the diaconate in Jerusalem, the members of the Church in that city were chiefly "scattered abroad by persecution." Philip was, of course, driven from his residence. Now, the probability is, that about this time-seeing he was a man "full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom," and therefore, eminently qualified to be useful in preaching the gospel, he received a new ordination as an Evangelist, and in this character went forth to preach and baptize. He is expressly called an "Evangelist," by the same inspired writer who gives us an account of his appointment as a Deacon; (Acts 21:8). Until it can be proved, then, that he preached and baptized as a Deacon, and not as an Evangelist, the supposition is utterly improbable and altogether worthless. It is really an imposition on credulity to urge it. And that certainly never can be proved as long as the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles remains a part of the inspired volume. As to Stephen, another of the "seven," disputing with gainsayers in private, and defending himself before the Council; it was not official preaching at all. It was nothing more than every professing Christian is at all times not only at liberty, but under obligation to do, when assailed by unbelievers, or when brought before an unjust tribunal. The truth is, the practice of connecting the functions of preaching and baptizing with the Deacon’s office, is one of the various human inventions which early began to spring up in the Church, and which turned almost every ecclesiastical office which had been divinely instituted more or less from its primitive character. "But from the beginning it was not so." It is a departure from the apostolical model. We find, indeed, in several of the writers of the first three or four centuries, frequent intimations of Deacons being permitted to preach, and administer the ordinance of baptism. But in almost every instance it is represented as done in virtue of a specific permission from the Pastor or Bishop in each case, and as entirely unlawful without such permission. A very different thing from a function inherent in an office, and always lawful when a proper occasion for its exercise occurred! In fact, ecclesiastical history, I believe, will bear me out in saying, that, within the first three centuries, it would be just as correct to assert that private Christians in general had a right to preach and baptize, as to maintain that Deacons, in virtue of their office as such, had this right, because we meet with some instances of their being both called upon to do so in cases of supposed necessity, or when specially permitted by superior ecclesiastics. Mr. Bingham, the learned Episcopal antiquary, explicitly tells us, on the authority of several early writers, that private Christians, who sustained no office whatever in the Church, were sometimes called upon to address the people, in the absence, or at the special request of him whose official duty it was to preach. The same learned author goes on to state, that, in the apostolic age, or as long as the special gifts of the Holy Spirit, enabling men to prophesy, continued, all who possessed such special gifts, whether in office or not, might use "the word of exhortation" in the Church. "But then," he adds, "as such extraordinary gifts of the Spirit of prophecy, were in a manner peculiar to the apostolical age, this could not be a rule to the following ages of the Church. And, therefore, when once these gifts were ceased, the Church went prudently by another rule, to allow none but such as were called by an ordinary commission to perform this office, except where some extraordinary natural endowments (such as were in Origen before his ordination) answering in some measure to those special gifts, made it proper to grant a license to laymen to exercise their talents for the benefit of the Church. Or else, when necessity imposed the duty on Deacons, to perform the office of preaching, when the Bishop and Presbyters were by sickness, or other means, debarred from it. For the aforesaid author (Ambrose) plainly says, that Deacons, in his time, were not ordinarily allowed proedicare in populo, i.e. preach to the people, as being an office to which they had no ordinary commission. And the same is said by the author of the Apostolical Constitutions, and many others. Therefore, since Deacons were not allowed this power, but only in some special cases; it is the less to be wondered at, after the ceasing of spiritual gifts, it should, generally, be denied to laymen."[3] A mistake on this point, in reference to the Deacon’s office, has arisen from misinterpreting certain terms which are used by some of the early writers to express their public service. The words khrugma, khrux, khrussw, &c. are frequently used in the New Testament to express the public preacher, and preaching of the gospel. Now, when the same words are applied by some of the earlier Greek Fathers, and the corresponding words, proeco, proedicatio and proedicare, by the Latins, to the Deacon’s office, it has been hastily concluded that they were, habitually, preachers, in the New Testament sense of the term. But the truth is, as every one in the least degree acquainted with those writers, knows, these terms, when used by the Fathers, signify an entirely different thing. The Deacons, in the third, fourth and fifth centuries, are every where represented as the common heralds or criers of the Church. -- That is, when any public notice was to be given; when the catechumens or the penitents were to be called upon aloud to come forward, or to withdraw; or when any public proclamation was to be made, in the course of the service in the Church; -- it belonged to the Deacon’s duty. Hence he was called the office to perform this khrux, or crier, and was said khrussein, to cry aloud, or make proclamation. It belonged to the Deacons, also, to keep order at the doors, when the service was beginning; to see that the worshippers were seated in a quiet and orderly manner; to stand around the communion table, when it was spread, and with fans made either of dried skins, or peacock’s feathers, to keep off the flies from the consecrated elements; and, after the consecration of the sacramental elements, to bear them to the communicants. These, and a variety of subordinate duties, were considered as pertaining to their office, and hence they were regarded, not as having any part of the priesthood, according to the language of that day; but as being the "Church’s servants." All this is so explicitly acknowledged, and so abundantly proved, by the learned Bingham, (Origines Ecclesiasticoe, Book ii. Chap. 20, and Book xiv. Chap. 4,) that any further enlargement on the subject is altogether unnecessary. The original office of the Deacon was one of high trust and dignity; requiring much piety, wisdom, prudence and diligence. But when the purity of the Church, both in doctrine and practice, declined, and especially, when the ardor of her charity to the poor had greatly slackened, that officer, having little to do in his appropriate department, sunk, for a time, into a kind of ecclesiastical menial. 3. The directions afterwards given by Paul to Timothy, (1 Timothy 3:1-16) respecting the proper qualifications of candidates for the Deacon’s office, are decisively opposed to the view of the subject which I am now examining. When the Apostle speaks of the qualifications indispensable in a Teaching Elder, or Bishop, he says he must not only be grave, pious, and of good report, but also "APT TO TEACH," &c. But he prescribes no such condition in the choice of Deacons. He gives no intimation that teaching made any part of their official work. It is said, indeed, that they ought to be men "holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. By which I understand to be meant, that they must be men holding the true faith in sincerity. in other words, that they must be orthodox, and pious; qualifications which ought to be found in all who bear office in the Church of God. 4. We have not the least evidence, from any source, that the function of government was ever connected with the Deacon’s office. We read of Ruling Elders, but never of Ruling Deacons. Among all the multiplied witnesses drawn from the Synagogue and the Church, and from almost all denominations of Christians, ancient and modern, in favor of a bench of Elders in each congregation for conducting its government and discipline, I recollect no example of the members of that bench being called Deacons, or of Deacons having any place among them. Nay, it is perfectly manifest, that if, according to the scriptural model, there ought to be a bench or college, made up of a plurality of Elders in each Church, to be intrusted with the inspection and rule of the whole body; then there is not a shadow of evidence to support the claim of the Deacons to a seat in that body. But if such a bench of Rulers, under the name of Elders, or Presbyters, be given up; then I will venture to assert, there is not a shred of evidence, either in or out of the Bible, that similar powers were ever assigned to Deacons, as such. We may, indeed, call our Ruling Elders, by the name of Deacons, if we please. And so we may call them Dervises, or Imams, with the Turks; and say that we mean by these titles, to designate the members of the parochial Presbytery, or Consistory, in each Church. But the real questions which present themselves for solution are such as these:-Is it agreeable to the New Testament model, that there be in every Christian congregation a plurality of pious and prudent men, invested with the office of inspection and government in the Church? Or, ought all ecclesiastical authority and discipline to be exercised by the Pastor alone? If the former be admitted, then, ought the body of spiritual rulers to be styled Elders or Deacons? If the latter name be contended for, as the more scriptural, then what passage of Scripture, or of early uninspired history, can be mentioned, which countenances the application of this title to ecclesiastical rulers, as such? The truth is, it is not perceived how any can consistently maintain, that the officers whom Presbyterians are wont to call Ruling Elders, are really Deacons, and ought to be so designated, without abandoning the Church Session, as destitute of all scriptural warrant. He who does this, however, must hold, either that the Pastor of each Church has the whole government and discipline in his own hands, and that the persons called Elders, or Deacons, are only a set of convenient advisers, without any rightful judicial authority; or that all authority ought to be exercised by the body of the communicants, and every question of admission or discipline submitted to their vote. In the latter case, he may be a very pious and excellent Independent; but he has no claim to the character of a Presbyterian. It is deeply to be regretted, that the office of Deacon, in its true nature, and its highly important and scriptural character, is not to be found in many Presbyterian Churches. In some, this office is wholly dropped. Neither the name nor the thing is to be found in them. In others, the Ruling Elders, or the members of the Church Session, are constantly styled Deacons, and scarcely ever designed by any other title; while the office really indicated in Scripture by that title is not retained. And in a third class of our Churches, those who are meant for real Deacons, that is, who are chosen and set apart as such, as well as called by that name, are employed in functions for which the office of Deacon was never instituted. The cases, it is feared, are few in which the offices of Elder and Deacon are both retained, and the appropriate functions of each distinctly maintained. Perhaps in a majority of our Churches the office of Deacon, strictly so called is entirely dropped. This, it is believed, is also virtually the case, to a considerable extent in the Church of Scotland, and among the large and respectable body of Presbyterians in the North of Ireland. The origin of this extensive disuse of an unquestionable scriptural office, is probably to be traced to the peculiar form of the provision made in some countries for the support of the poor, which was supposed to render the deaconship, as a separate office, unnecessary. Deacons had a place in the original organization of the Protestant Church of Scotland; and, for many years after the Reformation, were universally retained and much employed in that Church, as a distinct class of officers. But, in later times the office has either been suffered to fall into disuetude altogether, or, as is more common, has been united with that of Ruling Elder, in the same individuals. So that the Ruling Elders in the Church of Scotland, are generally expected, and undertake, to act as Deacons also. The same arrangement it is believed is also generally adopted among the Presbyterians in Ireland. As to those Churches in our own country in which the office of Deacon has been suffered to fall into disuse altogether, this event is certainly, on a variety of accounts, to be regretted:-among others, for the following reasons 1. Every scriptural precedent is worthy of serious regard. The office of Deacon was evidently brought into the Church by inspired men. And although it is not contended that it is essential to an organized Church to have officers of this class inasmuch as the Church, undoubtedly, did without them for a short time, after its first organization; yet as the office is an institution of infinite wisdom, and necessary to a full array of all the officers which belong to the visible Church, it seems expedient to retain it, in all cases in which it is possible. 2. We know that, in every Jewish Synagogue, before the coming of Christ, there was a class of officers whose peculiar duty it was to collect and dispense the monies contributed for the support of the poor. This seems to have been an invariable part of the Synagogue system. And as that system was evidently the model on which the Christian Church was formed, we may presume that a feature of it so strongly recommended by age and experience, is worthy of adoption. 3. Although some Churches may plead in excuse for discontinuing the use of this office, that they have no Church poor, and, therefore, no occasion for the appropriate services of Deacons; yet the question is, ought they to allow this to be the case? What though the laws of the State make provision of a decent kind for all the poor? Are there not commonly within the bounds, and even among the communicants, of every Church of any extent, and of the ordinary standing in point of age, generally found a greater or less number of persons who have seen more comfortable days, but are now reduced;-aged widows; persons of delicate, retiring spirits, who are struggling with the most severe privations of poverty in secret, but cannot bring themselves to apply to the civil officer for aid as paupers; who, at the same time, would be made comparatively comfortable by a pittance now and then administered in the tender and affectionate spirit of the gospel? Now, ought the Church to take no measures for searching out such members, who are not and cannot be reached by the legal provision, and kindly ministering to their comfort? But if there be no class of officers whose appropriate duty it is to make this whole concern an object of their attention, it will too often be neglected, and thus the interest of Christian charity seriously suffer. It is not a sufficient answer to this argument to say, as those who philosophize on the subject of pauperism, say, and, to a certain extent, with great truth, that this very provision would probably invite application, and perhaps, in some instances, induce improper reliance upon it, to the neglect of economy and diligence. Supposing this, in some decree, to be the case; would it not be better to relieve some portion of the poverty brought on by improvidence, than to allow humble, tender piety to pine in secret, unpitied, and unrelieved, under the pressure of that helpless penury, which was induced by the hand of a sovereign God? Nay, is no pity, no active sympathy due from the Church even to indigence notoriously induced by sin? The considerations which have been suggested, furnish, indeed, a good argument for having Deacons of suitable character;-men of piety, wisdom, benevolence, practical acquaintance with the world, and with human nature, who would be likely to perform their duty with discernment, prudence, and unfeigned Christian charity, cautiously guarding against the evils to which the relief they are commissioned to bear is exposed; but no argument at all against affording such relief when really needed. 4. It is a great error to suppose that Deacons cannot be appropriately and profitably employed in various other ways besides ministering to the poor of the Church. They might, with great propriety be made the managers of all the money-tables, or fiscal concerns of each congregation; and, for this purpose, might be incorporated, if it were thought necessary, by law, that they might be enabled regularly to hold and employ all the property, real and personal, of the Church. But, even if it were thought inexpedient that boards of Deacons should allowed thus to supersede the boards of "Trustees" which are, at present, commonly employed to manage each ecclesiastical treasury; still there are very important services in reference to pecuniary concerns, which they might manage, and which, it is believed, would be greatly beneficial to the Church if they were considered as at all times bound to manage, and should actually manage with wisdom, energy and zeal. I refer to the Church’s contributions to the various great objects of Christian enterprise which distinguish the present day. That these contributions to the cause of the Bible; of Missions, foreign and domestic; of Sabbath Schools; and of the various other Christian and benevolent undertakings for promoting knowledge, virtue and happiness, temporal and eternal, among men, ought to be continued, and greatly increased, -- no one who looks into the Bible, or who knows any thing of the Christian spirit, can for a moment doubt. It is quite evident, too, that these contributions ought to be perfectly voluntary, and that any attempt to render them otherwise, would be both unscriptural and mischievous. But would it not tend to render the whole business of liberality to the cause of Christ more regular, more easy, more abundant, and ultimately more productive, if it were placed under the enlightened advice, and wise management of six or eight Deacons in each Church? Suppose the Pastor and the Elders of every congregation to be animated with a proper spirit on this subject, and to be habitually uttering and diffusing proper sentiments; and suppose the whole business of collecting the contributions, and paying them over to the respective treasuries for which they were destined, were devolved on the Deacons, as an executive board, who might call to their aid, and would really confer, as well as receive a benefit, by calling to their aid, in the details of collection, a number of active, pious sub-agents? Can any one doubt that the contributions of the Churches would be more systematic, more regular, more conveniently received, better proportioned, and a part, at least, and, in some cases, a large part, of the expenses paid to travelling agents, saved for the cause of Christ? The truth is, an enlightened, active, pious board of Deacons might place this whole subject on such a footing, and when they had gotten it fairly arranged, and under way, might manage it in such a manner, as without adding in the least degree to the burdens of the people, would render their contributions more productive, as well as more easy and economical in every part of their management. With respect to the mode of disposing of the Deacon’s office adopted extensively in our sister Churches of Scotland and Ireland,[4]and in a few instances, in this country, namely, laying it on the Ruling Elders, and uniting both offices, in the same individual -- it is, undoubtedly, liable to very strong objections, as will appear from the following considerations. 1. One office is quite enough to be borne by the same person; especially an office so important, so responsible, so abundantly sufficient to employ the heart, the hands, and the time of the most active and zealous, as that of the Ruling Elder. However pious, wise, and unwearied he may be, he will find the work pertaining to his office as Elder, enough, and more than enough, especially in this day of enlarged Christian activity, to put in requisition all his powers. Why, then, add another office to one already occupied, if he be faithful, to the utmost extent of his faculties? Similar remarks may be made, to a considerable extent, concerning the Deacon’s office. It is enough, when faithfully discharged, to occupy all the leisure time of the most active and faithful incumbent. Both certainly cannot be undertaken by the same individual, without some of the duties pertaining to one or the other being neglected. 2. Where there are suitable candidates for office among the communicants of a Church, it is commonly wise to distribute offices as extensively among them as circumstances will conveniently admit. If, indeed, there be a dearth of proper materials for making ecclesiastical officers, the difficulty must be surmounted in the best way that is practicable. But if there be individuals enough to sustain it, the diffusion of office power among a considerable number, is so far from being an evil, that it is manifestly, and may be highly, advantageous. It brings a greater number to take an interest in the affairs of the Church. It makes a greater number intimately acquainted with the concerns of the Church. And by calling a greater number to pray, and speak and act in behalf of the Church, it tends to promote the spiritual, and, it may be, the everlasting benefit of them and their children. Why, then, heap a plurality of offices upon a single person? It is depriving the Church of a manifest advantage; and may be the means of depriving the individuals themselves of both comfort and edification. 3. If there be not an absolute incompatibility between the offices of Ruling Elder and Deacon, there is at least, such an interference between their respective duties, as is certainly undesirable, and ought by all means to be avoided. There is a collision in this case analogous to that which takes place when a man visits the sick in the double character of a physician and minister of the Gospel. For although, in many cases, the duties and services of each character may happily harmonize, and help one another; yet, perhaps, in many more, it will appear to the discerning eye that they had better be separated. When an Elder, as such, goes forth to the discharge of his official duties it is to promote the spiritual interest of the flock of which he is made one of the "overseers." To this purpose it is important that he should have the most unreserved and confidential access to all the members of the flock, and their children, and that nothing should be allowed to intervene which was adapted to disguise the feelings, to divide the attention, or to clog the operations of either party. But if, when this Elder visits the poor for the sake of benefitting their souls, they receive him with smiles, with apparent cordiality, and with much pious talk, chiefly for the concealed purpose of increasing the allowance which, as Deacon, he may be disposed to minister to them:-or, when he visits them as a Deacon, they feel jealous, or alienated, on account of some supposed deficiency in that allowance, and, of course, in some measure close their minds against him as their spiritual guide: -- or, when the mind of the Presbyter-Deacon himself becomes divided and perplexed between the rival claims of these two classes of duties, less good is done; less pure unmingled feeling exercised; and less comfort enjoyed on either side.[5] On all these accounts, the two offices in question, as they are entirely different in their nature, ought, undoubtedly, to be separated in practice, to be discharged by different persons, and to be carefully guarded against that interference which is adapted to render both less useful. We are led, then, by the foregoing facts and arguments, to the following conclusions: -- 1. That the Deacon is a divinely instituted officer, and ought to be retained in the Church. 2. That the function to which the Deacon was appointed by the Apostles, was to manage the pecuniary affairs of the Church, and especially to preside over the collections and disbursements for the poor. 3. That Deacons, therefore, ought not only to be men of piety, but also of judgment, prudence, knowledge of the world, and weight of character. 4. That preaching was not, in the primitive Church, any part of the Deacon’s duty, but came in, among other human innovations; as corruption gained ground. 5. That there is no warrant whatever for assigning to Deacons the function of government in the Church; and that their undertaking any such function, is nothing less than ecclesiastical usurpation. 6. That confounding the office of Deacon with that of Ruling Elder, is an unwarranted confusion, both of names and offices, which are entirely distinct. 7. That even the uniting of these two offices in the same persons, is by no means advisable, and tends materially to impair the comfort and usefulness of both. 8. That Deacons ought to be ORDAINED by the imposition of hands. In this ordination the hands of the Pastor and of the Eldership ought to be laid on. I know not the shadow of a reason why this solemnity should be omitted. The venerable Dr. Dwight, in his System of Theology, when treating on the office of Deacons, unequivocally declares his conviction that the laving on of hands ought always to be employed in setting them apart; and pronounces the omission of it to be "incapable, so far as he knows, of any defence." The disregard of scriptural example in the omission, is as painful, as it is obvious and unquestionable. 9. That the Deacons, although they ought always, if possible, to be present at the meetings of the Church Session, for the sake of giving information, and aiding in counsel, can have no vote as Church Rulers; and, therefore, cannot give their vote in the admission or exclusion of members, or in any case of ecclesiastical discipline. [1] FOOTNOTES 1.BINGHAM’s Origenes Eccliasticae, B. ii. ch. 20, sect. 19. 2.It has been supposed by many that the phrase, "serving tables," in the history of the institution of the Deacon’s office, had a reference either to the Lord’s table, or to the overseeing and supplying the tables of the poor, or perhaps both. But I am inclined to believe that this is an entire mistake. The word, trapeza, signifies, indeed, a table; but, in this connexion, it seems obviously to mean a money-table, or a counter, on which money was laid. Hence trapezeths a money-changer, or money merchant. See Matthew 21:12; Matthew 25:27; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:23. The plain meaning, then, of Acts 6:1-15 seems to be this;-- "it is not suitable that we should leave the word of God, and devote ourselves to pecuniary affairs." 3.BINGHAM’s Origines Ecclesiasticae, B. 14. Ch. 4. sect. 4. 4.The same mixture of offices has also long existed, it is believed, in the Church in Geneva. See LE MERCIER’s , Ch. Hist. of Gen. p. 214. 5.See this subject treated in a striking manner, and at considerable length, in Dr. CHALMER’s Christian Economy of Large Towns. Vol. i. Chapter. vii. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 28: 03.11. THE QUALIFICATIONS PROPER FOR THIS OFFICE ======================================================================== CHAPTER XI. THE QUALIFICATIONS PROPER FOR THIS OFFICE. The account which has been given of the nature and duties of the office of Ruling Elder, is adapted to reflect much light on the qualifications by which he who bears it ought to be distinguished. Those who are called to such extensive, interesting and highly important spiritual duties; duties which enter so deeply into the comfort and edification of the Church of God;--it surely requires no formal argument to show, ought to possess a character in some degree corresponding with the sphere in which they are appointed to move. There cannot be a plainer dictate of common sense Yet to attempt a brief sketch of the more important of the qualifications demanded for this office, may not be altogether unprofitable. And here, it may be observed, in the outset, that it is by no means necessary that Ruling Elders should be aged persons. For although it cannot be doubted that the title is, literally, expressive of age; and although it is equally certain, that, originally, the office was generally conferred on men somewhat advanced in life, as being most likely, other thing being equal, to possess wisdom, prudence, experience, and weight of character;--yet the term, from a very early period, came to be a mere title of office, without any respect to the years of the individual who bore it. This is evident, not only from the history of Jewish practice, but also from the statements of the New Testament. If Timothy was not merely a Ruling, but also a Teaching Elder, though so young a man, that the Apostle said, to him,--Let no man despise thy youth; and if, in every age of the Church, young men have been considered as qualified on the score of age, to be Elders that labor in the word and doctrine, as well as rule; there can be no doubt that young men, if otherwise well qualified, may with propriety be appointed Elders to assist in ruling the Church of God. Nay, where such persons, with other suitable qualifications are to be found, it is expedient to introduce some in younger life into the Eldership of every Church, not only that there may be individuals in the body fitted for more active duties; but also that some of the number may have that kind of official training, and that familiarity with ecclesiastical business, which early experience, and long habit alone can give. It may be remarked, however, that, although neither Scripture, nor the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, prescribes any absolute rule with respect to the age of those who may be considered as candidates for the Eldership; yet it is very manifest, that those who are either minors in age, or "novices" in the Christian character and profession, ought by no means, in ordinary circumstances, to be elected to this office. In the Church of Scotland, the rule is, that no one can be chosen an Elder who is not twenty-one years of age. A similar regulation, it is believed, exists in some other foreign Churches; and it may be considered as a dictate of common prudence. But, though the circumstance of age, as a general rule, does not enter into the essential qualifications of Ruling Elders; there are other qualifications which are highly important, and, indeed, indispensable, These are stated by the inspired Apostle, in writing to Timothy, in the following comprehensive, and pointed language:--An Elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; not accused of riot, or unruly; not self-willed; not soon angry; not given to wine; no striker; not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality; a lover of good men; sober, just, holy; temperate, sound in the faith, in charity, in patience. See 1 Timothy 3:1-16 compared with Titus 1:6-8, and ii, 27 which passages evidently appear, on tracing the connexion, to be equally applicable to Teaching and Ruling. The design of appointing persons to the office of Ruling Elder is, not to pay them a compliment; not to give them an opportunity of figuring as speakers in judicatories; not to create the pageants of ecclesiastical ceremony; but to secure able, faithful and truly devoted counsellors and rulers of the Church. To obtain wise and efficient guides, who shall not only go along with the flock in their journey heavenward, but go before them in every thing that pertains to Christian duty. It cannot be doubted, indeed, that every member of the Christian Church is bound to exhibit a holy, devout and exemplary life; to have his mind well stored with religious knowledge; to be able to give an answer to every one that asketh a reason of the hope that is in him; and to avoid every thing that is criminal in itself, that may be just cause of offence to his brethren, or that, may have even, the appearance of evil. But it is equally manifest that all these qualifications are still more important, and required in a still higher degree, in those who are intrusted with the spiritual inspection and regulation of the Church. As they occupy a place of more honor and authority than the other members of the Church; so they also occupy a station of greater responsibility. The eyes of hundreds will be upon them as Elders, which were not upon them as private Christians. Their brethren and sisters over whom they are placed in the Lord, will naturally look up to them for advice, for instruction, for aid in the spiritual life, and for a shining example. The expectation is reasonable, and ought not to be disappointed. The qualifications of Elders, therefore, ought, in some good measure, to correspond with it. 1. An Elder, then, ought, first of all, to be a man of unfeigned and approved piety. It is to be regretted when the piety of any member of the Church is doubtful, or evidently feeble and wavering. It is deplorable when any who name the name of Christ manifest so much indecision in their profession; so much timidity and unsteadiness in their resistance to error and sin; so much conformity to the world; and so little of that undaunted, ardent, and thorough adherence to their professed principles;--as to leave it dubious with many, whether they are "on the Lord’s side" or not. But how much more deplorable when any thing of this kind appears in those who are appointed to watch, to preside, and to exert an extensive influence, over a portion of the family of Christ! What is to be expected, when "watchmen on the walls of Zion;"--for such Ruling Elders are undoubtedly to be regarded appear as beacons, to warn private Christians of what ought to be avoided, rather than as models, to guide, to attract, and to cheer them on to all that is spiritual, and holy, and becoming the gospel? Can he who is either destitute of piety, or who has but a small portion of it, engage in the arduous and deeply spiritual duties of the Ruling Elder, with comfort to himself, or with any reasonable hope of success? It cannot be supposed. To fit ecclesiastical Rulers for acting in their appropriate character, and for performing the work which pertains to it, with cordial diligence, faithfulness and perseverance, will require cordial and decisive attachment to the service of the Church; minds intent upon the work; hearts filled with love to Jesus, and to The souls of men; and preferring Jerusalem above their chief joy. Unless they are animated with this affectionate interest in their work; unless they are habitually impelled by an enlightened and cordial attachment to the great cause in which they are engaged, they will soon become weary of their arduous and self-denying labors; they will find waiting on the flock, visiting and praying with the sick, instructing the serious and inquiring, correcting the disorderly, watching over the spiritual interests of all, and attending the various judicatories of the Church, an irksome task. But with such a zeal as has been described, they will be ready to contend for the truth, to engage in the most self-denying duties, nay, to "spend and be spent," for Christ. To promote the best interests of Zion will be their "meat and drink." No labors, no trials, no difficulties will move them; neither will they count their lives dear unto themselves, so that they may finish their course with joy, and accomplish the work which they have received of the Lord Jesus. A few such Elders in every Church, would, with the divine blessing, do more to silence infidelity,--to strike even the scorner dumb,--to promote the triumph of gospel truth,--and to rouse, sustain and bear forward the cause of vital piety, than hundreds, of those Ministers and Elders, who act as if they supposed that supplying the little details of an ecclesiastical formality was the whole purpose of their official appointment. And, in truth, we have no reason to expect, in general, that the piety of the mass of members in any Church, will rise much higher than that of their Rulers and Guides. Where the latter are either lifeless formalists, or, at best, but "babes in Christ," we shall rarely find many under their care of more vitality, or, of superior stature. 2. Next to piety, it is important that a Ruling Elder be possessed of good sense, and sound judgment. Without this he will be wholly unfit to act in the various difficult and delicate cases which may arise in the discharge of his duty. A man of weak and childish mind, however fervent his piety, is by no means adapted to the station of an ecclesiastical Ruler, counsellor and guide. He who bears the office in question, is called to have intercourse with all classes of people; to engage in the most arduous and trying duties; and to deliberate and decide on some of the most perplexing questions that can come before the human mind. Can it be doubted that good sense, and solid judgment are indispensable to the due discharge of such official work as this? How would a judge on the bench, or a magistrate in his office, be likely to get along without this qualification? Much more important is it, if possible, that the ecclesiastical Ruler be enlightened and judicious; because he deliberates and decides on more momentous subjects; and because he has no other than moral power with which to enforce his decisions. Moses, therefore, spoke the language of good sense, as well as of inspired wisdom, when he said to the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 1:13) Take ye wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them Rulers over you. This point, indeed, it would seem, can scarcely be made more plain than common sense makes it; and might, therefore, be considered as foreclosing all illustration; did not some Churches appear disposed to make the experiment, how far infinite wisdom is to be believed, when it pronounces, by the Prophet, a woe against those who make choice of babes to rule over them. 3. A Ruling Elder ought to be sound in the faith, and well informed in relation to gospel truth. The Elder who is not orthodox in his creed, instead of contributing, as he ought, to build up the Church in the knowledge and love of the truth, will, of course, be the means of scattering error, as far as his influence extends. And he who is not well informed on the subject of Christian doctrine, will not know whether he is promoting the one or the other. Accordingly, when this class of officers is ordained in our Church, we call upon them to do what we do not require from the private members of the Church, viz., solemnly and publicly to adopt the Confession of Faith, "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures." When this is considered; and also that they are expected to be, to a certain extent, instructors and guides in divine things to many of those committed to their oversight; and, above all, that they will be often called to deliberate on charges of heresy, as well as immorality; and to sit in judgment on the doctrinal belief, not only of candidates for admission into the Church, as private members; but also on cases of alleged aberration from the truth in ministers of the gospel; the necessity of their being "sound in the faith," and of their having enlightened and clear views of the system of revealed truth, is too plain to need argument for its support. The truth is, the Ruling Elder who is active, zealous and faithful, will have occasion, almost every day, to discriminate between truth and error; to act as a guardian of the Church’s orthodoxy; to pass his judgment, either privately or judicially, on real or supposed departures from it; and to instruct the inexperienced and the doubting in the great doctrines of our holy religion. And although all Elders are not expected to be profound theologians, any more than all ministers; yet that the former, as well as the latter, should have a general and accurate acquaintance with the gospel system, and be ready to defend its leading doctrines, by a ready, pertinent, and conclusive reference to scriptural testimony, and thus be able to "separate between the precious and the vile," in theory as well as in practice, is surely as little as can possibly be demanded of those who are placed as leaders and guides in the house of God. 4. Again; an Elder ought to be a man of eminent prudence. By prudence here is, of course, not meant that spurious characteristic, which calls itself by this name, but which ought rather to be called timidity, or a criminal shrinking from duty, on the plea that "there is a lion in the way." Yet, while we condemn this as unworthy of a Christian, and especially unworthy of a Christian Counsellor and Ruler; there is a prudence which is genuine, and greatly to be coveted. This is no other than practical Christian wisdom, which not only discerns what is right, but also adopts the best mode of doing it; which is not at all inconsistent with firmness, and the highest moral courage; but which happily regulates and directs it. It has been often observed, that there is a right and a wrong way of doing the best things. The thing done, may be excellent in itself; but may be done in a manner, at a time, and attended with circumstances, which will be likely to disgust and repel, and thus prevent all benefit. Hence a man who is characteristically eccentric, undignified, rash, precipitate, or indiscreetly talkative, ought by no means to be selected as an ecclesiastical ruler. He will, probably, do more mischief than good; will generally create more divisions than he heals; and will rather generate offences than remove them. Perhaps there is no situation in human society which more imperiously calls for delicacy, caution, reserve, and the most vigilant discretion, than that of an ecclesiastical Ruler. If Popular rumor begin to charge a Church member with some delinquency, either in faith or practice: let one of the Elders, under the notion of being faithful, implicitly credit the story, go about making inquiries respecting its truth, winking and insinuating, and thus contributing to extend its circulation; and however pure his motives, he may, before he is aware, implicate himself in the charge of slander, and become so situated in respect to the supposed culprit as to render it altogether improper that he should sit in judgment on his case. The maxim of the wise man; "be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath"--applies to every human being; especially to every professing Christian: but above all to every one who is appointed to maintain truth, order, purity, peace and love in the Church of God. It requires much prudence to judge when it is proper to commence the exercise of discipline against a supposed offender. Discipline is an important, nay, a vital matter in the Christian Church. But it may be commenced indiscreetly; vexatiously; when that which is alleged cannot be shown to be an offence against the divine law; or when, though a really censurable offence, there is no probability that it can be proved. To attempt the exercise of discipline in such cases, is to disgrace it; to convert it, from one of the most important means of grace, into an instrument of rashness, petulance, and childish precipitancy. Often, very often, has the very name of discipline been rendered odious, the peace of families and neighborhoods grievously disturbed, the influence of ecclesiastical judicatories destroyed, and the cause of religion deeply wounded, by judicial proceedings, which ought either never to have been commenced, or to which the smallest measure of prudence would have given a very different direction. The importance of the subject constrains me to add, that prudence--much prudence is also imperiously demanded, in the exercise of a dignified and cautious reserve while ecclesiastical process is pending. One great reason why it is thought better by Presbyterians, to exercise discipline rather by a bench of wise and pious ecclesiastical Senators, than by the vote of the whole body of Church members, is, that the public discussion and decision of many things concerning personal character, which the exercise of discipline necessarily discloses, respecting others, as well as the culprit, is adapted in many cases, to do more harm than good, especially before the process is closed. To guard against this evil, it is very important that the Elders carefully avoid all unseasonable disclosures in respect to the business which may be at any time before the Session. Until they have done what shall be deemed proper, in a delicate case, it is surely unwise, by thoughtless blabbing, to throw obstacles in their own way, and perhaps to defeat the whole purpose which they have in view. Yet how often, by one imprudent violation of this plain rule, has the discipline of the Church been degraded or frustrated, and the character of those who administered it exposed to ridicule? These, and similar considerations, serve clearly to show, that no degree of piety can supersede the necessity of prudence in ecclesiastical rulers; and that, of all characters in a congregation, an indiscreet, meddling, garrulous, gossipping, tattling Elder, is one of the most pestiferous. 5. It is important that an Elder be "of good report of them that are without." The circumstance of his being chosen to the office by the members of the Church, does, indeed, afford strong presumption that he sustains, among them an unexceptionable character. But it is also of great importance that this class of officers, as well as those who "labor in the word and doctrine," should stand well with those who are without, as well as those who are within the pale of the Christian community. The ecclesiastical ruler may often be called, in discharging his official duties, to converse with the worldly and profane, who have no particular regard either for his Master, or his office. Nay, he must be, almost every day that he lives, the object of the scrutiny of such men. In this case, it is peculiarly desirable that his personal character be such as to command universal respect and confidence; that it be not liable to any particular suspicion or imputation; but that, on the contrary, it possess such weight and respectability in the community, as will render him an aid and a blessing to his ecclesiastical connexion. To this end, his unbending integrity in all the walks of life; his spotless probity and honor in every pecuniary transaction; his gravity and dignity in all the intercourse of society; his exemplary government of his own family; his abstraction from all unhallowed conformity to the world;--ought to present, in some good measure, a pattern of Christian consistency. It is saying little in favor of a Church officer, to allege that his reputation is such that he does no harm to the ecclesiastical body with which he is connected. It is to be regretted, if he do not promote its benefit every day by his active services, and extend its influence by the lustre of his example. 6. A Ruling Elder ought to be a man of public spirit and enlarged views. He who is called by his official duty to plan and labor for the extension of the Redeemer’s kingdom, surely ought not, of all men, to have a narrow and illiberal mind; to be sparing of labor, parsimonious in feeling and habit, or contented with small attainments. It is eminently desirable, then, that a Ruling Elder be a man of expanded heart toward other denominations, as far as is consistent with entire fidelity to scriptural truth and order; that he aim high in spiritual attainment and progress; that he be willing to give much, to labor much, and to make sacrifices for the cause of Christ; and that he be continually looking and praying for the further enlargement and prosperity of Zion. Such a man will not be willing to see the Church fall asleep, or stagnate. Such a man’s mind will be teeming with desires, plans and prayers for the advancement of the Saviour’s cause. Such a man will not content himself, nor be satisfied to see others contenting themselves, with a little round of frigid formalities, or with the interests of a single parish:--but the aspirations of his heart, and the active efforts of his life will be directed to the extension and prosperity of the Church in all its borders, and to the universal establishment and triumph of that gospel which is "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." The qualification of which we speak has been, in all ages, and from the nature of the case, must ever be, of inestimable importance in every Ruler and Guide of the Church. But we may venture to pronounce that it never was so important to the Church that she should have such Rulers as it is at the present day. Now, that she is awaking from her slumber, and arousing to a sense of her long forgotten obligations: now that she is, as we hope, arising from the dust, and "putting on her beautiful garments," and looking abroad in the length and breadth of those conquests which have been promised her, by her Almighty Head: now that all her resources, physical and moral, are called for, in every direction, with an emphasis and a solemnity never before equalled:--is it not manifest that all who, in such a stage of her course, undertake to be her counsellor and guide, ought to be neither drones nor cowards; neither parsimonious of labor and sacrifice, nor disposed to sit down contented with small acquisitions? Ruling Elders, at the present day, have, perhaps, an opportunity of serving the Church more extensively and effectually than ever before. How desirable and important, then, that they have a heart, in some measure, commensurate with the calls and opportunities of the day in which their lot is cast! How desirable that they cherish those enlarged and liberal views, both of duty and of effort, which become those who are called to act a conspicuous and interesting part in a cause which is dear to all holy beings! So important is this, that it is probable we shall generally find that, in liberality of contribution to the various objects of Christian effort, and in enlargement of mind to desire and seek the extension of the Redeemer’s kingdom, the mass of the members of any Church may commonly be graduated by the character of their Elders. If the leaders and guides of the Church be destitute of public spirit, and be not found taking the lead in large plans, labors and sacrifices for extending the reign of knowledge, truth and rightousness, it will be strange indeed if a more enlarged spirit be found prevailing among the generality of their fellow members. 7. The last qualification on which I shall dwell, as important in the office before us, is ardent zeal, and a spirit of importunate prayer. Large views, and liberal plans and donations, will not answer without this. The truth is, the Church of God has the most serious and unceasing obstacles to encounter, in every step of her progress. As long as she is faithful, her course is never smooth or unobstructed. In maintaining truth;--in guarding the claims of gospel holiness;--and in sustaining discipline--the enmity of the human heart will not fail to manifest itself, and to offer more or less resistance to that which is good. The worldly and profane will ever be found in the ranks of determined opposition. And alas! that some who bear the name of Christ, are not unfrequently found in the same ranks; thus grieving the hearts, and trying the patience of those who are called to act as the representatives and leaders of the Church. To meet and overcome difficulties of this kind, requires all the fixedness of purpose, and all the zeal in the service of Christ, which his most devoted servants can bring to their work. Besides all this, there is much in the daily duties of the Ruling Elder, which puts to a very serious test all his devotedness to the cause of his Master. He is called to live, like a minister of the gospel, in the very atmosphere of prayer and religious conversation. In the chamber of the sick and dying; in conversing with the anxious inquirer, and the perplexed or desponding believer; in the private circle, and in the social meeting for prayer; abroad and at home, in the house and by the way--it must be "his meat and drink" to be found ministering to the best interests of his fellow men. So that if he have but little zeal; but little taste for prayer; but little anxiety for the welfare of immortal souls; he will not, he cannot, enter with proper feeling into his appropriate employments. But if he be animated with a proper spirit, he will find it pleasant to be thus employed. Instead of shunning scenes and opportunities of usefulness, he will diligently seek them. And instead of finding them wearisome, he will feel no happiness more pure and rich than that which he experiences in such occupations as these. It is evident, then, not only that the ecclesiastical Ruler ought to have unfeigned piety; but that his piety ought to be of that decisive character, and accompanied with that fervent zeal, which bears its possessor forward, without weariness in the discharge of self-denying duties. The higher the degree in which he possesses this characteristic, provided it be accompanied with wisdom, prudence and a knowledge of human nature, the greater will probably be his usefulness in the Church which he serves; and the greater, assuredly, will be his own personal enjoyment in rendering that service. It is more than possible that this view of the qualifications proper for the office which we are considering, may cause some, when solicited to undertake it, to draw back, under the conscientious impression, that they have not the characteristics which are essential to the faithful discharge of its duties. And it would be wrong to say that there are not some cases, in which such an impression ought to be admitted. There can be no doubt that there are those who bear this office, who ought never to have accepted it. To this class, unquestionably, belong all those who have no taste for the appropriate duties of the office, and who do not resolve sedulously and faithfully to perform them. But let no humble devoted follower of Jesus Christ, who truly desires to serve and glorify him, and who is willing, from the heart, to do all that God shall enable him, for the promotion of the Redeemer’s kingdom;--let not him be deterred, by the representation which has been given from accepting the office, if called to it by his Christian brethren. The deeper his sense of his own unfitness, the more likely will he be to apply unceasingly and importunately for heavenly aid; and the nearer he lives to the throne of grace, the more largely will he partake of that wisdom and strength which he needs. There are, no doubt, some, as was said, who are really unqualified for this office; but in general, it may be maintained, that those who have the deepest impression of the importance and arduousness of its duties, and of their own want of adequate qualifications, are far better prepared for those duties, than such as advance to the discharge of them with unwavering, confidence and self-complacency. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 29: 03.12. ON THE ELECTION OF RULING ELDERS ======================================================================== CHAPTER XII. THE ELECTION OF RULING ELDERS. Under this general head, a variety of questions occur, the solution of which is important. I. In the First place, who are the proper Electors of Ruling Elders? This question is not definitely resolved by the "Form of Government" of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. Its language is as follows: "Every congregation shall elect persons to the office of Ruling Elder, and to the office of Deacon, or either of them, in the mode most approved and in use in that congregation. But in all cases the persons elected must be male members in full communion in the Church in which they are to exercise their office." When a new Church is to be organized, and when, of course, there are no Elders already in office, application ought to be made to the Presbytery, stating the wishes of those who contemplate forming the Church, requesting their sanction, and also the appointment of one or more of their number to preside in the election and ordination of the candidates for the respective offices of Elders and Deacons. The person or persons thus appointed by the Presbytery to act in the case, after causing due and regular notice of their appointment and its object, to be given, ought to meet with the members of the congregation; to preach on the subject which occasions the meeting; to explain the nature and importance of the office; and, having done this, to call upon those who may be qualified as electors, to give their votes for such of their number as they would wish to have as their spiritual rulers. Having done this openly, in the face of the congregation, the Ordination of the Elders elect, may either take place on the spot, before the assembly shall separate; or may be postponed to a future time, as may be judged most expedient. By this is meant, that the election in this case, being made immediately by a popular vote of the members of the Church, there is no need of postponing the ordination, for the purpose of propounding the names of the persons elected, from the pulpit, as is necessary, and practised in other cases. In the case supposed, the full concurrence of the persons entitled to vote in the choice made, has been already ascertained by their suffrages. In this choice, the votes may be given either viva voce, or by ballot. The latter method, however, is by far the most common, and, is evidently the most proper, for a variety of reasons, some of which will readily occur to every enlightened and delicate mind. Concerning the persons who are properly entitled to vote in such an election, there has been some diversity of opinion. That all the male members of the Church, in what is called "full communion," have this right, there can be no question. In this all are agreed. But it has been maintained, not, indeed, with the same unanimity, yet, it is believed by a large majority of the most judicious and enlightened judges, and probably on the most correct principles, that all baptized members of the Church, who must be, of course, regarded as subject to the government and discipline administered by these Rulers, are entitled to a voice in their election. And where there are female heads of families, who bear the relation of membership to the Church, in either of the senses just mentioned, and who are not represented by some qualified male relative, on the occasion, it has been judged proper to allow them to vote in the choice of Ruling Elders, as is generally the case in the choice of a Pastor. There seems, however, to be some good reason for restricting the right to vote for Ruling Elders within narrower bounds, than are commonly assigned in the choice of a Pastor. In that choice, in most congregations, all pew-holders, and all stated worshippers who are stated contributors to the support of the Pastor, in their just proportion, whether baptized or not, whether willing to submit to the exercise of discipline or not, and whether of fair moral character or not, are considered as entitled to a vote. But, in the election of a Pastor there is one security against an improper choice, which does not exist in the case of a Ruling Elder; namely, that the call must be submitted to the Presbytery, and receive the sanction of that body before it can be prosecuted. Whereas no such security exists in the case of a Ruling Elder. Of course, if all pew-holders, and pecuniary supporters, without any reference to membership or character, were allowed to vote in the election of the latter class of officers, they might choose persons to the last decree unsuitable for the office, and adapted to destroy rather than benefit the Church. Besides; every one, however, heterodox or immoral, may be a stated attendant on public worship:-and every stated attendant on the worship of any Church, may be said to have an interest in the character of the Pastor, and a right, as far as may be, to be pleased in the choice. But no one can be said to have any part, or particular interest in the discipline of the Church, excepting those who are subject to its operation; which can be the case with none but those who are members of the Church. Accordingly, the General Assembly of the Church which met in 1829, in answer to a question solemnly referred to it by one of the Western Presbyteries,[1] -adopted, and sent to the Churches the following judgment in relation to the subject before us. "It is the opinion of this General Assembly, that the office of Ruling Elder is an office in the Church of Christ; that Ruling Elders, as such, according to our Confession of Faith, Book I., on Government, Chapter v., are the representatives of the people, by whom they are chosen, for the purpose of exercising government and discipline in the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ; that the discipline lawfully exercised by them, is the discipline exercised through them by their constituents, in whose name, and by whose authority they act in all that they do.[2] To suppose, therefore, that an unbaptized person, not belonging to the visible kingdom of the Redeemer, might vote at the election of Ruling Elders, would be to establish the principle, that the children of this world might through their representatives, exercise discipline in the Church of God; which is manifestly unscriptural, and contrary to the standards of our Church. Resolved, therefore, that the question in the said overture be answered in the negative." Where there is already an existing Church Session, and the object is to add to the number of its members, in this case the election of new Elders may be made in any one of several methods:-either by the vote of the members of the Church at large, as already stated; or by a nomination on the part of the existing Elders, proposed to the Church, and considered as their choice, if not objected to; or by the nomination of double the number proposed to be chosen, by the Session, and a choice by the members of the Church out of the list so nominated. In the Church of Scotland "new Elders are chosen by the voice of the Session.[3] After their election has been agreed upon, their names are read from the pulpit, in a paper called an Edict, appointing a day, at the distance of not less than ten days, for their ordination. If no member of the congregation offer any objection upon that day; or if the Session find the objections that are offered frivolous, or unsupported by evidence, the minister proceeds in the face of the congregation to ordain the new Elders."[4] The same method of adding new Elders to existing Church Sessions, is adopted, in substance, by many Presbyterian Churches in the United States. The Church Sessions, in these congregations, judge when it is proper to make an addition to the number of Elders; [5] deliberate on the proper candidates; ascertain privately whether they will serve if appointed; and after completing, with due consideration and care, their lists, cause them to be announced by their moderator from the pulpit, on several successive sabbaths;-after which at the proper time, their ordination takes place. This plan of choosing has some real advantages. When wisely executed, it may be supposed likely to lead to a more calm, judicious and happy choice, than would probably result from a popular vote, especially where no consultation and understanding had taken place among the more grave, pious and prudent of the Church members. And, therefore, where this plan has been long in use, and unanimously acquiesced in, it had, perhaps, better not be changed. Yet it seems to be more in harmony with the general spirit of Presbyterian Church government, and certainly with the prevailing character of our institutions, to refer the choice, where it can conveniently be done, after due consultation and care, to the suffrages of the members of the Church. Accordingly, the General Assembly of our Church, which convened in 1827, in reply to a complaint made respecting the mode of electing Elders adopted in one of the Churches under the care of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, pronounced the following judgment. "While the assembly would recognize the undoubted right of each congregation to elect their Elders in the mode most approved and in use among them, they would recommend that in all cases where any dissatisfaction appears to exist, the congregation be promptly convened, to decide on their future mode of election. And they are inclined to believe that the spirit of our constitution would be most fully sustained by having, in all cases, a direct vote of the congregation in the appointment of their Elders." In the Church of Holland, the following is the general rule in regard to the election of this class of officers:-"The Elders shall be chosen by the suffrages of the Consistory, and of the Deacons. In making this choice, it shall be lawful, as shall best suit the situation of each Church, either to nominate as many Elders as shall be judged necessary for the approbation of the members in full communion, and upon their being approved, and found acceptable, to confirm them with public prayers and engagements; or, to propose a double number, that the one half of those nominated may be chosen by the members, and in the same manner confirmed in their office." Accordingly, in that country, although an election by the members of the Church sometimes takes place; yet the common method, it is believed, is for the Consistory, or Eldership of the Church, together with the Deacons, to make choice of new Elders and Deacons, in other words, to form a list of proper candidates for the office, to nominate them, agreeably to a certain rule, to the Church, and if no objection be made, to consider the person so nominated as the choice of the Church. In the "Explanatory Articles" of government adopted by the Reformed Dutch Church in the United States, the following article explains the practice of that Church in this country. "The manner of choosing Elders and Deacons is not rigidly detailed. A double number may be nominated by the Consistory, out of which the members of the Church may choose those who shall serve. Or, all the members of the Church may unite in nominating and choosing the whole number, without the interference of the Consistory. Or, the Consistory, for the time being, as representing all the members, may choose the whole, and refer the persons thus chosen, by publishing them in the Church, for the approbation of the people. The last method has been found most convenient, especially in large Churches, and has long been generally adopted. But where that, or either of the other modes, has for many years been followed in any Church there shall be no variation or change, but by previous application to the Classis, and express leave first obtained for altering such custom."[6] In the Church of Geneva, the choice of Elders and Deacons is made in the manner which the foregoing article declares to be most common in the Dutch Churches in the United States,-namely, by a selection and nomination to the consistorial assembly, which, if not opposed, is final, and followed by the usual ordination, without the "laying on of hands."[7] The same method, also, of electing Elders and Deacons was early established in the Protestant Churches of France. The Consistory nominated, and the nomination was announced from the pulpit, for the approbation of the people.[8] II. The next question which arises, is HOW OFTEN ought this election to be made? Is it for life, or for a limited time? According to the original constitution of the Reformed Church of Scotland, the Elders and Deacons were chosen but for one year. This was the arrangement adopted in the "First Book of Discipline," formed in l560 and also in the "Second Book of Discipline," drawn up in 1578, and which continued for a number of years in the Scottish Church. This plan seems to have been suggested by the earnest wish of the first Elders themselves, who, finding the office burdensome, as it then involved much care and labor, begged permission to resign it to others after a single year. But although the election, at that time, was made annually, and a large portion of the incumbents of the office were actually changed every year; yet the same men might be elected from year to year, if they were willing to serve, and it sometimes happened, in fact, that a few, whose piety and leisure rendered due attention to the duties of the office easy and pleasant, were re-elected for many successive years. The same form of ordination seems to have been repeated after every annual election, as well with respect to those who had often been ordained before, as to those who had never submitted to this solemnity. This practice, however, has been long since laid aside in the Church of Scotland; and the office of the Ruling Elder been, for many years, regarded as an office for life, as much as that of the ministry of the Gospel. In the Protestant Churches of France also, the office in question was, from the beginning, and it is believed still is temporary. The rule on this subject, found in the Book of "Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France, as drawn up by the first National Synod, in 1559, is in these remarkable words:-"The office of Elders and Deacons, as it is now in use among us, is not perpetual; yet because changes are not commodious, they shall be exhorted to continue in their offices as long as they can; and they shall not lay them down without having first obtained leave from their Churches."[9] The Reformed Dutch Church in the United States, after the example of her parent Church in Europe, adopts the following plan for the election of Elders and Deacons:-"In order to lessen the burden of a perpetual attendance upon ecclesiastical duties, and by a rotation in office to bring forward deserving members, it is the established custom in the Reformed Dutch Church, that Elders and Deacons remain only two years in service, after which they retire from their respective offices, and others are chosen in their places; the rotation being always conducted in such a manner, that only one half of the whole number retire each year. (See Syn. Dort. Art. 27.) But this does not forbid the liberty of immediately choosing the same persons again, if from any circumstances it may be judged expedient to continue them in office by a re-election."[10] Yet, notwithstanding this annual election, those who have ever borne the office of Elder or Deacon in the Dutch Church, are still considered, though never re-elected, as bearing while they live, a certain relation to the offices which they have sustained respectively. This appears from the following additional article, found in the same code. "When matters of peculiar importance occur, particularly in calling a Minister, building of Churches, or whatever relates immediately to the peace and welfare of the whole congregation, it is usual (and it is strongly recommended, upon such occasions, always) for the Consistory to call together all those who have ever served as Elders or Deacons, that by their advice and counsel they may assist the members of the Consistory. These, when assembled, constitute what is called the "Great Consistory." From the object or design of their assembling, the respective powers of each are easily ascertained. Those who are out of office, have only an advisory or counselling voice; and, as they are not actual members of the board or corporation, cannot have a decisive vote. After obtaining their advice, it rests with the members of the Consistory to follow the counsel given them, or not, as they shall judge proper." But in the Presbyterian Church in the United States, the office of Ruling Elder is now, and has been from the beginning, perpetual. The election to it, is once for all. It, of course, continues through life, unless the individual be deposed from office. Like a minister of the gospel, he cannot lay aside his office at pleasure.[11] He may, indeed, from ill health, or for other reasons, cease, if he think proper, to perform the active duties of the office. But he is still an Elder; and if he recover his health, or the reason which induced him to withdraw, be removed, he may resume the duties of the office without a new ordination.-Of this, however, more in a subsequent chapter. III. A third question which arises under this head, is-How many Elders ought to be elected in each Church? In answer to this question little more than considerations of expediency can be suggested. No absolute rule can be laid down. In the Jewish Synagogue, we are told, there were commonly at east three Ruling Elders found in each ecclesiastical Senate. In the time of Cyprian, in the third century, there were, in the single Church of Carthage, of which he was Bishop, or Pastor, eight Elders, of whom five were opposed to his being received as their Pastor. Soon after the opening of the Reformation in Scotland, and while there was only a Single Protestant congregation in the city of Edinburgh, there were twelve Elders, and sixteen Deacons, belonging to that Church. Dunlop, ii., 638. In the year 1560, four years before the decease of Calvin, there were twelve Ruling Elders in the Church of Geneva. Calv. Epist. Gaspari Oleviano. The Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, does not define the proper number of Elders in each Church. Speaking of the Church Session it declares (Chapter 9, Sect. 2.,) that of this Judicatory, "two Elders, if there be as many in the congregation, with the Pastor, shall be necessary to constitute a quorum." From this rule, it seems to be a legitimate inference, that if there be only one Elder in the congregation, he with the Pastor may constitute a regular Session, for the transaction of business. The existence of so small a number as even two, however, is greatly to be regretted, and ought by no means to be submitted to, if proper candidates for the office can be found. In the smallest Church it is desirable that there should be it least from five to seven Elders. Without some such number, there cannot be that weight in their judicial counsels, and that influence drawn from every part of the congregation in aid of the Pastor, and the best interests of the whole body, which a well selected bench of officers of that number, would be likely to impart. In large Churches, there ought to be at least ten or twelve: and in Churches much beyond the usual size, fourteen or fifteen would not be more than enough to gain all the advantages which the best arrangement with regard to this office might be expected to secure. It ought to be borne in mind, however, that there is no advantage whatever to be gained by electing unsuitable men to this office, for the sake of adding mere numbers to the Church Session. It is much better to get along with three or four pious, wise and prudent Elders, than to add two or three dozens to their ranks of men of an opposite stamp, who, by their want of piety and wisdom, might be a nuisance instead of a comfort:-a curse instead of a blessing. Pastors, then, and their Churches, instead of making haste to fill up the ranks of their congregational Senators with unsuitable members, had better wait patiently until the Head of the Church shall provide for them candidates, in some measure "after his own heart." IV. The last question which will be proposed for solution is, who may be considered as ELIGIBLE TO THIS OFFICE? The proper personal qualifications for this office have been considered in a preceding chapter. These are not intended to be brought into view here. All that is designed is, a reference to two or three points of legal qualifications, which are necessary to render a candidate eligible in the view of the ecclesiastical casuist. And first, no one can be elected an Elder in any Church, who is not a member in full communion in the Church of which he is to be chosen an officer. The extreme impropriety of choosing men to represent the members of the Church, and to sit in judgment on the standing, department and Church membership of others who were not themselves in full communion with the body of Christ, is so glaring as to need no comment. But the eligible candidate for this choice must be a male member. Some, indeed, have seriously doubted whether there were not in the apostolic Church, female Elders, or Elderesses; and also whether there ought not to be a similar class of Elders in every Church at the present day. A great majority, however, who have treated of this subject, believe, that the female officer,-apparently referred to in Titus ii. 3, and a few other passages in the New Testament, were intended to be merely a temporary appointment, arising out of that state of seclusion in which females lived, and do still live in the Eastern world, and not at all necessary in those countries where females may be approached and instructed without the intervention of individuals of their own sex. The Presbyterian Church has judged and acted in conformity with this view of the subject.[12] It has been queried, whether a person who is an acting Ruling Elder in one Church, may be chosen to the same office in another, and, thus be an acting member of two Church Sessions at the same time? This question ought, undoubtedly, to be answered in the negative. An Elder can no more he a member of two different Sessions, and responsible, of course, to both, at the same time, than a private Christian can be enrolled as a member in two different Churches at the same time, and equally amenable to both; or than a minister of the Gospel can be a member of two Presbyteries at the same time, and liable to be called to in account by both, simultaneously, and to have entirely inconsistent requisitions made by each. An Elder in one Church, then, is not eligible to the Eldership in another, unless on the principle of his taking a dismission from the former, for the purpose of forming a regular and official relation to the latter. FOOTNOTES 1.The question submitted was in these words--"Ought an unbaptized person, who yet pays his proportion for the support of a congregation, to be permitted to vote for Ruling Elders?" 2.It is well known that the General Assembly, in this clause of their judgment, did not mean to deny that Ruling Elders, in the rightful discharge of their duties, act in the name and by the authority of Christ. This great truth is plainly recognized in a preceding clause. But merely to say, that they act as the representatives, and on the behalf of the members of the Church at large; so that when a complaint is brought to the Eldership, it is, strictly speaking, according to the ancient language, "telling it to the Church." 3.In the infancy of the Reformed Church in Scotland, the mode of electing Ruling Elders was by no means uniform. In some Churches, the existing Session made a nomination to the Church members, out of which a choice was made by the latter. In other Churches, the choice was made immediately by the communicants at large. In some Churches, the Session appointed electors; and in others, they acted as electors themselves. It was a number of years before the practice stated above as the prevalent one, became general. M’CRIE’s Life of Melville, ii. 477, 478. 4.HILL’s Institutes. Part ii. Section 4th, 212, 213. 5.It is hradly necessary to say, that when the Church Session, in any such congregation shall be considered as unduly delaying to make a suitable addition of new Elders to their number, it is the privilege of the members of the Church, after due application to the Presbytery for the redress of their alleged grievance. 6.See the Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church in the United States. 7.See MERCIER’s Church History of Geneva, p. 209. 8.QUICK’s Synodicon, i. 27. 9.QUICK’s Synodicon, i. 28. 10.Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church in the U. States. 11.The writer is here stating what is the actual constitution of the Presbyterian Church as to this point. He does not suppose, however, that there is any infringement of Presbyterian principle in the annual elections of Ruling Elders, formerly practised in the Church of Scotland, and still practised in the Dutch and French Churches. Where a Church is large, containing a sufficient number of grave, pious and prudent members, to furnish an advantageous rotation, and where the duties of the office are many and arduous, it may not be without its advantages to keep uup some change of incumbency in this office. But, in general, it seems manifest, that the spiritual interests of a congregation will be likely to be managed most steadily and to edification by permanent officers, who are never even temporarily withdrawn from the sphere of duty in which they move, and who are daily gaining more knowledge of the Church, and more experience. 12.The Moravians, or United Brethren, and the society of Friends, or Quakers, are the only ecclesiastical bodies in Protestant Christendom, so far as is now recollected, in whose system of Church order Female Elders actually have a place. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 30: 03.13. OF THE ORDINATION OF RULING ELDERS ======================================================================== CHAPTER XIII. OF THE ORDINATION OF RULING ELDERS. By Ordination is meant that solemn rite, or act by which a candidate for any office in the Church of Christ, is authoritatively designated to that office, by those who are clothed with power for the purpose. It cannot require formal argument to prove, that this rite, or something analagous and equivalent to it, is indispensable in conducting all regular ecclesiastical government. If certain officers have been appointed in the Church by Jesus Christ, her King and Head;-if certain qualifications have been declared by Him indispensable to fit men for serving the Church in these offices, without which they ought not to be permitted to occupy them;-and if an extraordinary and immediate designation to office by Jesus Christ himself, be not now to be expected in any case;-if these things be so, it inevitably follows, that some person or persons must have power committed to them by the Head of the Church, to examine or try candidates for these offices, to judge of their qualifications; and, if approved, to invest them with office. The idea that, with such directions as the New Testament contains on this subject, men should be left at liberty to take these offices upon themselves, by their own act, and at their own pleasure-is full of absurdity; and, if realized, would undoubtedly lead to endless disorder and mischief. Only suppose the secular offices of a nation to be thus assumed by men at will; and by none more readily than the vain, the ignorant, the self-sufficient, and the ambitious;-as would inevitably be the case, if such were the path of access to office;-and there would be an end of all order. But if it be neither safe nor permitted for men to intrude into official stations uncalled; and if an immediate investiture by the Master himself be out of the question; we are driven to the conclusion, that all regular and lawful introduction to office, must be through the medium of human ordainers, acting in the name of Christ, and governing themselves by his declared will. Accordingly, while the Saviour himself, in the days of his flesh, immediately invested with office the twelve Apostles, and all others whom he personally called and sent forth; no sooner had He ascended to heaven, than the practice of introducing to office by the instrumentality of men, began, and, so far as we are informed, was uniformly continued. Then the ministers of Christ began to act upon the principle afterwards so explicitly communicated to Timothy, and enjoined upon him:-"That which thou hast heard of me, among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." Here we are plainly taught that men are not to seize upon the sacred office themselves. It is to be "committed to them;" and that not by every one; but by those only who have regularly "received" it themselves. We find, too, that the method of ordination which had been in use in the Jewish Synagogue, and to which all the first Christians had been accustomed was transferred to the Church, and became a stated part of ecclesiastical order. Paul and Barnabas were set apart to a particular service, by a plurality of ecclesiastical men, with prayer, imposition of hands, and fasting. When they, in their turn, went forth to execute the work to which they had been called, we find them, wherever they went, "ordaining Elders," and committing to them the care of the Church. Timothy was invested with office "by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." And even the Deacons, were called to their offve in the same manner. It was referred to the people to "look out" and elect the candidates; but having done so, they brought them to the Apostles, who "laid their hands upon them," and conferred on them the important office to which they were appointed. It is no part of the belief of Presbyterians, that Ordination imparts any direct influence, either physical or moral, to him who receives it. They have no idea that, in this act, by a kind of opus operatum, according to the Romanists, an "indelible character" is communicated. They do not suppose that any hallowed energy proceeds from the hands of the ordainers to him on whose head they lay them, in the act of imposition. But they regard it simply as that official act, by which a man is pronounced, declared and manifested, to be actually put in possession of the office to which he has been chosen. It is, in one word, the actual induction into office of one elected to fill it. The case is precisely analogous to that of civil rulers. The man who is appointed to the office of Judge on a secular bench, has no real addition made, either to his intellect, his learning, or his moral excellence, by taking the oath of office, and complying with those formalities which actually introduce him to his official station. And yet, so important are these formalities, that his power lawfully to act as Judge absolutely depends upon them. Before they take place, he is not really in office; and after they take place, he is clothed with that plenary power, which qualifies him for the regular discharge of every official duty. And so of every other civil officer in the land. Thus it is in the Church. Ordination is the essence of a lawful external call to ecclesiastical office. It is that act, before which, the ecclesiastical officer is not prepared, regularly, to discharge a single function appropriated to the station to which he is elected: but after which, he is prepared for their regular and valid performance. That Ruling Elders, besides being regularly chosen to office, should be ordained;-that is, publicly and solemnly designated and introduced to office by appropriate formalities-our ecclesiastical Constitution requires, and prescribes a Form for the purpose, concerning which I shall only say, that, as far as it goes, it is well devised, impressive and excellent. I say, as far as it goes;-for it has been, for many years, my settled conviction, that the Ordination Service in question, in not making the imposition of hands a stated constituent part of it, is chargeable with an omission, which, though not essential, and, therefore, not a matter for which it is proper to interrupt the peace of the Church; yet appears to me incapable of a satisfactory defence; and which it is my earnest hope may not much longer continue to be, as I know it is with many, matter of serious lamentation. The "imposition of hands," as a constituent part of Ordination, in an old and impressive rite. It was, notoriously, a familiar mode of designation to office, through the whole of the Old Testament economy. It is, if I mistake not, universally acknowledged to have been employed in ordaining all the Elders of the Jewish Synagogue. We find it is used in every Ordination, without exception, the particulars of which are detailed in the New Testament history. And even in setting apart the Deacons, nothing can be more explicit than the statement, that is was done with the "imposition of hands." So far, then, as we are bound to reverence and follow ancient, primitive, and uniform usage, I know of no solid reason why it should be omitted in any case. Some, indeed, have attempted to defend the omission of this rite by alleging, that the imposition of hands, in the days of the Apostles, was connected with the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were then common; and that with those special gifts, it ought to have ceased. In support of this allegation, they commonly adduced such passages as those recorded in Acts 8:17-18; Acts 19:6; Hebrews 6:2, &c. This argument however, if it have any force, ought to banish the imposition of hands from all ordinations; but can never justify the omission of it in ordaining Ruling Elders and Deacons, while it is retained in the ordination of those who "labor in the word and doctrine." But the validity of the whole argument, it is believed, may be set aside without difficulty. We read in the New Testament of four cases, or kinds of "laying on of hands." The first, by Christ himself, to express an authoritative benediction; (Matthew 19:15; Mark 10:16) the second, in the healing of diseases; (Mark 16:18; Acts 28:8) the third, in conferring extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; (Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6) and the fourth, in setting apart persons to sacred office; (Acts 6:6; Acts 13:3; 1 Timothy 4:14) The venerable Dr. Owen, in his commentary on Hebrews 6:2, expresses the opinion, that the "laying on of hands," mentioned in that passage, is to be considered as belonging to the third kind or class of cases, and, of course, as referring to the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. Others have supposed, that it rather belongs to the fourth example here enumerated, and, therefore, applies to the ordination of ministers. On this point I decide nothing. But my reasons for supposing that the imposition of hands in the ordination of Church Officers, had no reference to the imparting of supernatural gifts, and consequently ought not to be deemed an extraordinary and temporary rite, are such as these-1. This rite has been employed in all ages of the Church in setting apart persons to ecclesiastical office. 2. It is one of the most natural and significant modes of designating a person who is intended to be consecrated or devoted to a particular service. 3. It was manifestly employed in a number of cases which occur in the sacred history, where no special gifts were intended to be conveyed; and, therefore, though sometimes connected with those gifts, yet we are sure it was not in all cases thus connected.[1] 4. When hands were laid on Paul and Barnabas, at Antioch, it was not that they might receive these gifts, for they were possessed of them prior to this solemnity. 5. In this case, too, it is remarkable that they seem to have been ordinary pastors and teachers who laid their hands upon one, at least, of extraordinary gifts and character. 6. And, finally, in 1 Timothy 5:22, the whole rite of ordination seems to be comprehended in this act;-"Lay hands suddenly on no man," &c. And if we consider the act of laying hands on the head of the candidate for sacred office, as intended, at once, solemnly to designate his person, to express an official benediction; and to indicate his entire consecration to the service of God:-we could scarcely conceive of an Act more simple, and yet more appropriate, and full of meaning. And although those who lay on hands in this transaction altogether disclaim, as was before stated, the power of conveying the Holy Ghost to the individual ordained; yet as an emblem of what he needs, and ought unceasingly to seek, and of what his brethren desire and pray for on his behalf, it is, surely, in a high degree expressive, and by no means open to the charge of either presumption or superstition. I would say, therefore, concerning this part of the solemnity of ordination, in the language of the venerable Calvin: "Although there is no express precept for the imposition of hands; yet since we find it to have been constantly used by the Apostles, such a punctual observance of it by them ought to have the force of a precept with us. And certainly this ceremony is highly useful both to recommend to the people the dignity of the ministry, and to admonish the person ordained, that he is no longer his own master, but devoted to the service of God and the church. Besides, it will not be an unmeaning sign, if it be restored to its true origin. For if the Spirit of God institute nothing in the Church in vain, we shall perceive that this ceremony, which proceeded from Him, is not without its use, provided, it be not perverted by a superstitious abuse."[2] But if this rite be so reasonable, so scriptural, so expressive, and so generally adopted by almost all Christian denominations, in ordaining those Elders who, "labor in the word and doctrine;" how comes it to pass that it should be so generally, not to say universally omitted in the ordination of Ruling Elders? I have long deplored this omission;[3] and cannot help believing that, the restoration of so appropriate and impressive a part of the ordaining service would, in all probability, be attended with beneficial effects. It is not easy to ascertain the origin of the omission in question. The apostolic office of Ruling Elder, was preserved, as we have seen, by the witnesses of the truth, during the dark ages. Whether the pious Waldenses and Bohemian Brethren were in the habit of setting apart this class of officers with the imposition of hands, cannot now, so far as I know, be determined. The Reformers received the office under consideration from those pious Waldenses; and were well aware, as their writings evince, that all ordinations in the Synagogue, and in the primitive Church, had been accompanied with the laying on of hands. Still, however, while they with one accord, retained this rite in the ordination of Teaching Elders, they seem, quite as unanimously, to have discarded it in the ordination of Ruling Elders.[4] Of the cause of this, their writings give us no intimation; nor has it ever been my lot to hear, from any quarter, a single reason for the omission, which was in the least degree satisfactory. To be told, that the omission has "long been established;"-that, while all the Protestant Churches in the world, except that of England, receive this class of officers, in one form or another, they are "nowhere ordained by the imposition of hands;"-that this is "the custom of the Church;"-that to depart from it would be "to innovate" and "give offence," &c.-that this rite "may be omitted without injury, not being an essential part of ordination," &c.-is surely little adapted to satisfy an inquiring mind, desirous of receiving, as well as of being able to give, a reason for every practice. But although, as has been already said, no reason is formally assigned, or even hinted, in the writings of the Reformers, for laying aside the imposition of hands in the ordination of Ruling Elders; it is not, perhaps, difficult to conjecture how it happened. One mistake, I suspect, naturally led to another. They began by considering the office as a temporary one; or, rather, to decline allowing those who bore it, if they saw fit, sustaining it for more than a single year. There was a new election of these Elders annually. The same individuals, indeed, if they were acceptable to the people, and were willing to continue to serve the Church, might be reelected for a series of years, or, if they consented, even for life. But this seldom occurred. There was, for the most part, annually, a considerable change in the individuals, and, annually, a new ordination. The tenure of the office being thus temporary, and, in many cases, but for a single year;-no wonder that there should seem to the discerning and pious men who took the lead in organizing the Reformed Churches, some incongruity between this annual renewal of the official investiture and obligation, and setting apart men to the office in question, each time, with the very same formalities which attended the ordination of ministers of the gospel, whose tenure of office was for his. This incongruity, it is probable, struck them with so much force, that they could not reconcile it with their feelings to set apart to their office, these temporary incumbents, with the same rites and solemnity which they employed in ordaining ministers of the Word and Sacraments.[5] Nor is it matter of wonder that such feelings should have had an influence on their minds. Those who take such a view of the tenure of the office in question as they did, will never be very cordial or decisive either in addressing those who bear it, or in setting them apart, as men consecrated for life to the service of the Church. But that in the Church of Scotland,[6] and in the Presbyterian Church in this country, where, it is believed, correct views of the office of Ruling Elder, as perpetual, are universally received, the scriptural mode of setting apart to this office should have been so long and so generally disused, is a fact for which it is not easy to assign a satisfactory reason. We are now prepared to take a brief survey of the arguments by which the propriety of ordaining Elders by the imposition of hands may be maintained. They are such as the following: 1. We find, throughout the whole Jewish history, that, solemnly laying the hands on the head of a person who was intended to be particularly honored, blessed, or devoted to sacred functions, was a rite of frequent, not to say constant use; and even in cases in which the conveyance of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, could not possibly have been designed. 2. The inspired Apostles, in organizing the New Testament Church, took as their model the Synagogue system of government, to which the first Christians had been all their lives accustomed. 3. It is certain that in every Jewish Synagogue there was a bench of Ruling Elders; and it is just as certain that these Elders were always ordained by the imposition of hands. 4. There is not a single instance of an ordination, to any ecclesiastical office whatever, of which we have any account in the New Testament, in which the ceremony of the laying on of hands does not appear to have been used. 5. The first Deacons, though not intrusted with an office so purely spiritual, or so arduous, as that of Ruling Elder, were yet, as all acknowledge, set apart the Diaconate by the imposition of hands. Of course, those who bear a superior office ought not to be introduced to it with less solemnity. 6. To imaging that there is any peculiar meaning or mystical influence in the laying on of hands, which is above the dignity of the Ruling Elder’s office, involves, at once, a superstitious estimate of a simple, emblematical act, and an unworthy degradation of an important order in the Christian family. Accordingly, it is observable, that almost all classes of writers whose judgment in reference to this matter is worthy of particular notice, freely concede the propriety of setting apart both Ruling Elders and Deacons in the manner for which I contend; and scarcely offer any other reason for omitting it, than that such has been "long the custom" of the Reformed Churches, and that the ceremony is not "essential" to a valid ordination. The following specimen of the manner in which the subject is treated by such writers, will be quite sufficient to establish my position. The very learned authors of the Theses Leydenses, who were zealous Presbyterians, in speaking of the biennial election of Ruling Elders and Deacons, in the Church of Holland, acknowledge that, in the Apostolic Church, those offices were both perpetual, and concede that the different plan adopted among themselves was an imperfection;[7] plainly intimating, that their mode of ordaining these officers had grown out of this imperfection. The foreign Protestants, who established themselves in London, during the reign of Edward the sixth, not only had Ruling Elders and Deacons, in all their Churches; but also uniformly ordained them by the imposition of hands, as we have seen in the preceding chapter. The Rev. John Anderson, of Scotland, the able and zealous defender of Presbyterianism against Rhind, who lived a little more than a century ago, speaking of the ordination of Ruling Elders by the imposition of hands, has the following passage. "Nobody doubts it is very lawful; and, for my own part, I HEARTILY WISH IT WERE PRACTICED; but I deny that it is absolutely necessary, there being no precept enjoining it."[8] The Rev. Archibald Hall, also of Great Britain, and a thorough-going advocate for Presbyterian order, speaks on the same subject in the following terms. ``The call of Ruling Elders, like the call of the Elders who "labor in the word and doctrine," consists in two things, viz., election and ordination. Their election should be popular, and their ordination judicial, and performed WITH LAYING ON OF HANDS." And, in a subsequent page, he expresses an opinion that Deacons ought to be ordained in the same,manner.[9] The venerable John Brown, of Haddington, one of the most decisive, consistent and devoted Presbyterians that ever lived;-after giving an account of the nature and warrant of the office of Ruling Elders,-observes;-"Their ordination ought to be transacted in much the SAME MANNER, as that of teaching Elders, or Pastors."[10] The learned and pious Dr. Cotton Mather, delivers the following opinion on the subject before us. "The imposition of hands in the ordination of a Church officer, is a rite not only lawful to be retained; but it seems by a divine institution directed and required; so that although the call of a person to Church office may not become null and void, where that rite may have been omitted, AS IT IS IN THE SENIORS AND DEACONS IN MOST OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES; YET WE CANNOT APPROVE THE OMISSION OF IT. A ceremonial defect may be blameworthy."[11] Our excellent and eloquent countryman, the Rev. President Dwight, gives an opinion concerning the ordination of Deacons, which is decisive of his opinion concerning that of Ruling Elders, in favor of which latter class of officers, he very explicitly, as we have before seen, declares his judgment. He speaks thus:-- "Deacons are to be ordained by the imposition of hands, and by prayer." "When the brethren had set these men before the Apostles, St. Luke informs us, `they prayed, and laid their hands upon them.’" "This also is an authoritative example of the manner in which Deacons are to be introduced into every Church. It is the example of inspired men; and was, therefore, the pleasure of the Spirit of God. There is no hint in the New Testament nor even in ecclesiastical history, that they were ever introduced in any other manner. At the same time there is no precept, revoking, or altering the authority, or influence of this example. It stands, therefore, in full force; and requires that all persons chosen by the Church to this office, should be consecrated to the duties of it in the same manner." "It is to be observed, further, that if any such alteration had existed in periods subsequent to the apostolic age, it would have been totally destitute of any authority to us. This mode of consecration has, in fact, been disused in New-England, to a considerable extent. For this, however, there seems to have been no reason of any value. So far as I have been able to gain information on the subject, the disuse was originated at first, and has been gradually extended by mere inattention; NOR IS IT CAPABLE, SO FAR AS I KNOW, OF ANY DEFENCE."[12] These are a few of the authorities which might be quoted in favor of the same general position. In fact, I have met with no Presbyterian or Independent writer, who believed in the propriety of the imposition of hands in any case of ordination, who did not either explicitly or virtually grant, that there was no reason for withholding this ceremony in the case of Ruling Elders, but the custom of the Church, or some similar consideration. On the supposition, then, that the imposition of hands ought always to be employed in the ordination of Ruling Elders, the question naturally arises;-WHOSE HANDS ought to be laid on in such ordinations? And here, if we attend to the simplest principles of all government, it would seem that we could scarcely be at loss for a satisfactory answer. It seems to be a fundamental principle in every department, both of the natural and moral world, that every thing must be considered as capable of begetting its like. If this be so, does it not follow, as a plain dictate of common sense, that, in ordaining Ruling Elders, the members of the session already in office should lay on hands, with the Pastor, in setting apart an additional number to the same office? In other words, if there be such a body already in existence in the Church, THE HANDS OF THE PAROCHIAL PRESBYTERY ought to be laid on, in adding to its own number;-and the "right hand of fellowship" given, at the close of the service, by every member of the Session, to each of his newly ordained brethren. This appears to me equally agreeable to reason and Scripture, and highly adapted to edification. And if there be no Eldership already in the Church in which the ordination takes place,-then the Presbytery, upon proper application being made to them, ought to appoint at least one minister, and two or more Ruling Elders, to attend, at the time and place most convenient, to perform the ordination. How much more impressive and acceptable would be such a scene, than the cold and naked manner in which this service is too often performed! A question may here arise in the minds of some, whether those Elders who, when ordained, had no hands laid on them, may, without impropriety, join in the imposition of hands on the heads of their younger brethren, who may be ordained in this manner? To this question, beyond all doubt, we may confidently return an affirmative answer. They may unite in the imposition of hands, without the least scruple, and with the utmost propriety. All reasonable men grant, that the rite in question, though rational and scriptural, is not essential to a valid ordination. Our venerable Fathers of the Scotch Reformation did not deem the imposition of hands necessary, even in the ordination of Ministers of the gospel; and, therefore, in their First Book of Discipline did not prescribe it. Elders, therefore, who have been regularly set apart to their office, agreeably to the Formula prescribed in the Presbyterian Church, have received an ordination completely valid. They are fully invested with the office, and with all the powers and privileges which it includes. It is contrary to the whole genius of the gospel to make a mere ceremonial defect fatal to the substance of an otherwise regular investiture. If Elders who have been thus ordained, be deemed competent to any part of their official work, they are competent to every part; and, of course, to partake in the solemnity which I am here endeavoring to recommend. If the foregoing principles be correct, then Ruling Elders ought also to lay on hands, with the Pastor, in the ordination of Deacons; their office as Rulers vesting them with full power for this act, and rendering it strictly proper. But inasmuch as Deacons make no part of the parochial presbytery, and are not vested with any portion of the function of spiritual government; it does not seem proper that, they should lay on hands in any case of ordination. In that of Ruling Elders, it would be manifestly incongruous; since their office is altogether unlike. But even in the ordination of Deacons, it would be inconsistent with regular order. Ordination is an act not only official, but also authoritative. It is an act of government: but to no participation in this are Deacons appointed. This office, as we have seen, is highly important, and requires much, wisdom, piety, prudence, and diligence; but their sphere of duty is entirely different from that of those who are "set over the flock in the Lord," and who are appointed to "watch for souls as they that must give account." If, after this whole discussion, any should be disposed to ask, what additional advantage may be expected to flow from ordaining our Elders by the imposition of hands, and with similar external solemnities to those which are employed in setting apart ministers of the gospel?-I answer-It will be a return to scriptural example, and primitive usage,-which is always right, and will, we have reason to hope, by the grace of God, be connected with a blessing. It will be doing warranted and appropriate honor to a class of officers too long deprived of their due estimation and authority. When the people see those whom they have elected to this office, devoutly kneeling before the Lord, and the hands of the parochial Presbytery laid on their heads, with fervent prayer, and with a solemn charge and benediction;-they will naturally attach to the office itself more importance, and to those who bear it, more reverence. Nay, perhaps it is not unreasonable to believe, that such solemnities may be made the means of salutary impressions on the minds even of their immediate subjects. If the writer of these lines does not greatly mistake, he has known the solemnities attending the ordination of Pastors, productive of deep and lasting impressions, both on the ordained, and the spectators. But he has no recollection of ever witnessing any such result from our comparatively cold and lifeless mode of setting apart the official Rulers in Christ’s house. "This is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation." FOOTNOTES 1.Imposition of hands was a Jewish ceremony, introduced, not by any divine authority, but by custom; it being the practice among those people, whenever they prayed to God for any person, to lay their hands upon his head. Our Saviour observed the same custom, both when he conferred his blessings on children, and when he healed the sick, adding prayers to the ceremony. The Apostles likewise laid hands on those upon whom they bestowed the Holy Ghost. The priests observed the same custom when any one was received into their body. And the Apostles themselves underwent the imposition of hands afresh, when they entered upon any new design. In the ancient Church imposition of hands was even practised on persons when they were married; which custom the Abyssinians still observe." BURDER’s Oriental Customs. ii. 25. 2.Institutiones, Lib. iv. Cap. iii. 16. 3.More than twenty years ago, the author of this volume, under the deep and unwavering conviction that he had scriptural authority to sustain him, when called upon to ordain Elders and Deacons in a vacant Church, added to the usual solemnity on such occasions, the act of "laying on hands" in the ordaining prayer. Finding, however, that many of his Brethren considered it as an innovation, and were by no means prepared to introduce the practice; believing that diversity of practice in relation to this matter would be very undesirable; and persuaded, moreover, that the act in question ought not to be deemed an essential in any ordination,--he resolved not to repeat it, until it could be used without offence, and with better prospects of edification to the Church. 4.It is worthy of remark that our Independent brethren, at early periods of their history, adhered more closely to the scriptural methods of ordaining Ruling Elders and Deacons, than even Presbyterians. See the Cambridge Platform, chapters vii. and ix. See also a Confession of Faith, adopted by some Anti-paedobaptists, (to the amount of 100 congregations,) in England and Wales, in 1689; and ratified and adopted by a Baptist Association met at Philadelphia, in 1742; chapter 27. Also a "Short Treatise on Church Discipline," appended to it by the latter. Chapters 3 and 4. 5.This representation is not wholly gratuitous. It appears from the Compendium Theologiae Christianae of Marck, and from the opinion of Frederick Spanheim, quoted with approbation by De Moor, the Commentator on Marck, that all three of these Divines of the Reformed Church had no other objection to the laying on of hands in the ordination of Ruling Elders, than that which I have suggested. DE MOORI Com. Perpet. Vol. vi. p. 330. 6.At what period in the History of the Church of Scotland it was that the annual election of Elders was laid aside, and the office made permanent, it has not fallen in the author’s way to obtain information. He is disposed to believe, however, that the change took place either late in the sixteenth, or early in the seventeenth century. 7.Synopsis Purioris Theologicae. Disput. 42. p. 621. 8.Defence, &c. Chap. ii. Sect. vi. p. 179. 9.Scriptural View of the Gospel Church, Chapters 12 and 15. p. 67. 102. 10.Compendous View. Book vii. Chapter ii. p. 640. 11.Magnalia, Vol. ii. p. 218. 12.Theology explained and defended. Vol. iv. p. 291. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 31: 03.14. OF THE RESIGNATION OF RULING ELDERS ======================================================================== CHAPTER XIV. OF THE RESIGNATION OF RULING ELDERS;-- THEIR REMOVAL FROM ONE CHURCH OFFICE TO ANOTHER;-- AND THE METHOD OF CONDUCTING DISCIPLINE AGAINST THEM. As it is a fundamental principle of the Presbyterian Church that the office of Ruling Elder is permanent; that when a man is once set apart to it, he is always an Elder, while he lives, unless deposed by regular constitutional process;-a variety of questions, naturally resulting from this principle, claim our notice. Among these, some of the more obvious and important will be briefly considered in the present chapter. A Ruling Elder, after being regularly and solemnly set apart to his office, with, perhaps, as full an intention of faithfully performing its duties to his life’s end, as ever man had-may lose his health, and thus become physically and permanently unable to perform those duties. Or he may become, unavoidably, so situated, with regard to his temporal business as to render the regular fulfilment of his duties altogether impracticable. In this case, the individual supposed, may resign his place in the Session; in other words, be may cease to be an acting Overseer, or Inspector and Ruler of that Church. He will, of course, still retain his place and privileges as a regular member of the Church; but he will no longer take any part in its spiritual government. This is so reasonable a provision, that it can scarcely be thought to require either illustration or defence. We all know that a Teaching Elder, or Minister of the Word and Sacraments, after being for a time a Pastor, may, if the state of his health, or any other circumstance should imperiously demand it, resign his pastoral charge, and retire, as long as the cause of his resignation continues to operate, to private life. He who does this, it is well known, though he ceases to be a Pastor, still continues to be a minister, fully invested with the powers of an "Ambassador of Christ." He may still, if he think proper, reside within the bounds of the congregation which he formerly served; and he may, occasionally, if mutually convenient and agreeable, minister to them in sacred things. But he is no longer their minister; and he may never think proper again to take a pastoral charge. All these principles apply to the Ruling Elder. If he verily think that he cannot any longer perform the duties of his office in a manner acceptable either to the Head of the Church, or to his people;-he may withdraw from active service. When he does this, however, he does not lay down his office. He does not cease to be an Elder. He only ceases to be an acting Elder. If his health should ever be restored, or his temporal circumstances undergo a favorable alteration, he may resume the duties of his office, and again take his place in the Session from which he withdrew, or some other, without a new ordination. When an Elder thus wishes to resign his station, he is to give official notice of his desire to the Session;-they are to declare if they think proper, their acceptance of his resignation;-the whole transaction is to be distinctly recorded in the Sessional Book;-and report made to the Presbytery that the individual in question has ceased to be an acting member of that Session. Again; an Elder may become wholly incapable of serving the Church with which he is connected, by the entire loss of his popularity. He may not have become either heterodox In his theological opinions, or so irregular in any part of his practice, as to render himself liable to process or deposition from office:-and yet he may, by indiscretions, or by undignified conduct, so lose the respect and confidence of the people; or, in a moment of prejudice or passion, the popular felling, without any just ground of blame on his part, may be so strong against him, that he may be no longer able to serve the Church either acceptably, or to edification, as a spiritual Ruler. In either of these cases, he ought voluntarily to resign his place in the Session, as stated in the preceding paragraph; and the Session, after taking a vote of acceptance on the resignation, ought distinctly to record the same in the minutes of their proceedings, and make regular report of it, for the information of the Presbytery. In all this there will be recognized an almost exact similarity to the usual course of proceeding, when a Pastor is sensible that he has become unpopular, and wishes to resign his charge. It may be, however, that the Elder, whose popularity is thus prostrated, may not be sensible of his real situation; may be unwilling to believe that he is not popular; and may, therefore, refuse, even when requested, to resign his station. In this case, the course prescribed in our Form of Government, is, that the Session make due report of the whole matter to the Presbytery, giving due notice to the Elder in question of the time and place at which it is intended to make the report; and that the Presbytery decide, after due inquiry and deliberation whether he ought to resign, or continue his connexion with the Session. On the one hand, no, Church ought to be burdened by the incumbency of an unpopular and obstinate Elder, who, instead of edifying, is injuring it. And, on the other hand, no innocent and really exemplary Elder ought to be abandoned to the fury of popular prejudice, and permitted to be trampled under feet, when, perhaps, he ought to be sustained and honored for his fidelity. Further; Ruling Elders, like other Church members, may find it their duty to remove their residence from the bounds of the Church which called them to office, to another. Such cases not unfrequently arise. The question is, when they do occur, how is the official standing of such a removing Elder to be disposed of? He, of course, when he goes, ought to take with him a regular certificate of good standing, as a private Christian, and a dismission and recommendation to the Church to which he removes. The certificate ought also to bear an attestation of his regular standing as an Elder, and of his official as well as personal dismission from his former Church. With this certificate he will repair to the Church to which he is recommended, and will, of course, be received as a private member in good standing. If the existing Eldership and members of the Church to which he removes, think it for their edification that he be introduced into their Session, he may be elected in the manner "most approved and in use in that congregation;"-that is, either by a nomination by the Session, or by a popular vote of the Church members; and if thus elected, introduced to an official relation to that people, not by a new ordination, which ought never to be repeated: but by being regularly installed as their Elder. This is effected by the candidate appearing in the face of the congregation, as one about to be ordained;-answering in the affirmative the Fourth question directed to be put to candidates for the Eldership at their ordination;-the members of the congregation publicly professing to receive him as their spiritual Ruler, agreeably to the last question, in the same formula; declaring him one of the Ruling Elders of that Church; and closing with prayer for the divine blessing on the transaction. It may be, however, that when an individual, who has served one Congregation as an Elder, removes into the bounds of another, that other may not, on the whole, think best to elect him as one of their Elders. They may already have as many as they think there ought to be in one Church. Or his character, though unexceptionably good, may not be such as to promise great benefit by taking him into their parochial Presbytery. In this case, they are under no obligation to elect him one of their Elders. And if they do not think best to employ him in his character, he may live among them as a private member of the Church. At this he ought to take no offence. It would be a hard case, indeed, if Churches were not left at liberty to act agreeably to their own views of propriety and duty in such cases. If a preaching Elder, or Pastor, be liberated from his pastoral charge, and remove his residence within the bounds of another Church, however excellent his character, that Church is not bound to employ him. To suppose it bound, would indeed be ecclesiastical slavery. A preacher inferior to him, in every respect, might be preferred. Every Church must be left to its own unbiassed choice. Still the Elder, as well as the minister, in the case supposed, though in retirement, and without official employment, retains his office, and is capable of being employed in that office, whenever the judicatories of the Church think proper to avail themselves of his services. When Ruling Elders become chargeable with heresy or immorality, and, of course, liable to the discipline of the Church, they are amenable to the bar of the Church Session. By that body they are to be arraigned and tried. Process against them is to be conducted according to the same general rules which regulate the trial of private members of the Church, excepting that, as their character is, in some respects, more important and their example more influential, than the character and example of those who bear no office in the Church; so there ought to be peculiar caution, tenderness, and care in receiving accusations, and in commencing process against them. "Against an Elder," says the inspired Paul, "receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." If, therefore, any person observe or hear of any thing in a Ruling Elder which he considers as rendering him justly liable to censure, he ought by no means immediately to spread it abroad; but to communicate what he has observed or heard to the Pastor of the Church, and take his advice as to the proper course to be pursued; and if the Pastor cannot be seen and consulted, then similar consultation and advice should be had with one, at least, of the brother Elders of the supposed delinquent: and all this, before any hint respecting the alleged delinquency is lisped to any other human being. As the Church Session is the tribunal to which the Ruling Elder is, at least in the first instance, always amenable; so it is generally proper that he should be tried by that judicatory. Yet where there is any thing peculiar or delicate in the case of process against an Elder, a Presbytery should be consulted. There are cases, however, so very peculiar as to preclude the possibility of an impartial trial, and sometimes, indeed, of any trial at all, before the Session. A few such cases may be specified. An instance occurred, a few years since, in which there were only two Elders in a certain Church Session, and the moral conduct of both these Elders became impeached. It was, of course, impossible to try them in the usual manner. In another case, the Session was composed of two Elders beside the Pastor. These Elders were own brothers. One of them was charged with immoral conduct; and it was judged altogether improper that any attempt should be made to try the delinquent in that Session. In a third class of cases, when process against members of Church Sessions had been commenced, it was found that so many of the brother Elders of the delinquents were cited as witnesses, that there was no prospect of a dispassionate and impartial trial by the remainder. In all these cases, it was wisely judged proper to apply immediately to the Presbytery, to take the several causes in hand, and to commence and issue process. It has been sometimes proposed, in exigencies similar to those which have been stated, without applying to the Presbytery, to call in the aid of the Eldership of a neighboring Church, and to submit the case to their decision. To this course there are two objections. First-the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church knows of no such body. It has no where provided for the formation of a parochial tribunal in such a manner. And, secondly, the adoption of this plan would be to set one Church as a judge over a neighboring sister Church. To avoid this incongruity, it has been sometimes proposed to form a tribunal for the trial of delinquent Elders, by selecting one or two of the same class of officers from each of several neighboring Sessions. This was intended as an expedient to avoid the impropriety of setting one Church in judgment over another. But this expedient, besides that it is unauthorized by any constitutional provision, is liable to the charge of a selection of judges which may not always be fair and impartial. It is far better on every account, and especially more in harmony with the nature of the case, and with the spirit of our general principles,-to go immediately to the Presbytery. That body is the natural resort in all cases in which the Church Session is unable, in its ordinary structure and situation, to perform the contemplated work. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 32: 03.15. ADVANTAGES OF CONDUCTING THIS DISCIPLINE ON THE PRESBYTERIAN PLAN ======================================================================== CHAPTER XV. ADVANTAGES OF CONDUCTING DISCIPLINE ON THE PRESBYTERIAN PLAN. It is not forgotten, in entering on this chapter, that most denominations of Christians are so far prejudiced, and sometimes so blindly prejudiced, in favor of their own particular government and formularies, that their judgment in reference to this manner can seldom be regarded as impartial. The writer of this Essay, though he does not allow himself to indulge in such prejudices, yet, does not claim to be wholly free from them. Instead, therefore, of troubling the reader with his bare impressions and preferences in regard to the Presbyterian mode of conducting discipline, which would, of course, go for nothing; it is proposed to present such a series of principles and reasonings as will enable the intelligent inquirer to judge for himself, how far the conclusions of the writer are sustained by solid argument. I. And, in the first place, the plan of discipline for which we plead, is founded, essentially, on the principle of REPRESENTATION, which, in a greater or less degree, pervades all human society. When a community of any extent wishes to frame laws for its own government, by whom is this service usually performed? By the whole body of citizens, wise and unwise, orderly and disorderly, coming together, and debating on the propriety and the form of every proposed enactment? No, never. An attempt of this kind would soon show the plan to be equally foolish and impracticable. Again; when a Court is to be formed, for applying the laws already in force, to human actions, of what materials is this tribunal commonly composed? Does any one ever think of summoning the whole mass of the male population, excepting the culprit, or the complainant, whose cause is to be tried, to come together, and decide on the case? Who would ever expect either a tranquil or a wise decision from such a judicial assembly? In both these cases, the good sense of men, in all civilized society, dictates the choice of a select number of individuals, representatives of the whole body, and supposed to possess a competent share of knowledge, wisdom and integrity, to form the laws of the community; and another body, smaller, indeed, but constituted upon similar principles, judicially to apply them when enacted. And so in every department of society. The representative system was one of the earliest that appeared in the progress of mankind. It is recommended by its reasonableness, its convenience, its wisdom, and its efficiency. In fact, the more deeply we look into the history and state of the world, the more clearly we shall see that large bodies of men cannot take a step without it. And, as this system pervades all civil society; so we may say, without fear of contradiction, that it equally pervades the whole economy of Redemption and Grace. Is it not reasonable, then, that we should find it in the visible Church? If we did not, it would, indeed, be a strange departure from a general principle of Jehovah’s kingdom. The Presbyterian plan, then, of conducting the government of each congregation, is recommended by its conformity with this, almost universal, principle. It deposits the power of applying the laws which Christ has enacted, and given to his people;-not with the whole professing population of the Church; but with a select body of the communicants, most distinguished for their piety, knowledge, judgment, and experience. It does not make judges indiscriminately of the young and old, the enlightened and the ignorant, the wise and the unwise. It selects the exemplary, the pious, the prudent, the grave, and the experienced, for this important work. "It sets those to judge who are most esteemed in the house of God." This is the theory; and, in most cases, we may suppose, the actual practice. And where it is really so, who does not see that there is every security which the nature of the case admits, that the judgment will be most calm, judicious and edifying that the amount of wisdom and of piety in that Church could pronounce? The inconvenience, nay, the positive mischiefs, of committing the judgment, in the most delicate and difficult cases of implicated Christian character, to the whole mass of Christian professors, have been alluded to in a preceding chapter. And the more closely they are examined, the more serious will they appear. No confidential precaution; no calm, retired inquiry; no deliberate consultation of sensitive feelings, with fidelity, and yet with fraternal delicacy, can possibly take place, in ordidary cases, but by the adoption of an expedient, which amounts to the temporary appointment of Elders. On the contrary, upon any other plan, the door is wide open for tale-bearing; for party heat; for the violation of all those nicer sensibilities, which in Christian society are of so much value; and after all, for a decision with which, perhaps, no one is satisfied. It would, truly, be passing strange, if a sober, wise, and consistent decision should be pronounced by such a tribunal. We are surely, then, warranted in setting it down as one of the manifest advantages of conducting discipline on the Presbyterian plan, that, by the adoption of the representative systems it provides, in all ordinary caves, for the purest, the wisest, and the most edifying decisions of which the nature of the case admits. II. Further; as was hinted in a preceding chapter, this method of conducting discipline PRESENTS ONE OF THE FIRMEST CONCEIVABLE BARRIERS AGAINST THE AMBITION AND ENCROACHMENTS OF THE CLERGY. It is not intended again to enlarge on the liableness of ministers of the gospel to feel that love of power which is natural to man. Very few of them, it is believed. in this land of religious liberty, have ever really aimed at ecclesiastical encroachment. But as laws are made for the disobedient; and as ministers are but men; so that system of ecclesiastical polity may be considered as the best, which, while it is attended with the greatest amount of positive advantage, is adapted most effectually to obviate those evils to which human nature is exposed. Now, it is evident, that the method of conducting discipline at present under consideration, assigns to every Pastor a Council, or Senate of pious, wise, prudent men, chosen from among the body of the communicants; and though not strictly lay-men, yet commonly so viewed, and, at any rate, carrying with them the feelings of the mass of their brethren. He is simply the Chairman of this body of six, eight or ten men, who are charged with the whole spiritual rule, and "without whose counsel nothing is done in the Church." He can carry no measure but with their consent. He can neither admit nor exclude a single member, without their concurrence. If he engage in any sinister or foul plan, as many are fond of supposing the clergy inclined to attempt, he certainly cannot accomplish it, either in his own Church or in neighboring Churches, unless he can prevail on these men to join with him in conspiring to elevate himself, at their own expense. Will he be likely to work such a wonder as this? At any rate, there seems to be the best barrier against it, that the nature of human society admits. The same general safeguard pervades all the Judicatories of the Presbyterian Church. In all of them, Ruling Elders have a place, and in all of them, excepting the General Assembly, the Elders, if the theory of our system were carried into perfect execution, would be a majority. In the General Assembly alone, if completely full, they would stand on an equality in votes with the Pastors. And these Ruling Elders are not merely present in all these bodies. They mingle in all the business; are appointed on all committees; and have every possible opportunity of becoming acquainted, in the most intimate manner, with all that is proposed or done. There can be no concealment. The proceedings of all our Judicatories, excepting the Church Session, where the Elders form an overwhelming majority, are open and public as the light of day. And every Ruling Elder has at his disposal a vote as potent as that of his most eloquent and learned, neighboring Pastor. It may be asked, then, whether there is not here a barrier against clerical ambition and encroachment as fixed and firm as can well be conceived or desired? It is, undoubtedly, a far more firm barrier than is presented by the popular plan in use among our, Independent brethren. For as, in every Church, a majority of the members have but little discernment, and are, of course, easily influenced and led; so an artful, designing Pastor, if such an one should appear in a Church thus constituted, might generally succeed in conciliating to his own person and schemes a majority of the votes, to the utter discomfiture of the more wise, pious, and prudent portion of the members. But, upon the Presbyterian plan, it is precisely this best class of his Church members who are associated with him in authority and counsel; who are with him, ecclesiastically speaking, abroad and at home, in the house and by the way, in going out and in coming in; from whose notice he cannot escape, and without whose co-operation he can do nothing. Truly, this is the very last method that designing, ambitious ministers would adopt to, forward their projects! Nothing could be conceived more unfriendly to corrupt schemes, than such a band of official colleagues. And accordingly, as we have more than once seen in the foregoing chapters, the honest and pious old Ambrose, of the fourth century, expressly tells us, that it was a wish to get rid of such colleagues on the part of the reaching Elders, that first led to the gradual disuse of Ruling Elders in the Church, after the first three centuries. III. Again; as the Presbyterian plan of administering discipline is adapted to present one of the strongest conceivable barriers against clerical ambition, so it also furnishes one of the best securities for PRESERVING THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. And here nothing win be said on the supposed congeniality between the Presbyterian form of Church Government, and the republican, representative systems under which we live; and the alleged tendency of the former, to prepare men for understanding, prizing and maintaining the latter;-I say, on these allegations I shall not dwell;-not because I do not consider both as perfectly well founded, but because the discussion might be deemed, by some readers, invidious; and because it forms no necessary part of my argument. Independently of these considerations, it may be confidently maintained, that the Presbyterian plan of administering discipline furnishes far better security for preserving unimpaired the rights of private Christians, than any plan with which we are acquainted. It is not forgotten that this assertion will appear a paradox to many; but it rests, nevertheless, on the most solid grounds. There is no oppression more heavy, no tyranny more unrelenting, than that of an excited, infuriated popular assembly. No body with which the rights and privileges of an inculpated individual are less safe; especially when headed and controlled by an eloquent, artful and highly popular Pastor, who has taken part against that individual. Suppose, then, as the annals of Independency have too often exemplified,-that a member is on trial, for some alleged delinquency, before a Church of that denomination. Suppose the alleged offence to be one which has deeply alienated from him his Pastor, and all the particular friends of the Pastor. Suppose these, as one man, rise up against him, and resolve to crush him. And suppose this Pastor to be so generally admired and beloved by his people, that he is able to command an overwhelming majority of their votes, in support of all his favorite measures. What chance would such an accused person stand of an impartial trial before such a tribunal? Not the smallest. He might be guilty, indeed, and deserve the heaviest sentence; but even if innocent, his acquittal, in such circumstances could be anticipated by none. He must become the victim of popular resentment; and if he thus fall, he has no remedy. There is no tribunal to which he can appeal. He must lie down under the oppressive sentence. And there he must lie as long as he lives. He cannot regularly, (that is, according to that ecclesiastical rule which pervades all religious denominations) go to another Church; for the supposition is that he is excommunicated, and cannot be recommended as in "good standing" to any other ecclesiastical body. He must submit to the operation of the sentence, however unjust, until the excited and impassioned body which laid it upon him, shall be disposed to relent, and consent to remove the deadly weight. It is not denied that there may be moments of prejudice and passion in the Presbyterian Church, in which even the grave and experienced Elders may be so wrought upon by different sorts of influence, as to dispense justice very imperfectly, or even, in a particular case, to refuse it entirely. But then, in every such case, upon the Presbyterian plan, there is an immediate and perfect remedy. An individual who supposes himself wronged, may appeal to a higher tribunal, where his cause will be heard by judicious, enlightened, impartial men, who had no concern in its origin, and who, if wrong have been done, may be expected to afford prompt and complete redress. The oppressive sentence may be reversed. He may be reinstated, in spite of popular excitement, in all his Christian privileges; and even, where his own reluctance, or that of his former connexions, may forbid his return to the bosom of the same congregation in which he recently received such treatment; yet he may easily and regularly be attached to a neighboring one of the same denomination, and thus find the whole difficulty satisfactorily removed. It is not asserted, then, that other Churches, in their exercise of discipline, do, in fact, more frequently injure and oppress the subjects of their discipline than the Presbyterian Church. Such an assertion, indeed, might, perhaps, be made without invidiousness; inasmuch as decisions formed and pronounced by the popular voice, may be deemed, without disparagement to the individuals who form them, less likely to be wise, and impartial, than when formed by a select body of enlightened and pious judges. But on this point no comparative estimate will be attempted. It is however, confidently asserted, that when such wrong, as that of which we speak, unhappily occurs, the Presbyterian system affords more complete relief from oppression, and, therefore, furnishes more fixed security for the rights of the people, than is found in any other denomination. No single man, in our Church, whatever title he may bear, can, by his single, perhaps capricious, veto, deprive a professing Christian of his privileges as a Church member; nor can it be done by a feverish, popular assembly, impelled by its own prejudice or passion, or held under the sovereign control of one man. The best array of piety, wisdom, and knowledge which the society affords, must sit in judgment in the case, and even if this judicatory should give an unjust sentence, the religious rights of the individual are not prostrated or foreclosed; but may be reviewed by an impartial tribunal, and every privilege which he ought to enjoy, secured. IV. Further; the plan of conducting Church government with the aid of Ruling Elders, secures to Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, COUNSEL AND SUPPORT, IN ALL THEIR OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS, OF THE BEST POSSIBLE KIND. Supposing ministers of the gospel to be honest, pious, disinterested and zealous in their appropriate work; to have no dispositions at any time, to encroach on the rights of others; and to be above the reach of that passion and prejudice, which are so apt to assail even the honest, and which need a check in all;-even suppose ministers of the gospel to be above the reach of these evils;-still they need counsel, information, and support in a multitude of cases and cannot, with either safety or advantage, proceed without them. In all the affairs of the Church, it is of the utmost importance that the interests of the whole body be constantly consulted, and that the whole body act an appropriate part in conducting its affairs. As there are no privileged orders to be aggrandized and elevated; so there are no ecclesiastical secrets to be kept; no private or selfish schemes to be tolerated. The more completely every plan is laid open to public view, understood and appreciated by every member, sustained by unanimous and willing effort, and made to promote the knowledge, purity and order of the whole-the better. Of course, that plan of ecclesiastical regimen which is best adapted to attain these ends, and to attain there in the most certain, direct, quiet, and comfortable manner, is most worthy of our choice. Such a plan, it is firmly believed, is the Presbyterian. In every department of official duty, the Pastor of this denomination has associated with him, a body of pious, wise, and disinterested counsellors, taken from among the people; acquainted with their views; participating in their feelings; able to give sound advice as to the wisdom and practicability of plans which require general co-operation for carrying them into effect; and able also after having aided in the formation of such plans, to return to their constituents, and so to advocate and recommend them, as to secure general concurrence in their favor. This is an advantage, strictly speaking, peculiar to Presbyterianism. For although other forms of Church government provide for associating lay-men with the clergy in ecclesiastical business; yet, according to them, there is no divine warrant for it. It is a mere human expedient, to meet an acknowledged exigency, for which those who make this acknowledgment, suppose that the law of Christ makes no provision. And the human provision which they thus make, is, manifestly, liable to many objections. It consists either in constituting the whole body of the communicants the Pastor’s counsellors-which is liable to all the objections stated at large in a former chapter; or, in providing for him a committee, or small delegation of lay-men, who may be changed every year, or oftener, and, of course, may have very little experience; and in some Churches these lay delegates are not required to be communicants, or even baptized persons; and, consequently, may have no real ecclesiastical responsibility for their conduct. V. The method of conducting discipline under consideration, has also the advantage on the score of DESPATCH AND ENERGY, as well as of wisdom and the security of equal rights. Where all the discipline that is exercised is in the hands of a single individual, without appeal, it must be confessed that, in this case, provision for despatch and energy cannot be, at least in theory, more perfect. But where it is in the hands of the whole body of the Church members, there is no saying how long litigation may be protracted, or in what perplexities and delays the plainest case may be involved. There are so many minds to be consulted, and every case, upon this plan, is so open to capricious or malignant interposition, that it is impossible, in ordinary circumstances, to calculate results, or to foresee an end. Even on the Presbyterian plan, there is no doubt that delay and perplexities may, in some cases, arise. But where the whole management of discipline, from its inceptive steps to the consummation of each case, is entirely committed to a select body of pious, intelligent, prudent, and experienced men, accustomed to the work, and aware of the dangers to which their course is exposed, we may reasonably calculate on their decisions being as speedy, as unembarrassed, and as much lifted above the temporizing feebleness, or the tempestuous irregularity and confusion, incident to popular management, as human infirmity will allow. VI. The plan of conducting discipline by means of a succession of judicatories, admitting of appeal, provides for redressing many grievances which do not appear, otherwise, to admit of a remedy. According to the Independent, or strictly Congregational system, as suggested in a preceding page, when a member of a Church has been unjustly censured or cast out, he has no appeal. There is no tribunal to which he can apply for relief. Yet his case may be an exceedingly hard one, loudly calling for redress. The cause of religion in his neighborhood may be suffering severely by the situation in which he is placed. Ought there not to be some regular and adequate method of meeting and removing such a difficulty? In such of the Churches of Connecticut as have entered into the plan of Consociational union, such a method has been, to a certain extent, provided. But it has been by adopting, to precisely the same extent, a leading principle of Presbyterianism. When difficulties arise in a particular Church, a tribunal is formed, by a number of neighboring ministers, together with one or more lay-delegates, from each of the Churches represented, who may review, and, if need be, redress the alleged grievance. This is a Presbyterian feature in their system, and, so far as it goes, excellent and effectual. In the judgement, however, of the venerable President Dwight, this plan is still defective, and defective precisely in the point at which it stops short of Presbyterianism. The opinion which this distinguished Congregational Minister has expressed, in reference to the subject before us, will best appear by presenting it in its connexion. It is as follows:- "There are many cases in which individuals are dissatisfied, on reasonable grounds, with the judgment a Church. It is perfectly obvious, that, in a debate between two members of the same Church, the parties may, in many respects, stand on unequal ground. One of them may be ignorant; without family connexions; in humble circumstances; and possessed of little or no personal influence. The other may be a person of distinction; opulent; powerfully connected; of superior understanding; and of great personal influence, not only in the Church, but also in the country at large. As things are in this world, it is impossible that these persons should possess, in any controversy between them, equal advantages. Beyond all this, the Church itself may be one party, and a poor and powerless member the other. In this case, also, it is unnecessary to observe, the individual must labor under every supposable disadvantage, to which a righteous cause can be subjected. To bring the parties in these, or any similar circumstances, as near to a state of equality as human affairs will permit, it seems absolutely necessary that every ecclesiastical body should have its tribunal of appeals; a superior Judicature, established by common consent, and vested with authority to issue finally all those causes, which, before a single Church, are obviously liable to a partial decision." "Such a tribunal, in all the New-England States; except this, (Connecticut,) is formed by what is called a Select Council; that is a council mutually chosen by the contending parties. This has long appeared to me a Judicatory most unhappily constituted. The parties choose, of course, such persons, as they suppose most likely to favor themselves. If, therefore, they commit no mistake in the choice, the Council may be considered as divided in opinion, before it assembles; and as furnishing every reason to believe, that it will not be less divided afterwards. Its proceeding will frequently be marked with strong partialities; and its decision, if made at all, will, not unfrequently, be those of a bare majority. Coming from different parts of the country, it will have no common rules of proceedings After its decisions, its existence ceases. Its responsibility vanishes with its existence; as does also the sense of its authority. As the members frequently come from a distance, it can have no knowledge concerning those numerous particulars, which respect the transactions to be judged of; and the characters, interests, views and contrivances of those who are immediately concerned. As individuals, these members may, in some instances, have much weight; and in certain circumstances, may, by their wisdom and piety, do much good. But all this must arise solely from their personal character. As a Council, as a judicatory, they can scarcely have any weight at all; for as they disappear when the trial is ended, they are forgotten in their united character; and having no permanent existence, are regarded with no habitual respect, and even with no prejudice in their favor. Very often, also, as they are chosen on partial principles, they are led, of course, to partial decisions; and leave behind them very unhappy opinions concerning ecclesiastical government at large." "In this state, (Connecticut,) a much happier mode has been resorted to, for the accomplishment of this object. The tribunal of appeal is here a Consociation; a standing body, composed of the settled Ministers within an associational district, and Delegates from the Churches in the same district; a body always existing; of acknowledged authority; of great weight; possessed of all the impartiality incident to human affairs; feeling its responsibility as a thing of course; a Court of Record, having a regular system of precedents; and, from being frequently called to business of this nature, skilled, to a good degree, in the proper modes of proceeding." "The greatest defect in this system, as it seems to me, is the want of A STILL SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL, TO RECEIVE APPEASL, IN CASES WHERE THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY NECESSARY. These, it is unnecessary for me to partictilarize. Every person extensively acquainted with ecclesiastical affairs, knows that such cases exist. The only remedy provided by the system of discipline established in this State, for those who feel aggrieved by a Consociational judgment, is to introduce a neighboring Consociation, as assessors with that which has given the judgment, at a new hearing of the cause. The provision of this partial, imperfect tribunal of appeals, is clear proof, that those who formed the system, perceived the absolute necessity of some appellate jurisdiction. The judicatory which they have furnished of this nature, is perhaps the best, which the Churches of the State, would at that, or any succeeding period, have consented to establish. Yet it is easy to see that, were they disposed, they MIGHT EASILY INSTITUTE ON WHICH WOULD BE INCOMPARABLY BETTER." "The only instance found in the Scriptures of an appeal, actually made for the decision of an ecclesiastical debate, is that recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, and mentioned for another purpose in a former discourse. A number of the Jews in the Church at Antioch, insisted that the Gentile converts should be circumcised and be obliged to keep the law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas strenuously controverted this point with them. As no harmonious termination of the debate he could be had at Antioch, an appeal was made "to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem." But, as I observed, in the discourage mentioned, it was heard and determined by the Apostles, Elders and Brethren. As this judicatory was formed under the direction of the Apostles themselves, it must be admitted as a precedent for succeeding Churches; and teaches us, on the one hand, than an appellate jurisdiction is both lawful and necessary in the Church; and, on the other, that it is to be composed of both Ministers and Brethren, necessarily acting, at the present time, by delegation."[1] In this quotation, and in the remarks which preceded it, a reference, it will be perceived, is principally had to cases in which individual private members have considered themselves as aggrieved by the decisions of particular Churches. But the same remarks, in substance, are applicable to those cases in which difficulties arise between Ministers and their Congregations, or between two neighboring Congregations of the same name. No form of Church government provides for the settlement of such difficulties so promptly or so well as the Presbyterian. Independency, strictly so called; that is Independency, in strict adherence to its essential principles, furnishes, for such evils, no remedy whatever. Other sects furnish a nominal or partial remedy, by investing some official individual with power to constitute a tribunal for settling such controversies. But the choice of the members of this tribunal is usually committed entirely to that individual, and it is, of course, in his power to make it, like a "packed jury," in the hands of a corrupt returning officer, a mere instrument of oppression. But, in the Presbyterian Church, every difficulty of this kind is committed, for adjustment, to a permanent, responsible body; a body whose proceedings may be reviewed and examined; whose organization or members cannot be changed at the will of a corrupt individual, who may choose to tamper with them; and whose decisions are not merely advisory, but authoritative. VII. Finally; the Presbyterian method of conducting the government of the Church, is most friendly to the spread of the gospel, and furnishes PECULIAR FACILITIES FOR UNION AND EFFICIENCY OF ACTION, IN PROMOTING THE GREAT OBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BENEVOLENCE. It has been sometimes, indeed, alleged, in opposition to this, that Presbyterianism is, naturally, and almost necessarily, cold and formal; and that Congregationalism has been found, in fact, more favorable to zeal and activity in spreading the gospel. It is by no means intended to depreciate either the zeal or the activity of our Congregational Brethren. Justice demands that much be said in commendation of both. And it will be no small praise to any other denomination to be found successfully emulating the intelligence, enterprize and perseverance which they have often manifested in pursuing the best interests of the Redeemer’s kingdom. But when the organization of the Presbyterian Church is examined, one would think that prejudice itself could scarcely deny its peculiar adaptedness for united, harmonious, and efficient action, in every thing which it might become convinced was worthy of pursuit. In order to enable this Church to act with the utmost energy and uniformity, throughout its entire extent, there is no need of any new organization. It is organized already, and in a manner, as would seem, as perfect as possible for united and harmonious action. A delegation from every Church, meet and confer, several times in each year, as a matter of course, in Presbytery. What opportunity could be imagined more favorable for forming and executing plans of co-operation, among all the Churches thus united, and, statedly convening? They have the same opportunity, and every advantage, of meeting at pleasure, that can be enjoyed by a voluntary association; with the additional advantage, that they act under a system of ecclesiastical rules and authority, which enable them to go forward with more energy and uniformity in their adopted course. If a more extended union of Presbyterian Churches than of those which belong to a single Presbytery, be desired, for any particular purpose, the regular meetings of the Synods, each comprising a number of Presbyteries, afford the happiest opportunity, without any new or extra combination, of effecting the object. The representatives of, perhaps, one hundred and fifty Churches, assembled in their ecclesiastical capacity, and in the name of Christ, could hardly be conceived to convene in circumstances more perfectly favorable to their co-operating, in any worthy and hallowed cause, with one heart, and with the most perfect concentration of effort. And when we extend our thoughts to the General Assembly, the bond of union, counsel and co-operation for more than two thousand Churches, all represented, and combined in the same cause; we see a plan which, in theory at least, it would seem difficult to adapt more completely to union of heart and hand in any good work. The most admirable combination, with every possible advantage, exists beforehand. Nothing is in any case, wanting, but the animating Spirit necessary for applying it to the proper objects. The machinery, in all its perfection, is already constructed, and ready to be set in motion, Only let the impelling principle, which is necessary to set all moral combinations into vigorous movement, be present, and operate with due power, and it may be asserted, that a more advantageous system for ecclesiastical enterprise was never devised. It is not a sufficient reply to this statement to say, that the Congregational Churches of New-England, have, in fact done more in the last thirty years, in the way of contribution and effort, for extending the Redeemer’s kingdom, than any equal number of Churches of the Presbyterian denomination in the United States. It is impossible to contemplate the intelligence, harmony of feeling, and pious enterprise of the mass of our Congregational Brethren, without sentiments, at once, of respect and gratitude. But is not the general fact alluded to, chiefly referable to other causes than the form of their Church government? No one, it is believed, can doubt, for a moment, that this is the case. Their Church government is, manifestly, less adapted to promote union and effective co-operation, than most others. But their intelligence, their piety, their common origin, their homogenous character, their compact situation, and the sameness of the instruction, the excitements, and the agencies which they enjoy, have all tended to prepare them for united and harmonious co-operation. Only give to the members of Churches organized on the Presbyterian plan, the same advantages; the same natural principles of cohesion; the same intellectual and moral stimulants; and the same pervading spirit:-and can any one believe that there would be found less union and less energy in pursuing the best interests of man? We must deny the connexion between cause and effect, before we can doubt that there would be more of both. It has been sometimes, indeed, said, as a supposed exemplification of the unfavorable influence of Presbyterianism, that the Churches called Presbyterian, in South Britain have generally declined, both in orthodoxy and piety, within the last hundred years; while the Independents have generally and happily maintained their character for both. But the fact is, that when the English Presbyterians gradually fell into those errors, for which the greater part of them are now distinguished, they, at the same time, gradually renounced the Presbyterian form of government, although they retained the name. There are not now, and have not been, for many years, any real Presbyterians in England, excepting those who are, directly or indirectly, connected with Churches in Scotland. After all, it is not pretended that the Presbyterian form of Church government can, of itself, infuse spiritual life and activity into an ecclesiastical body; but that where vitality, and zeal, and resources exist, there is no form of ecclesiastical organization in the world so well adapted to unite counsels, and invigorate efforts, as that under which we are so happy as to live. It makes no part, however, of the design of the author of this volume to assail, or to depreciate the ecclesiastial order of other denominations. On the contrary, wherever he finds those who evidently bear the image of Christ, and who appear to be engaged in advancing his kingdom, whatever form of Church order they may prefer, he can hail them with unqualified affection as Christian Brethren. The truth is, he would not have alluded to any other portion of the Christian Church than that with which he is more immediately connected, had it appeared possible, without doing so, fully to illustrate the character and advantages of our own form of government. His ardent wish is, not to alienate, by high claims, or unkind language; but rather to conciliate and bind together by every thing that can minister to brotherly love. And his daily prayer is, that all the Evangelical Churches in our land may be more and more united in principle and effort, for extending that "kingdom which is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." FOOTNOTE 1.Theology Explained and Defended, Vol. iv. 399-401. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 33: S. AN ABLE AND FAITHFUL MINISTRY ======================================================================== An Able and Faithful Ministry Samuel Miller This sermon was published under the title of The Duty of the Church to Take Measures for Providing an Able and Faithful Ministry, included in a larger publication, The Sermon, Delivered at the Inauguration of the Rev. Archibald Alexander, D.D. Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology, in the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church, in the United States of America: to Which are Added, the Professor’s Inauguration Address, and the Charge to the Professor and Students (New York: Whiting and Watson, 1812). An Able and Faithful Ministry Samuel Miller "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2 The apostle Paul received both his knowledge of the gospel, and his commission to preach it, immediately from the great Head of the church. Yet, notwithstanding the extraordinary circumstances which attended his theological instruction, and his official investiture, that "all things might be done decently and in order" (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:40), he submitted to "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery" (1 Timothy 4:14; cf. Acts 13:3), before he went forth on his great mission to the Gentiles. In like manner, Timothy, his "own son in the faith" (1 Timothy 1:2), to whom the exhortation before us is addressed, was set apart to the work of the holy ministry, by the presbytery ­ in which body, on that occasion, the apostle himself seems to have presided (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6). Timothy was now at Ephesus; and being the most active and influential member of the presbytery which was constituted in that part of the church, his spiritual father directed to him, as such (and in him to the church in all succeeding times), the rules and instructions contained in the epistles which bear his name. Among these we find the passage which has just been read: "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6) It is impossible, within the limits of a single discourse, to do justice to a portion of scripture replete with such various and important matters, as the slightest attention will discover in this text. Of course, much of what properly belongs to its illustration must be either wholly omitted, or very briefly noticed, on the present occasion. That the Christian ministry is an institution of Jesus Christ; that this institution is essential, not only to the well-being, but also to the very existence of the church, as an organized body; that Christ has promised that there shall always be a succession of ministers in his church, to the end of the world; and that none have a right to enter on the appropriate functions of this sacred office, without having that right formally and officially "committed" to them, by men who are themselves already in the same office; [these] are great, elementary principles of ecclesiastical order, which are all fairly implied in the passage before us; but which, I trust, it is not necessary for me to attempt either to establish or to illustrate before this audience. They are so plainly laid down in scripture, and so evidently reasonable in themselves, that I shall, at present, take them for granted. Neither will it be deemed necessary, at present, to dwell on the numerous and important benefits of an able and faithful ministry. It may be said, without exaggeration, that every interest of man is involved in this blessing. The order, comfort, and edification of the church; the progress in knowledge, the growth in grace, and the consolation of individual believers; the regularity, peace, polish, and strength of civil society; the extension of intellectual and moral cultivation; the glory of God; and the eternal welfare of men ­ [all] are among the great benefits which an able and faithful ministry is, ordinarily, the means of promoting; and which, without such a ministry, we cannot hope to attain, at least in any considerable degree. If it is acknowledged that the sanctions of religion exert a mighty and most benign influence on the order and happiness of society; if the observance of the Christian sabbath is really a blessing to the world as it is to the church; if the solemnities of public worship are a source of moral and temporal benefit to millions, who give no evidence of a saving acquaintance with the power of the gospel; if the weekly instructions of the sanctuary have a native tendency to enlighten, refine, and restrain, those whom they are not the means of converting; and if it pleases God "by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Corinthians 1:21); then, it is evident, that an able and faithful ministry, next to the sanctifying operations of the Holy Spirit, is the greatest benefit that can be conferred upon a people. And if these great institutions of heaven are likely, other things being equal, to be beneficial, in proportion to the clearness, the force, the wisdom, and the fidelity with which they are exhibited ­ as both common sense and the word of God evidently dictate ­ then it is plain, that the more able and the more faithful that ministry with which any people is blessed, the more extensive and important are likely to be the benefits resulting from it, both to the church and the world. The father of a family, as well as the professor of religion, has reason to desire the attainment of such a ministry. The patriot, as well as the Christian, ought earnestly to wish, and be ready to contribute his aid, that the church may obey the precept of her Head and Lord: "the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2). I say that the church may obey this divine precept; for it is, undoubtedly, a mistake (and a very grievous mistake) to imagine, as many seem to imagine, that precepts of the kind before us are addressed to ministers alone. It is freely granted that ministers are the appointed agents for training up those who are to succeed them in this holy vocation, and for imparting to them the official powers which they have themselves received. Yet it is, unquestionably, in the name, and as the constituted executive and organ of that part of the church which they represent, that they perform this service. If, therefore, as I take for granted all will allow, the design of the precept before us did not cease with Timothy; if both its reason and its obligation are permanent, then the church of Christ, at this hour, is to consider it as directed to her. It is the church that is bound to take order that "what she has received be committed to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2). The doctrine of our text, then, is THAT IT IS THE INDISPENSABLE DUTY OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, IN ALL AGES, TO TAKE MEASURES, FOR PROVIDING AN ABLE AND FAITHFUL MINISTRY. The great fact, that this is the duty of the church, I shall consider as sufficiently established by the plain and unequivocal precept before us; and shall employ the time that remains for the present discourse in inquiring, What we are to understand by an able and faithful ministry? And, What are the means which the church is bound to employ for providing such a ministry? What is an Able and Faithful Ministry? I. WHAT ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND BY AN ABLE AND FAITHFUL MINISTRY? It is at once qualified and disposed to perform, with enlightened and unwearied assiduity, all the duties ­ whether of instruction, of defense, or of discipline ­ which belong to ambassadors of Christ, to pastors and rulers in his church. The general character implies PIETY, TALENTS, LEARNING, and DILIGENCE. 1. The first requisite to form a faithful and able minister is PIETY. By this I mean, that he is a regenerated man; that he has a living faith in that Saviour whom he preaches to others; that the love of Christ habitually constrains him; that he has himself walked in those paths of humility, self-denial, and holy communion with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, in which it is the business of his life to endeavor to lead his fellow men. I shall not now speak of the necessity of piety to a minister’s personal salvation, nor of its inestimable importance to his personal comfort. I shall not dwell on the irksomeness (nay, the intolerable drudgery) of laboring in a vocation in which the heart does not go along, nor on the painful misgivings which must ever attend preaching an unknown Saviour, and recommending untasted hopes and joys. Neither shall I attempt to describe, tremendous and overwhelming as it is, the aggravated doom of that man, who, from the heights of this sacred office, shall sink into the abyss of the damned: who, "after having preached to others, shall himself become a castaway" (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:27). But my object is to show the importance, and the necessity, of this best of all attainments, in order to qualify any man for discharging the duties of the ministerial office. It is to show that, without piety, he cannot be an able minister. He cannot be "a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, giving to each his portion in due season" (cf. 2 Timothy 2:15; Luke 12:42). How can a man who knows only the theory of religion undertake to be a practical guide in spiritual things? How can he adapt his instructions to all the varieties of Christian experience? How can he direct the awakened, the inquiring, the tempted, and the doubting? How can he feed the sheep and the lambs of Christ? How can he sympathize with mourners in Zion? How can he comfort others with those consolations wherewith he himself has never been comforted of God? He cannot possibly perform, as he ought, any of these duties, and yet they are the most precious and interesting parts of the ministerial work. However gigantic his intellectual powers, however deep and various and accurate his learning, he is not able, in relation to any of these points, to teach others, seeing he is not taught himself. If he makes the attempt, it will be "the blind leading the blind;" and of this, unerring wisdom has told us the consequence (cf. Matthew 15:14; Luke 6:39). It is rash, indeed, and unwarranted, to say that a man who knows nothing of the power of godliness may not be employed, by a sovereign God, as the means of saving benefit to others. God undoubtedly may, and probably sometimes does, "by way of miracle, raise a man to life by the bones of a dead prophet" (cf. 2 Kings 13:21). He may, and there is reason to believe he sometimes does, "honor his own word so far as to make it effectual to salvation, even when it falls from unhallowed lips." The ministry even of Judas Iscariot was, probably, not without its benefit to the church of Christ. But such a result is not, in ordinary cases, and certainly not in any considerable degree, to be expected. When unsanctified ministers are introduced into the church, we may generally expect them to prove not only an offense to God, but also a curse to his people. Piety, orthodoxy, practical holiness, and all the spiritual glories of the household of faith, will commonly be found to decline in proportion to the number and influence of these enemies in disguise. And here I cannot help bearing testimony against what appears to me a dangerous mistake ­ which, though it may not be common, yet sometimes occurs among parents and guardians of the more serious class. I mean the mistake of destining young persons to the gospel ministry from a very early period of life, before they can be supposed, from any enlightened view of the subject, to concur in the choice themselves; and before they give any satisfactory evidence of vital piety. Brethren, I venerate the parent who desires, and daily prays, that it may please God to prepare and dispose his child to serve him in "the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18). Nay, I think that parent worthy of the thanks of every friend to religion, who solemnly devotes his child, even from the earliest period of his life, to the service of the church, and avowedly conducts every part of his education with a view to this great object; provided the original consecration, and every subsequent arrangement, is made on the condition, carefully and frequently expressed, as well as implied, that God shall be pleased to sanction and accept the offering, by imparting his grace, and giving a heart to love and desire the sacred work. But there is a wide difference between this, and resolving that a particular son shall be a minister ­ in the same manner, and on the same principles, as another is devoted to the medical profession, or to the bar, as a respectable employment in life ­ without recognizing vital piety, and the deliberate choice of the ministry, from religious motives, as indispensable qualifications. This kind of destination to the sacred office is as dangerous as it is unwarranted. Let the Christian parent, however solemnly he may have devoted his child to the work of the ministry, and however fondly he may have anticipated his entrance on that blessed work; if he finds, at the proper age for deciding the question, no comfortable evidence of a heart regenerated, and governed by the Spirit of grace; let him deliberately advise ­ though his heart is wrung with anguish by the sacrifice ­ let him deliberately advise the choice of another profession. When young men begin to enter the gospel ministry because they were early destined to the office, because it is a respectable profession, or because they wish to gratify parents and friends ­ rather than because they love the office and its work, and have reason to hope that God has been pleased to "call them by his grace, and reveal his Son in them" (cf. Galatians 1:15-16) ­ we may consider the ministry as in a fair way to be made, in fact, a secular employment, and the church a prostituted theater for the schemes and ambition of worldly men. So deeply and vitally important is piety in forming a faithful and able ministry; and so often has it appeared to be forgotten, or, at least, undervalued amidst the brilliancy of more splendid accomplishments; that there cannot be too strict a guard placed on this point, both by public sentiment, and by ministerial fidelity. Many very excellent men, indeed, have felt a jealousy of theological seminaries, as such, as if they were calculated for training up learned and eloquent, rather than pious ministers. Though I believe that this jealousy has been sometimes indulged unjustly, and often carried to an unwise and mischievous extreme; and though there appears to me no other ground for it; yet I cannot find in my heart to condemn it altogether. Nay, I trust that a portion of it will always be kept alive, as a guard, under God, against the evil which it deprecates. For I persuade myself that every minister of the Presbyterian church, in the United States, is ready to adopt the language, with a little variation, of that great and excellent man who, for nearly thirty years, adorned the American church, and the presidential chair of this college. Accursed be all that learning which sets itself in opposition to vital piety! Accursed be all that learning which disguises, or is ashamed of, vital piety! Accursed be all that learning,which attempts to fill the place, or to supersede the honors, of vital piety! Nay, accursed be all that learning which is not made subservient to the promotion and the glory of vital piety! [1] But piety, though it holds the first place among essential qualifications here, is not all that is necessary. It is not every pious man, nay, not every fervently pious man, that is qualified to be a minister, and far less an able minister. Another essential requisite to form the character of such a minister is, 2. TALENTS. By which I mean, not that every minister must, of necessity, be a man of genius; but that he must be a man of good sense, of native discernment and discretion ­ in other words, of a sound respectable natural understanding. When our blessed Lord was about to send forth his first ministers, he said unto them, "Be ye wise as serpents," as well as "harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16). And truly, there is no employment under heaven in which wisdom, practical wisdom, is so important, or rather, so imperiously and indispensably demanded, as in the "ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18). A man of a weak and childish mind, though he were as pious as Gabriel, can never make an able minister; and he ought never to be invested with the office at all. For with respect to a large portion of its duties, he is utterly unqualified to perform them; and he is in constant danger of rendering both himself and his office contemptible. No reasonable man would require proof to convince him that good sense is essential to form an able physician, an able advocate at the bar, or an able ambassador at a foreign court. Nor would any prudent man entrust his property, his life, or the interests of his country, to one who did not bear this character. And can it be necessary to employ arguments to show that interests, in comparison with which, worldly property, the health of the body, and even the temporal prosperity of nations, are all little things, ought not to be committed to any other than a man of sound and respectable understanding? Alas, if ecclesiastical judicatories had not frequently acted as if this were far from being a settled point, it is almost an insult to my audience to speak of it as a subject admitting of a question. Though a minister concentrated in himself all the piety and all the learning of the Christian church, yet if he had not at least a decent stock of good sense, for directing and applying his other qualifications, he would be worse than useless. Upon good sense depends all that is dignified, prudent, conciliatory, and respectable in private deportment; and all that is judicious, seasonable, and calculated to edify, in public ministration. The methods to be employed for winning souls are so many and various, according to the taste, prejudices, habits, and stations of men: a constant regard to time, place, circumstances, and character, is so essential, if we desire to profit those whom we address. And some tolerable medium of deportment ­ between moroseness and levity, reserve and tattling, bigotry and latitudinarianism, lukewarmness and enthusiasm ­ is so indispensable to public usefulness, that the man who lacks a respectable share of discernment and prudence had better, far better, be in any other profession than that of a minister.[2] An able minister he cannot possibly be. Neither will anything short of sound judgment, a native perception of what is fit and proper (or otherwise), preserve any man who is set to teach and rule in the church (without a miracle) from those perversions of scripture, those ludicrous absurdities, and those effusions of drivelling childishness, which are calculated to bring the ministry and the Bible into contempt. 3. A third requisite to an able and faithful ministry is COMPETENT KNOWLEDGE. Without this, both piety and talents united are inadequate to the official work. Nay, without cultivation and discipline, without a competent store of facts and principles to regulate the mind, the stronger the talents, the more likely are they to lead their possessor astray, and to become the instruments of mischief, both to himself and the church. The first ministers of the gospel were divinely inspired; and, of course, [they] had no need of acquiring knowledge by the ordinary methods. They were put in possession by miracle, and perhaps in a single hour, of that information which now can only be gained by years of laborious study.[3] It is well if this fact is remembered and weighed by those who plead that, as the gospel was first preached by fishermen and tax-gatherers, so it may be as well preached, at the present day, by persons of fervent piety and plain sense, who have never enjoyed any greater advantages of scholastic learning than the apostles did. The supposed fact which these vain and ignorant pleaders assume is utterly unfounded. The apostles were not an illiterate ministry. They were the soundest, and best informed divines that ever adorned the Christian church. So indispensable did it appear to infinite wisdom that they should be such, that they were thus accomplished by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost. And we have reason to believe that men, before unlearned, were chosen to be the subjects of this inspiration, in preference to others, that the miracle might be the more apparent; that it might be the more clearly seen that "the excellency of the power was of God, and not of man" (2 Corinthians 4:7). Let this inspiration, confirmed as it then was by miracle, be now produced, and we will acknowledge it as more than an adequate substitute for the ordinary method of acquiring knowledge by books and study. But if, as we all allow, the age of inspiration and of miracle is long since past; and if it is still necessary, notwithstanding, that the preachers of the gospel possess, substantially, the same knowledge that the apostles had; then, undoubtedly, it is to be acquired in a different way from theirs ­ that is, by the diligent use of ordinary means. If ministers must be "apt to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 2:24), as the Spirit of God has declared, they ought to be capable of teaching. If the "priest’s lips" ought to "keep knowledge" (Malachi 2:7), he certainly ought to possess knowledge. And if Timothy, though he lived in the days of inspiration and was the immediate and favorite disciple of an inspired man, was yet enjoined by that very inspired man to "give himself to reading," as well as to "exhortation;" to "meditate upon these things, and to give himself wholly to them, that his profiting might appear to all" (cf. 1 Timothy 4:13-15). how much more necessary are similar means of acquiring knowledge to those who are called to labors of the same nature, and quite as arduous, without possessing the same advantages? But what kind, and what degree of intellectual cultivation, and of acquired knowledge, may be considered as necessary to form an able minister of Jesus Christ? That we may give a more enlightened answer to this question, let us inquire, what such a minister is called (and must be qualified) to perform. He is, then, to be ready, on all occasions, to explain the scriptures. This is his first and chief work. That is, not merely to state and support the more simple and elementary doctrines of the gospel; but also to elucidate with clearness the various parts of the sacred volume, whether doctrinal, historical, typical, prophetic, or practical. He is to be ready to rectify erroneous translations of sacred scripture; to reconcile seeming contradictions; to clear up real obscurities; to illustrate the force and beauty of allusions to ancient customs and manners; and, in general, to explain the word of God, as one who has made it the object of his deep and successful study. He is "set for the defense of the gospel" (Php 1:17); and, therefore, must be qualified to answer the objections of infidels; to repel the insinuations and cavils of skeptics; to detect, expose, and refute the ever varying forms of heresy; and to give notice, and "stand in the breach" (cf. Psalms 106:23), when men, ever so covertly or artfully, depart from "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jcf. ude 3). He is to be ready to solve the doubts, and satisfy the scruples of conscientious believers; to give instruction to the numerous classes of respectful and serious inquirers; to "reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Timothy 4:2). He is to preach the gospel with plainness, dignity, clearness, force, and solemnity. And finally, he is to perform his part in the judicatories of the church, where candidates for the holy ministry are examined and their qualifications ascertained; where a constant inspection is maintained over the faith and order of the church; where the general interests of Zion are discussed and decided; and in conducting the affairs of which, legislative, judicial, and executive proceedings are all combined. This is but a very brief and imperfect sketch of what a minister is called to perform. Now, it is evident that, in order to accomplish all this, with even tolerable ability, a man must be furnished with a large amount of knowledge. ’He must" (and on this subject I am happy in being able to fortify myself with the judgment, and to employ, for the most part, the language of the general assembly of our church), He must be well skilled in the original languages of the holy scriptures. He must be versed in Jewish and Christian antiquities. He must have a competent acquaintance with ancient geography, and Oriental customs. He must have read and digested the principal arguments and writings, relative to what has been called the Deistical controversy. He must have studied, carefully and correctly, natural theology, together with didactic, polemic, and casuistic divinity; and be able to support the doctrines of the gospel, by a ready, pertinent, and abundant quotation of scripture texts for that purpose. He must have a considerable acquaintance with general history and chronology; and a particular acquaintance with the history of the Christian church. He must have studied attentively the duties of the pastoral office; the form of church government authorized by the scriptures; and the administration of it as practiced in the Protestant churches.[4] He must have become well versed in moral philosophy, as an important auxiliary in studying man, his constitution, the powers and exercises of his depraved and sanctified nature, and his duties thence arising. To all these, he must add a respectable share of knowledge in general grammar, in logic, metaphysics, natural philosophy, mathematical science, geography, natural history, and polite literature. Several of these branches of learning are, indeed, only auxiliary to the main body, if I may so express it, of ministerial erudition. But they are important auxiliaries. No man, it is true, can be a complete master of them all; and it is criminal in a minister to attempt so much. The time requisite for this must be taken from more important employments. Of some of these departments of knowledge, general views are sufficient; and of others, perhaps, an acquaintance with nomenclature and first principles ought to satisfy the theological pupil. But so much of them ought to be acquired, as may enable their possessor the better to understand the scriptures, and the better to defend the gospel. I repeat it, every branch of knowledge is helpful and desirable to the Christian minister: not to enable him to shine, as a man of learning ­ this is definitely beneath the aim of an ambassador of Christ ­ but to make him a more accomplished and useful teacher of others. For it is certain that the more he attains of real, solid science, provided it is sanctified science, the more clearly will he be able to explain the sacred volume, and the more wisely and forcibly to preach that gospel which is "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16). 4. Once more, it enters into the character of a faithful minister that he is ACTIVE, DILIGENT, and PERSEVERING in the discharge of his multiplied and arduous duties. However fervent his piety; however vigorous his native talents; and however ample his acquired knowledge; yet, if he is timid, indolent, wavering, easily driven from the path of duty, or speedily discouraged in his evangelical labors, he does not answer the apostle’s description of "a faithful man" (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2). The minister who is, in any good measure, entitled to this character, is one who carefully studies to know, and to the best of his knowledge, "declares the whole counsel of God" (cf. Acts 20:27), without fearing the frowns, or courting the smiles, of men; who shrinks not from any self-denial, labor, or danger to which the will of his Master, and the interests of religion, evidently call him; who abhors the thought of sitting down in inglorious ease, while thousands are perishing around him; who does not allow himself to be diverted by secular or minor objects from his grand work; who is "instant in season, and out of season" (cf. 2 Timothy 4:2), in all the diversified and momentous labors of his holy vocation; and the object of whose steady exertion, as well as supreme desire, it is that the church may be built up, that souls may be saved, and that "Christ in all things may be glorified" (cf. 1 Peter 4:11). Such is a faithful and able minister: a minister fervently pious; eminently wise, discerning, and prudent; extensively learned, especially mighty in the scriptures; abounding and prevalent in prayer; a bold, energetic, instructive, experimental preacher; a zealous, affectionate, condescending, laborious pastor; a friend to revivals of religion; a firm and persevering contender for the truth; one, in short, who devotes all his talents, all his learning, all his influence, and all his exertions, to the one grand object, "fulfilling the ministry which he has received of the Lord Jesus" (cf. Acts 12:25; Acts 20:24). Such a minister, to select an example, was the apostle Paul. With a heart warmed with the love of Christ; with an understanding [that is] vigorous, sound, and comprehensive; and with a store of various and profound knowledge, he went forth to meet and to conciliate the enemies of his divine Master. And in the course of his ministry, he manifested the importance of every qualification with which that Master had furnished him. Let us follow and observe him a little in the discharge of his ministerial labors. "Now we see him reasoning with pagans, and then remonstrating with Jews: now arguing from the law of nature, and then from the Old Testament scriptures: now appealing to the writings of heathen poets and philosophers, and then referring to the ’traditions of the fathers’ (Galatians 1:14), of which he had been exceedingly zealous: now stating his arguments with all logical exactness, and then exposing the sophistry and false learning of his adversaries:"[5] now pleading with all the majesty and pathos of unrivalled eloquence, upon Mars Hill, and before Felix and Agrippa, and then instructing (from house to house) the young and the aged, with all the tenderness of a father, and all the simplicity and condescension of a babe. And what was the consequence? With these qualifications, he labored not only more abundantly, but more successfully, than all the apostles; and [he] has probably been the means of richer blessings to the church and the world, than any other mere man that ever lived. But you will, perhaps, ask, "Ought all these qualifications to be considered as indispensable for every minister? For example, ought no one to have the ministry ’committed’ to him, unless he has acquired, or is in a fair way to attain, the whole of those literary and scientific accomplishments which have been recounted as desirable?" It is not necessary, perhaps it is not proper, at present, to give a particular answer to this question. My object has been to describe an able and faithful ministry. To my description I am not conscious of having added anything superfluous or unimportant. Such a ministry it ought to be the aim and the endeavor of the church to train up. Yet, it is certain that under the best administration of ecclesiastical affairs that ever existed, since the days of the apostles (or that is ever likely to exist), all ministers have not been alike able and faithful; and it is equally certain that cases have occurred in which individuals with furniture for the sacred office inferior to that which is desirable have been, in a considerable degree, both respectable and useful. But still a character something resembling that which has been drawn ought to be considered as the proper standard, and exertions made to attain as near an approximation to it, in all cases, as possible. And after all that can be done, exceptions to a rigid conformity with this standard will be found in sufficient number, without undertaking to lower the standard itself, in such a manner as to provide for their multiplication. But, II. WHAT ARE THE MEANS WHICH THE CHURCH IS BOUND TO EMPLOY, FOR PROVIDING AN ABLE AND FAITHFUL MINISTRY? This question was assigned as the second subject of inquiry. What are the Means to Provide an Able and Faithful Ministry? And here, it is perfectly manifest that the church can neither impart grace, nor create talents. She can neither make men pious, nor give them intellectual powers. But is there, therefore, nothing that can be done, or that ought to be done by her? Yes, brethren, there is much to be done. Though Jehovah the Saviour has the "government upon his shoulder" (cf. Isaiah 9:6), his kingdom is a kingdom of means; and he is not to be expected to work miracles to supply our lack of exertion. If, therefore, the church omits to employ the means which her King and Head has put within her power, for the attainment of a given object, both the sin and the disgrace of failing to attain that object will lie at her own door. What, then, are the means which the church is bound to employ for providing an able and faithful ministry? They are these: looking for, and carefully SELECTING, young men of piety and talents, for the work of the ministry; providing FUNDS for the temporary support of those who may stand in need of such aid; furnishing a SEMINARY in which the most ample means of instruction may be found; and, having done all this, to guard, by her JUDICATORIES, the entrance into the sacred office, with incessant vigilance. 1. The church is bound, with a vigilant eye, to search for, and carefully select, from among the young men within her bosom, those who are endowed with piety and talents, whenever she can find these qualifications united. Piety is humble and retiring; and talents, especially of the kind best adapted to the great work of the ministry, are modest and unobtrusive. They require, at least in many instances, to be sought out, encouraged, and brought forward. And how, and by whom, is this to be done? The children of the church are, if I may so express it, the church’s property. She has a right to the services of the best of them. And as it is the part, both ofwisdom and affection, in parents according to the flesh, to attend with vigilance to the different capacities and acquirements of their children, and to select for them, as far as possible, corresponding employments; so it is obviously incumbent on the church, the moral parent of all the youth within her jurisdiction, to direct especial attention to such of them as may be fitted to serve her in the holy ministry. And it may be asserted, without fear of contradiction, that whenever young men are found, who unite fervent piety, with talents adapted to the office, it is the duty of such to seek the gospel ministry; and it is the duty of the church to single them out, to bring them forward, and to endeavor to give them all that preparation, which depends on human means, for the service of the sanctuary. 2. The church is bound to provide funds for the partial or entire support of those who need this kind of aid, while they are preparing for the work of the ministry. ought to feel, can feel, no pain in receiving from the hand of parental affection. Nor is it any valid objection to the furnishing of this aid, that the objects of it may not always be found, when their character shall be completely developed, either ornaments to the church, or worthy of so much exertion and expenditure. As well might parents according to the flesh decline to provide for the support and education of their children, in early life, lest peradventure they might afterwards prove neither a comfort nor an honor to them. In this respect every faithful parent considers himself as bound, in duty and affection, to take all possible pains for promoting the welfare of his offspring, and having done so, to leave the event with God. Neither ought the church to consider this provision as a burden, or imagine that, in making it, she confers a favor. It is as clearly her duty ­ a duty which she as really owes her Master and herself ­ as the ordinary provision which she makes for the support of the word and ordinances. Or rather, it is to be lamented that she has not been accustomed always to consider it as an essential part of her ordinary provision for the maintenance of the means of grace. 3. A further mean which the church is bound to employ for providing an able and faithful ministry is furnishing a seminary in which the candidates for this office may receive the most appropriate and complete instruction which she has it in her power to give. In vain are young men of fervent piety, and the best talents, sought after and discovered; and in vain are funds provided for their support, while preparing for the ministry, unless pure and ample fountains of knowledge are opened to them, and unless competent guides are assigned to direct them in drinking at those fountains. This, however, is so plain, so self-evident, that I need not enlarge upon its proof. But perhaps it may be supposed by some, that there is no good reason why the means of education should be provided by the church, as such. It may be imagined, that they will as likely to be provided, and as well provided, by private instructors, as by public seminaries. But all reason, and all experience, pronounce a different judgment, and assign, as the ground of their decision, such considerations as these. First, when the church herself provides a seminary for the instruction of her own candidates for the ministry, she can at all times inspect and regulate the course of their education; can see that it is sound, thorough, and faithful; can direct and control the instructors; can correct such errors, and make such improvements in her plans of instruction, as the counsels of the whole body may discover. Whereas, if all is left to individual discretion, the preparation for the service of the church may be in the highest degree defective, or ill judged, not to say unsound, without the church being able effectually to interpose her correcting hand. Again, when the church herself takes the instruction of her candidates into her own hands, she can furnish a more extensive, accurate, and complete course of instruction than can be supposed to be, ordinarily, within the reach of detached individuals. In erecting and endowing a seminary, she can select the best instructors out of her whole body. She can give her pupils the benefit of the whole time, and the undivided exertions, of these instructors. Instead of having all the branches of knowledge, to which the theological student applies himself, taught by a single master, she can divide the task of instruction among several competent teachers, in such a manner as to admit of each doing full justice both to his pupils and himself. She can form one ample library, by which a given number of students may be much better accommodated, when collected together, and having access to it in common, than if the same amount of books were divided into a corresponding number of smaller libraries. And she can digest, and gradually improve a system of instruction, which shall be the result of combined wisdom, learning, and experience. Whereas those candidates for the sacred office who commit themselves to the care of individual ministers, selected according to the convenience of the caprice of each pupil, must, in many cases, at least, be under the guidance of instructors who have neither the talents, the learning, nor the leisure to do them justice ­ and who have not even a tolerable collection of books to supply the lack of their own furniture as teachers. Further, when the church herself provides the means of instruction for her own ministry (at a public seminary), she will, of course, be furnished with ministers who have enjoyed, in some measure, a uniform course of education; who have derived their knowledge from the same masters, and the same approved fountains, and who may, therefore, be expected to agree in their views of evangelical truth and order. There will thus be the most effectual provision made, speaking after the manner of men, for promoting the unity and peace of the church. Whereas, if every candidate for the holy ministry is instructed by a different master, each of whom may be supposed to have his peculiarities of expression and opinion (especially about minor points of doctrine and discipline), the harmony of our ecclesiastical judicatories will gradually be impaired; and strife, and perhaps eventually schism, may be expected to arise in our growing and happy church. It is important to add, that when the church provides for educating a number of candidates for the ministry at the same seminary, these candidates themselves may be expected to be of essential service to each other. Numbers being engaged together in the same studies will naturally excite the principle of emulation. As "iron sharpeneth iron" (Proverbs 27:17), so the amicable competition, and daily intercourse of pious students, can scarcely fail of leading to closer and more persevering application; to deeper research; to richer acquirements; and to a more indelible impression of that which is learned, upon their minds, than can be expected to take place in solitary study. Nor is it by any means unworthy of notice, that when the ministers of a church are generally trained up at the same seminary, they are naturally led to form early friendships, which bind them together to the end of life, and which are productive of that mutual confidence and assistance, which can scarcely fail of shedding a benign influence on their personal enjoyment, and their official comfort and usefulness. These early friendships may also be expected to add another impulse to a sense of duty, in annually drawing ministers from a distance to meet each other in the higher judicatories of the church; and, which is scarcely less important, to facilitate and promote that mutual consultation respecting plans of research, and new and interesting publications, which is, at once, among the safeguards, as well as pleasures, of theological authorship. These, brethren, are some of the considerations which call upon every church to erect, and to support with vigor and efficiency, a theological seminary for the training of her ministry. If she desires to augment the number of her ministers; if she wishes their preparation for the sacred office to be the best in her power to give, and at the least possible expense; if she desires that they may be a holy phalanx, united in the same great views of doctrine and discipline, and adhering with uniformity and with cordial affection to her public standards; if she deprecates the melancholy spectacle of a heterogeneous, divided, and distracted ministry; and finally, if she wishes her ministers to be educated under circumstances most favorable to their acting in after life as a band of brethren, united in friendship as well as in sentiment; then let her take measures for training them up under her own eye, and control; under the same teachers; in the same course of study; and under all those advantages of early intercourse, and affectionate competition, which attend a public seminary. In favor of all this reasoning, the best experience, and the general practice of the church, in different ages, may be confidently urged. "It has been the way of God," says the pious and learned Dr. Lightfoot, "to instruct his people by a studious and learned ministry, ever since he gave a written word to instruct them in." "Who," he asks, "were the standing ministry of Israel, all the time from the giving of the law, till the captivity in Babylon? Not prophets, or inspired men; for they were but occasional teachers; but the priests and Levites, who became learned in the law by study. Deuteronomy 33:10, Hosea 4:6, Malachi 2:7. And for this end, they were disposed into forty eight cities, as so many universities, where they studied the law together; and from thence were sent out into the several synagogues to teach the people." They had also, the same writer informs us, "contributions made for the support of these students, while they studied in the universities, as well as afterwards when they preached in the synagogues." He tells us further, in another place, "that there were among the Jews, authorized individual teachers, of great eminence, who had their Midrashoth, or divinity schools, in which they expounded the law to their scholars or disciples." "Of these divinity schools," he adds, "there is very frequent mention made among the Jewish writers, more especially of the schools of Hillel and Shammai. Such a divinity professor was Gamaliel, at whose feet the great apostle of the Gentiles received his education."[6] Under the Christian dispensation, the same system, in substance, was adopted and continued. At a very early period, there was a seminary of high reputation established in the city of Alexandria, in which candidates of the holy ministry were trained up together, and under the ablest instructors, both in divine and human learning ­ a seminary in which Pantænus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and others, taught with high reputation. Eusebius and Jerome both declare that this seminary had existed, as a nursery of the church and had enjoyed a succession of able teachers from the time of Mark the evangelist.[7] Writers on Christian antiquities also assure us that there were seminaries of a similar kind very early established at Rome, Cæsarea, Antioch, and other places;[8] and that they were considered as essential to the honor and prosperity of the church. At the period of the Reformation, religion and learning revived together. The Reformers were not less eminent for their erudition, than for their piety and zeal. They contended earnestly for an enlightened, as well as a faithful ministry; and, accordingly, almost all the Protestant churches, when they found themselves in a situation to admit of the exertion, founded theological seminaries, as nurseries for their ministry. This was the case in Geneva, in Scotland, in Holland, in Germany, and, with very little exception, throughout Reformed Christendom. And the history of those seminaries, while it certainly demonstrates that such establishments are capable of being perverted, demonstrates with equal evidence that they have been made, and might always, with the divine blessing on a faithful administration, be rendered extensively useful. And what have the most eminently pious and learned ministers that ever adorned the American church thought on this subject? Yes, brethren, it was because Tennent and Dickinson, and Burr, and Edwards, and Davies, and Finley, and Blair, and other champions of the cross, were deeply impressed with the truth that learning and talents, united with piety, are of the highest importance to the Christian ministry, that they labored and prayed so much for the establishment and support of Nassau Hall. May their spirit and their opinions revive; and more and more pervade our church, until the dawning of the millennial sabbath! In establishments of this kind, in more recent times, our congregational brethren in New England, and our brethren of the Dutch and Associate Reformed churches, have gone before us, and set us noble examples. We have, at length, awakened from our sleep; and with tardy, but, as we hope, with firm, well-advised, and with heaven-directed steps, have begun to follow them. In the name of Jehovah Jesus, the King of Zion, we lift up our banner! May his blessing descend, and rest upon the transaction of this day, as a pledge that he is about to visit our church in his abundant mercy! 4. The last means of providing an able and faithful ministry, on which I shall insist, is fidelity on the part of the judicatories of the church in guarding the entrance into the sacred office. It is our happiness that, according to the truly apostolic and primitive constitution of our church, the power of licensing candidates, and of setting apart to the work of the holy ministry, is not given to any individual, by whatever name he may be called. Nay, while the church provides a seminary for the instruction of her candidates for the sacred office, she does not give even the conductors of that seminary ­ however pious, learned, or venerable ­ the right ultimately to judge of the qualifications of those candidates, and to admit or reject them at their pleasure. This is the prerogative of her appropriate judicatories; and the manner in which it is exercised is all -important. However vigorous and perseveringly other means for attaining the object proposed may be employed, if there is a failure here, the most calamitous consequences may be expected. If presbyteries are superficial in their examinations of candidates; if they are too ready to lay hands on the weak, the erroneous, or those of doubtful piety; or if, for the sake of attaining an occasional purpose, or meeting a temporary difficulty, they at any time suffer the barriers which have been erected for excluding the incompetent or the unworthy to be removed or trampled down, they are taking the direct course to bring the ministry and religion into contempt. I know that, on this subject, pleas are often urged which it is extremely difficult to resist. Some good qualities in the candidates, private friendships, an unwillingness to give pain, the scarcity of ministers, and the necessities of the church, are all alternately employed as arguments for the admission of unsuitable characters into the ministry. But it is a most important part of fidelity in the work of the Lord to oppose and reject every plea of this kind. Private friendships ought not to interfere with a supreme regard to the Redeemer’s kingdom. It is better, much better, to inflict pain for a time (on an individual), than to wound the church of Christ. And by introducing into the ministry those who are neither faithful, nor able to teach, judicatories are so far from supplying the wants of the church, that they rather add to her difficulties and call her to struggle with new evils. To be in haste to multiply and send out unqualified laborers is to take the most direct method to send a destructive blast on the garden of God, instead of gathering a rich and smiling harvest. On the other hand, when judicatories, with enlightened vigilance and fidelity, guard the entrance into the sacred office; when they exert the authority committed to them, to keep out of the ministry incompetence, heresy, levity, and worldly mindedness; they obey a divine precept; they support the real honor of the gospel ministry; they constrain those who are looking toward the blessed work to take higher aim, and to seek for higher attainments; they give the church "bread instead of a stone, and fish instead of a serpent" (cf. Matthew 7:9 - Matthew 7:10); and though they may appear, to those who make haste, to be tardy in supplying the public demand for ministers, they are taking one of the most effectual methods, under God, for raising up a numerous, as well as an able and faithful ministry. Practical Reflections Let us now turn our attention to some practical inferences from the foregoing discussion. And, 1. If the representation which has been given is just, then our church has been, for a long time, almost entirely, and very criminally, negligent of a great and important duty. While she has directed much laudable attention to other objects, she has, in great measure, suffered the most promising means of providing an able and faithful ministry to take care of themselves. Our churches have also been guilty, in a considerable degree, of similar negligence ­ a negligence for which, alas! our country mourns, and would mourn much more if the importance of the subject were understood and appreciated as it ought to be. But OUR CHURCH HAS BEEN PREEMINENTLY GUILTY! Though among the largest Christian denominations in the United States; though possessing, in its individual members, perhaps more wealth than any other; though favored, in many respects, with ample means for every kind of generous ecclesiastical enterprise; and though solemnly warned on the subject, she has yet been among the very last of all the evangelical denominations among us, to commence a course of efficient exertion for raising up a qualified ministry. We have slumbered, and slumbered, until the scarcity of laborers in our harvest has become truly alarming! God grant that we may testify by our future conduct that we remember, with unfeigned humiliation, our former negligence; and that we are resolved, as his grace shall enable us, to make amends for it by redoubled zeal and diligence in time to come! 2. From what has been said, it appears that the solemnity to attend, on which we are this day assembled, is a matter of cordial and animating congratulation to each other, and to the church of Christ in the United States. We are convened, under the authority of the general assembly of our church, to organize a THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY and to inaugurate the FIRST PROFESSOR in that seminary. Though late, much later, in commencing this establishment than we ought to have been, we trust it is about to commence under the smiles of the great Head of the church; and that we may confidently regard it as a token for good to the Redeemer’s kingdom. Yes, brethren, we have more reason to rejoice, and to felicitate one another, on the establishment of this seminary, than of a great national victory, or on making a splendid addition to our national territory. It is the beginning, as we trust, of an extensive and permanent system, from which blessings may flow to millions while we are sleeping in the dust. Let us, then, "rejoice, and be exceedingly glad" (Matthew 5:12); and in the midst of our joy, let us look to the Source of blessing, who can cause the walls of our Zion to rise even "in troublous times " (Daniel 9:25).[9] While we congratulate each other, let our petitions ascend, with our praises, to the throne of grace, that the seminary this day established, and, as we verily believe, founded in faith and prayer, may be a fountain, "the streams of which shall make glad the city of our God" (cf. Psalms 46:4); flowing in every direction, and abundantly watering the abodes of Zion’s King, until all flesh shall taste his love, and see his glory! 3. If what has been said is correct, then those who are more immediately charged with conducting this seminary, whether as directors or professors, ought to consider themselves as honored with a very solemn and weighty trust. The design of the supreme judicatory of our church, in founding this seminary is nothing less than to train up an ABLE AND FAITHFUL MINISTRY: a ministry on whom piety, talents, and learning, the temporal and eternal welfare of thousands now living may, speaking after the manner of men, depend; a ministry whose character may have a commanding influence in forming the character of others, and they again of those who may successively fill the same office, until the end of time! The design is interesting beyond expression; and the task of those who are appointed to carry it into execution is serious and important to a degree which mortals cannot estimate. When I cast an eye down the ages of eternity, and think how important is the salvation of a single soul; when I recollect how important, of course, [is] the office of a minister of the gospel, who may be the happy instrument of saving many hundreds, or thousands of souls; and when I remember how many and how momentous are the relations which a seminary intended solely for training up ministers bears to all the interests of men, in the life that now is, and especially in that which is to I come; I feel as if the task of conducting such a seminary had an awfulness of responsibility connected with it, which is enough to make us tremble! O my fathers and brethren! let it never be said of us, on whom this task has fallen, that we take more pains to make polite scholars, eloquent orators, or mere men of learning, than to form able and faithful ministers of the New Testament. Let it never be said that we are more anxious to maintain the literary and scientific honors of the ministry, than we are to promote that honor which consists in being "full of faith and of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 6:5), and the instruments of "adding much people to the Lord" (cf. Acts 11:24). The eyes of the church are upon us. The eyes of angels, and, above all, the eyes of the King of Zion, are upon us. May we have grace given us to be faithful! 4. This subject suggests matter for very serious reflection to the youth who are about to enter as students in this seminary, with a view to the gospel ministry. Behold, my young friends, the high character at which you are called to aim! You have come hither, not that you may prepare to shine; not that you may prepare to amuse men by philosophical discussion, or to astonish them by flights of artificial eloquence: but that, by the blessing of God, upon the use of means, you may become "faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2); that you may become "wise in winning souls" (cf. Proverbs 11:30) to Christ; that you may prepare to go forth, defending and proclaiming the messages of grace to guilty men, and persuading them to be "reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:20). Seek to excel. It is noble to excel. But let it be always for the edifying of the church. THIS, my young friends, THIS is the object which is recommended to your sacred emulation. We charge you, in the presence of God, to let all your studies and aims be directed to this grand object. Seek with humble, persevering, prayerful diligence, to be such ministers as you have heard described; and you will neither disappoint yourselves, nor the church of Christ. Seek to be anything else, and you will be a grief and a curse to both. May God the Saviour bless you, and prepare you to be "workmen that need not to be ashamed!" (cf. 2 Timothy 2:15). 5. From this subject we may derive powerful excitements to young men of piety and talents to come forward and devote themselves to the gospel ministry. We trust no young man will ever think of that holy vocation, until he has first given himself up a "living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God" (Romans 12:1), by Jesus Christ. We would not, for any consideration, be accessory to the sin of alluring into the sacred office those who know nothing of the power of godliness, and who, on the most favorable supposition, can be nothing better than miserable retailers of cold and unproductive speculations. But while we say this, and repeat it with all the emphasis of which we are capable, we assert with equal confidence, on the other hand, that wherever fervent piety appears in any young man, united with those talents which are adapted to the office of an ambassador of Christ, it is incumbent on their possessor, without delay, to devote himself to the work of the ministry. There are only two questions which need be asked concerning any youth on this subject. "Has he a heart for the work? And has he those native faculties which are susceptible of the requisite cultivation?" If these questions can be answered in the affirmative, I hesitate not to say, that in the present state of the church, it is his duty to seek the ministry. Young men of this college! have none of you any desire to serve your fellow men, and to serve Christ, in this exalted office? You have but one short life to live in this world; and you must, in a very little time, decide how you will spend that life. "We confidently pronounce, that it can be spent in no manner so desirable, so noble, so godlike, as in the gospel ministry. If then, you love the Lord Jesus Christ, come ­ we affectionately invite you to come ­ and take part with us in the ministry of the grace of God. The example of Christ invites you to come; the tears of bereaved churches, who can find none to break unto them the bread of life, entreat you to come; the miseries of wandering souls, who can find none to lead them to heaven, plead with you to come. Come, then, and take part with us in the labors and rewards of the ’ministry of reconciliation!’ "[10] 6. Finally, if the representation which has been given is correct, then the church at large ought to consider it as equally their privilege and their duty to support this seminary. If one may judge by the language and the conduct of the generality of church members, they seem to consider all regard to institutions of this kind as the province of ministers only. They readily grant that ministers ought to be prompt and willing to give their time, their labors, and, where they have any, their substance for this end; but for themselves, they pray to be excused. They either contribute nothing toward the object; or contribute in the most reluctant and sparing manner, as if they were bestowing a favor, which they have a perfect right to withhold. My dear brethren, it is difficult to express in adequate terms either the sin or the folly of such conduct. Seminaries of this kind are to be founded and supported BY THE CHURCH, as such. It is THE CHURCH that is bound to take order on the subject. It is THE CHURCH that is responsible for their establishment and maintenance. And if any of her members, or adherents, when called upon, will not contribute their just portion of aid for this purpose, the Head of the church will require it at their hands. Professing Christians! look upon the alarming necessities of the church; upon destitute frontier settlements; upon several hundred vacant congregations, earnestly desiring spiritual teachers, but unable to obtain them. Look upon the growing difficulty with which the most eligible and attractive situations in the church are supplied, and then say whether those who still remain idle can be innocent? Innocent! Their guilt will be greater and more dreadful than can be described. Come, then, brethren, humbled by the past, and animated by the future, rouse from your lethargy, and begin to act in earnest! Your Master requires it of you! The aspect of the times requires it of you! The cries of the neglected and perishing require it of you! Your own privileges and blessings require it of you! Yes, you who call yourselves Christians! If you love the church to which you profess to belong; if you possess a single spark of the spirit of allegiance to her Divine Head and Lord: nay, if you desire not a "famine of the word of life" (Amos 8:11); if you desire not the heaviest spiritual judgments to rest upon you, then come forward, and act, as well as speak, like friends of the Redeemer’s kingdom. Come forward, and give your influence, your substance, and your prayers, for "the help of the Lord against the mighty" (Judges 5:23). AMEN! Footnotes 1. "Accursed be all that learning which sets itself in opposition to the cross of Christ! Accursed be all that learning which disguises or is ashamed of the cross of Christ! Accursed by all that learning which fills the room that is due to the cross of Christ! And once more, accursed be all that learning which is not made subservient to the honor and glory of the cross of Christ!" "Glorying in the Cross," in The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: William Woodward, 1800), Vol. 1, p. 531. 2. Though a Christian would have expressed himself in different language, there is much weight in the maxim of the heathen satirist, Nullum numen abest si sit prudentia. [No wisdom is wanting when prudence is present. ] Juvenal. 3. There is no intention here to exclude daily or frequent conversations with our Lord as one important means of instruction which the apostles received. This, however, though not, strictly speaking, a miraculous mode of acquiring knowledge, was yet wholly extraordinary. 4. Constitution of the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church, Article 4. 5. Stennett’s Sermon Before the Education Society, p. 12. 6. Lightfoot’s Works, Vol. 1, pp. 357, 576. 7. Eusebius, Lib. 5, c. 10. Hieron. Oper., 1, 105. 8. See Bingham’s Origenes Ecclesiastica, Book 3, Chapter 10. 9. War had been declared by the United States, against Great Britain [in 1812], a few weeks before this discourse was delivered. 10. See Address of the Presbytery of New York, on Educating Poor and Pious Youth for the Gospel Ministry. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 34: S. CONVERSATION ======================================================================== Conversation Samuel Miller, D.D. MY DEAR YOUNG FRIEND: Those qualities which enable any man to appear well in conversation, are among the most precious that can be possessed. To every public man these qualities are peculiarly important. But to a minister of the gospel, they are above measure valuable. The business of his life is to benefit his fellow-men. A large portion of time must be passed, and ought to be passed, in society; and he who is best qualified to make all his social intercourse at once pleasing and useful, is, of course, best qualified to promote the great ends for which the ministry was instituted. But while this accomplishment is certainly valuable beyond all price, it evidently engages much less of the attention of candidates for the holy ministry than its importance demands. Instead of `coveting earnestly this gift;’ instead of studying daily to attain it, and to make progress in it, as is done with regard to some other things of less value; this great concern is left pretty much to take care of itself, or at best, to depend on the exigency of the moment, both for exercise and improvement. Every man, indeed, is not qualified to excel in conversation; but every man may be inoffensive, if not agreeable. And as Dean Swift has somewhere remarked, there are hundreds of men who might not only be agreeable, but really shine, who on account of a few gross faults, which they might easily correct in half an hour, are at present not even tolerable. They pass through life not only without usefulness, but are considered as a nuisance wherever they appear. As I propose to make Religious Conversation the subject of a separate letter, I shall confine myself at present, to some general principles, which it appears to me ought to regulate all our social intercourse. Most of these principles, indeed, apply equally to all classes of persons. Some of them however, are more especially worthy of the attention of those who seek or sustain the sacred office. This subject is recommended to our attention, not only by common sense and experience, but also by the Word of God. Holy Job exclaimed, How forcible are right words! A word spoken in due season, says the wise man, how good it is (Proverbs 15:23)! And again, A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver (Proverbs 25:11). Again, the inspired apostle exhorts, Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers (Ephesians 4:29). And again, Let your speech be always with grace seasoned with salt, that ye may know how to answer every man (Colossians 4:6). Allow me then, to put you on your guard against some of the most common faults in conversation, and to recommend some of those excellencies, which appear to me particularly worthy of your attention. 1. In the first place, be upon your guard against talking too much in company. He who is very talkative incurs disadvantages of the most serious kind. He cheapens himself; tires his hearers; and of course, renders what he has to say, however rich it may be in wisdom, much less likely to prove either acceptable or useful, than if he talked less. Speak seasonably, nay frequently, if you have opportunity, but never long. Contribute your equitable share to the conversation; but do not allow yourself to go beyond these limits. `Pay your own reckoning,’ as one has expressed it; `but do not undertake, at your own expense, to treat the whole company. This being one of the few cases in which people do not wish to be treated; everyone being fully convinced that he has wherewithal to pay his own bill.’ This fault is particularly noticed and reproved in Scripture. A fool’s voice, says the wise man, is known by the multitude of words. In the multitude of words, says the same inspired teacher, there wanteth not sin; but he that refraineth his lips is wise. And again, He that hath knowledge, spareth his words (Ecclesiastes 3:3; Proverbs 10:19; Proverbs 17:27). I have never known a great talker, however enlightened and instructive, who did not at length, become wearisome to his company. Nor did I ever know one of this character, who in the multitude of the remarks and opinions which he threw out, did not sometimes utter that which he had better have kept to himself; and which, in some instances, became the source of great subsequent trouble. It is very unwise in a man who bears such a relation to society as a clergyman does; who is set for the instruction and guidance of the people; who comes in contact with so many individuals in all classes of society; whose remarks and opinions are important, and if he be at all respected, likely to be remembered and quoted; nay, whose judgment on the current topics of the day may have no small influence on the minds of some, when he shall have passed off the stage of life. Surely it is unwise for such a man to be throwing out his opinions on all subjects, without due consideration. Surely it is unwise for him to speak hastily and rashly. And if he be `full of talk,’ he will seldom be, for an hour together, wholly free from rash and indiscreet speaking. Let every man, but especially every minister, be swift to hear, and slow to speak. 2. A fault directly the reverse of that which was last mentioned, is the extreme of silence in company. I have known some from physical temperament; others from abstraction and absence of mind; and a third class, perhaps, from still more exceptionable causes, wrapping themselves up in a chilling reserve; never speaking but when addressed, and then answering as briefly as possible, and relapsing into silence again. This is certainly unhappy for one who ought to be, wherever he is, an instructor and benefactor. While you avoid garrulity then, sink not down into silence. While you guard against monopolizing the conversation, by no means give it up altogether. And if you find yourself frequently at a loss for topics of conversation, take pains to have something ready for the discharge of this, as well as every other duty, by previously meditating on what may be adapted to utility in the particular company to which you may be introduced. 3. Another practical maxim of great importance in conversation, is that you avoid a tale-bearing tattling spirit. I have known some clergymen, who were the greatest newsmongers in their neighborhoods. They were among the first to circulate idle stories; to give currency to unconfirmed statements; to trumpet abroad charges of the most serious kind, without adequate evidence, and were often, very often, afterwards obliged to explain, apologize, and even retract. This is a shameful spirit for any professing Christian to indulge; but is peculiarly shameful for an ambassador of Christ, whose course ought ever to be marked by caution, dignity, tenderness for the reputation of others, and universal benevolence. Be not ready to credit, and in your social hours to recognize as true, every ill report that malignity or folly may put in circulation. If you have heard of any faux pas in the neighborhood, or even if you know it to be true, be among the last to speak of it, unless plainly in duty to do so. Let others lend themselves to the ignoble work of tale-bearing, or be willing to connect their names with the repetition of ill-natured re-ports; but let not your name be ever mentioned in such unworthy associations. If authority for slander or for contemptible gossiping stories is to be demanded, let it not be traced to a minister of Christ, who ought to have something to do infinitely more worthy of his calling. I have known ministers who were rash, credulous, and withal a little fond of news, taking for granted that what were communicated to them as facts, were really so; freely speaking of them as facts, and, not only so, but proceeding to act on the strength of them; to administer severe reproofs to the individuals supposed to be guilty, and even carry the subject into the pulpit; when the whole stories which they believed, caught up, repeated, and acted upon, were entirely without foundation. It is almost incredible how little reliance can be placed on reports, circulated even by good people, and accompanied with all the minute circumstances of time and place; and how utterly unsafe it is in many cases, even to investigate the truth of them: because, frequently, even an investigation cannot be conducted, without repeating the story, and thus giving it additional currency. There are busy and wicked tongues enough for this work. The general rule for a minister of the gospel is to take no share in any such conversation, unless it is, as far as he can with a good conscience, to mollify and repress: and then only to allow himself to take it up, when it is no longer possible, consistently with duty, to maintain silence. When others speak to you of the misconduct of absent persons, as far as possible, in most cases, discourage such communications; and when severe censures are pronounced, manifest a readiness, as far as you conscientiously can, to suggest palliatives, and modes of viewing the subject which may be consistent with the innocence of the party, or at least lessen his criminality; remembering that charity hopeth all things. 4. Closely connected with the tattling spirit against which I have warned you, is that which loves to pry into the private circumstances, and even the secrets of families, and to make them the subject of conversation. There is a littleness and even meanness in this, which all people of elevated minds despise; and which I hope you will sacredly avoid. You will have quite business enough of your own, without meddling with the private affairs of other people. In truth, no wise man will ever desire to become possessed of the secrets of his neighbors. They will always be found a troublesome commodity to have in keeping; and even after they have been imparted to him, he will much more frequently regret than rejoice that they ever came to his knowledge. There are many things of which it is much more a privilege than a misfortune to be entirely ignorant. 5. In conformity with the foregoing remarks, let me recommend that in company, even with your most intimate friends, you avoid the discussion of personal character and conduct as much as possible; and that you prefer dwelling on those principles, doctrines, and facts, which are always, and to all classes in society, interesting and instructive, and the discussion of which, moreover is safe. It was a question often repeated by a late distinguished physician and philanthropist of Philadelphia, a man as remarkable for the soundness of his mind, and the extent of his learning, as for the benignity of his disposition: `Why are you so constantly talking about persons? Why not rather talk about things?’ The lesson conveyed by this question is replete with practical wisdom. If conversation were generally modeled upon it, the consequences would be happy indeed. Study the happy art of making all your conversation useful. Conversation which is not religious, may still be highly useful. It may inculcate excellent sentiments concerning life, manners, education, etc.; or it may convey instruction, as to facts of great value. Where you have an opportunity of selecting topics of conversation yourself, make a point of introducing such as shall be adapted to benefit, as well as gratify those whom you address. And even where you are compelled or induced to accept of those which have been introduced by others, try to give them an instructive turn. Especially study the happy art of making your conversation useful to young people as often as you are thrown into their company. A clergyman, or a candidate for the ministry, who has an enlarged mind, and a good stock of information, need not, and ought not, to converse five minutes in any company without throwing out something calculated to be thought of afterwards with profit. Nay, if we had the spirit of our Master, we should endeavor to make every word we utter useful. 7. Do not disdain to prepare yourself to converse in an intelligent and profitable manner on whatever may be the popular topics of the day. Whenever any interesting occurrence renders a particular place, or a particular event in history, an object of general attention, if you are not already accurately informed concerning the place or event in question, make a point of obtaining correct information as speedily as you can. You may be publicly appealed to for information in the presence of those whom you would be unwilling to appear ignorant. And even if this should not be the case, you may lose many an opportunity of instructing and gratifying those with whom you converse. There is some danger indeed, that he who has thus taken pains to inform himself in relation to popular topics, may be tempted by vanity to make a display of his knowledge; but this is no more an argument against his gaining the knowledge, and being ready to impart it in a proper manner, and on proper occasions, than the proneness of many to pedantry, is an argument against all endeavors to cultivate and store the mind. 8. One of the most important habits to be acquired in conversation is that of paying close attention to the individual with whom you are conversing. Nothing is more common than the violation of this plain dictate of propriety. Many are in the constant habit of either entirely withdrawing their attention, or at least, bestowing a very small share of it on the person who is speaking to them. In the midst of the most important remarks, which they are expected to understand and to answer, they plainly manifest, by the vacant countenance, by the averted eye, and sometimes, even by the indecency of humming a tune, in a half-smothered manner, that they are thinking of nothing less than the speaker or his discourse. This is a great breach of decorum, and as unwise as it is ill-bred. It is impossible to understand or answer that which we do not hear; and very often, by allowing ourselves to indulge this absence of mind, we lose many a wise and weighty observation; we suffer many an important link in a chain of argument to escape us, by which we might, had we secured it, have been largely profited; and even if what is said to us be altogether erroneous, we can never refute, or dispose of it in any way as we ought, if we do not attentively listen to it. If you think proper to take the time to sit down by a person, and to pretend to listen to him, make a point of really listening to him. When you think that the conversation ought to be broken off, break it off; but while it continues, attend to what is said. Unless you do this, it is impossible to estimate its value, or to frame a proper reply, or to adopt the most wise and delicate method of bringing it to a close. Many a conversation has been prolonged to an hour, and after all, has proved desultory and useless, when it might have terminated in ten minutes, and been mutually beneficial, had the parties only given to each other, for that short space of time, their undivided attention. I repeat it, then, if you would treat your friends with good manners; if you would profit by what they say; if you would gain the highest possible advantage from every conversation; if you would save time; if you would benevolently impart pleasure as well as receive it; if you would reply to what is said to you, in the wisest and most instructive manner; then pay strict and undivided attention to every word that is uttered, as long as you think proper to continue any conversation. 9. The foregoing remarks are intended to apply where another person is addressing you individually. The same general principle applies where an individual is addressing a company of which you form a part. In such case, as long as you continue to occupy your seat, attend to what is said. I have known many persons who, in such circumstances, in the midst of an interesting series of remarks addressed to them equally with the rest of the company, turned aside their heads; began to whisper to the person who sat next to them on an entirely different subject; and thus diverted his attention as well as their own from the speaker. This is, undoubtedly, a gross offence against good manners. It is practically telling the speaker that you do not think him worth listening to, and is certainly calculated to embarrass, and even to interrupt him in his remarks. Surely those who are desirous of doing to others, as they would that others, in like circumstances, should do to them, will endeavor to avoid such a palpable indecorum. 10. Another radical maxim of good manners in conversation, is to treat what is said by others respectfully. This maxim, as well as the last, is perpetually disregarded. To say nothing of the practice indulged by many, of habitually withdrawing their attention from those with whom they are conversing; there are others, who testify their want of respect for what is said to them in conversation, in a great variety of ways: by a smile of contempt; by a half-concealed sneer; by a manifest unwillingness to hear the speaker to the end; by interrupting him; by hints that his opinions are frivolous; in a word, by some look, tone, or gesture, not easily specified, or clothed in language, by which we may intimate to another that we regard what he is saying as unworthy of being seriously considered. In all these ways, do proud men, impatient men, obstinate, opinionated, vulgar men, treat with disrespect many remarks which are worthy of their notice, and wound the feelings of many a modest, timid speaker. If you so far put yourself on a level with anyone, as to converse with him at all, listen respectfully to what he has to say. It is very possible that when he has finished, and before he has finished, you may be constrained to think very little of his remarks. But do not wound his feelings, by giving him to understand, beforehand, that you expect very little from him to that purpose; or by anything that shall indicate sneer or contempt. Do not practically tell him, that you have no respect for what he is saying. Not only listen to him, but give every thought and word which he may utter, its due weight. Treat him, in short, as you would wish and expect, in like circumstances, to be treated by him. In no other way will you be able, when he has done, to answer his remarks in such a manner as will be likely to be useful to him as well as worthy of yourself. 11. In conversation with an individual, look him in the face, and keep your eye generally fixed on his, as far as you can without starring, and looking him out of countenance. The power of the eye, in seconding and enforcing what is said, is incalculable. Besides, by talking to an acquaintance without looking him in the face, you forego a great advantage. You lose the opportunity of perceiving what impression your re-marks make upon him; and of deciding, by his composure, or his sudden change of countenance, whether you are giving him pleasure or pain by your communication. Many a discerning speaker, by watching the countenance of him whom he addressed, has been warned, by its indication, of the delicate ground on which he was treading, and prevented from making further and perhaps very mischievous disclosures. 12. It is of great importance to a public character, and especially to a clergyman, to learn the art of opposing erroneous sentiments expressed in the course of conversation, with firmness, and at the same time, without offence. No discerning individual can converse many minutes together with almost anyone, without hearing something with which he cannot entirely agree. Now, to oppose such erroneous opinions is, in most cases, a duty; and yet to perform this duty seasonably, delicately, and with a proper reference to time, place, and company, is one of those things which, more than most others, put in requisition our judgment, taste, good tem-per, and good breeding. Sometimes the best expression of your disapprobation will be by perfect silence. In other cases, this would be want of fidelity. When you find yourself constrained, however, to give utterance to your dissent, let it be done mildly, respectfully, and in a manner fitted to win, rather than to revolt, the errorist. For example; instead of saying, to one who has been delivering sentiments in which you cannot concur, `You seem to me to talk absurdly;’ or `Such opinions are grossly erroneous and mischievous;’ or, `A person who can speak thus, must have either a weak head, or a bad heart.’ Rather say, `I cannot concur in that opinion, for the following reasons, etc.;’ or, `Perhaps you have not adverted to some of the consequences of the opinion which you have just expressed;’ and so in other cases. We are never so likely to benefit those who broach erroneous opinions in our presence, as when we oppose them, without acrimony; with a mild benevolence of manner; and with such an exhibition of our reasons, as is adapted to convince their judgment, without wounding their pride. 13. Avoid a haughty and authoritative manner in conversation. There are undoubtedly, many clergymen who allow themselves to feel in the parlor, very much as they do in the pulpit; as if it were their prerogative to dictate their sentiments ex cathedra; and as if they expected to be heard, not as friends, but as superiors, and authorized instructors. Hence they have habitually, something in their manner in company, which banishes ease, which chills confidence, which represses free inquiry, and which causes them to be listened to rather with constraint and timidity, than with affection. Carefully shun everything of this kind. When you are conversing with friends in a parlor, you meet them on terms of equality. You are to address them, not as a lordly dictator, but as a respectful friend: not as having authority over their consciences, but as a helper of their instruction and their innocent pleasure. Avoid, therefore, in such circumstances, all harsh, dogmatical expressions and tones. Do not think to convince by your ipse dixit, or to put down an opponent by your sovereign authority. This would be proud dictation, rather than conversing; and ought to be carefully avoided by one who wishes to succeed, by addressing and treating men as rational beings; by respecting the rights of conscience, and by convincing the understandings of those whom he desires to gain. 14. As far as you can, avoid controversy in conversation, especially in mixed companies. I say, as far as you can. It is not always possible to avoid it. An impudent, rough, or vulgar attack, may compel you to take the stand and tone of a polemic, when you least desire it. When such a case occurs, it ought to be studiously met without heat or passion, and brought to a close as speedily as possible. But many good men love controversy; or, at any rate, are easily betrayed into it. They have so little knowledge of the world, and so little discretion, that they are always ready to give battle, whenever they see the banner of a party raised. And even if they be seated in large, mixed companies, and be in danger of having all eyes and ears turned to them; still they imagine that no disputable sentiment must be allowed to pass. This is a real infirmity. Watch and pray against it without ceasing. Never suffer the truth, if you can help it, to be trampled under feet in your presence. But there are many ways of interposing a mild, conciliatory word in its behalf, and doing it firmly, without allowing yourself to be drawn into a dispute. And in this case, the old medical maxim, obsta principiis, is of great value. Be on the watch to avoid controversy, from the first moment you perceive a discrepancy of opinion. A slight effort may be sufficient, in the beginning, to avert the evil, which after going a few steps forward, will be utterly unavailing. Before I take leave of this particular, allow me, with especial earnestness, to put you on your guard against being drawn into controversy, in company, with aged men and with females. Never dream that you will be able to convince, or by any means to effect an alteration in the opinions of a man who has passed the age of three score, or three score and ten. You do not dispute with such a one on equal terms. If his opinions be ever so erroneous, he is probably wedded to them by long habit, as well as by strong prejudice. He will naturally consider himself as your superior, and take for granted that you cannot instruct him. Of course, you will find it difficult to use the same freedom and scope of argument with him, that you would with one nearer to an equality with yourself in age. Many of the same considerations apply to females. In acuteness, wit, sprightliness, and delicate raillery, they often prove powerful opponents; while the hands of a male adversary are, in a great measure, tied, so that he cannot wield with unrestrained freedom many of those weapons which he might properly, and with great effect, employ against an adversary of his own sex. 15. Closely connected with this caution against sliding into unseasonable controversy in company, is another against losing your temper in controversy, when you happen to be either unavoidably dragged, or inadvertently betrayed, into it. Perhaps clergymen may be said to be peculiarly exposed to this temptation. For besides the various other infirmities, which they share in common with all good men, they are, perhaps, peculiarly liable to feel deeply, when their profession or their opinions are attacked. Always set a double guard, therefore, at this point. Recollect not only the sin of all rash and unseasonable anger; but how much the exhibition of it lowers the dignity of a grave, official man; and also that, in controversy, according to an old maxim, he who first gets angry will generally be considered as having the weaker side of the argument. 16. Endeavor to cultivate an easy, attractive manner in conversation. Not that I would have you put on the smiling, simpering countenance, which many affect, as giving them, what they think, a pleasant, social air. This is, to all discerning people, disgusting rather than attractive. But by the attractive manner which I would recommend, I mean that frank, courteous, unaffected, benign manner, which invites freedom of intercourse, and which is adapted to place all who approach us at their ease. Such a quality in a clergyman is peculiarly precious, and if properly cultivated and employed, may become a blessing to thousands. Of course, the attainment and exercise of it ought to be studied. And I know of no means of attaining it more effectual, than habitually cultivating that genuine Christian benevolence, which the spirit and the example of the blessed Savior so powerfully recommended. A thousand rules on this subject, expressed with all the point and eloquence imaginable, and day by day treasured up in the memory, are of small value when compared with this successful culture of the moral feelings, and the heart. 17. While you cultivate habitual affability, good nature, and benevolence in conversation, be not too ready to make promises of service to those with whom you converse. The inexperienced and the sanguine, who have naturally an obliging temper, are extremely apt to be betrayed into this fault. They feel much disposed to oblige; and they hastily make promises, and excite expectations, which they cannot fulfill. Be not ready to promise, unless you are sure of your ability to perform. Be sacredly careful not to disappoint the just expectations which you have excited; and make a point, instead of doing less than you say, to do more. I have known a number of men, and especially young men, in public stations, who were so ready to excite expectation of the great things they would do for individuals, or for public bodies, and so remarkably delinquent in accomplishing what they so hastily undertook, that, after a while, no confidence whatever was reposed in their undertakings. 18. It is of the utmost importance to one whose profession leads him much into society, that he be not ready to take offence at every trifle that occurs in the course of conversation. It is a real misfortune for any man, and especially for a clergyman, when his natural temper is jealous and suspicious, and when he is ever on the watch for some fancied design to offend him, or to wound his feelings. I have known men in the sacred office so extremely sensitive to everything of this kind, that their best friends were obliged to converse with them with a degree of caution truly painful. The most innocent remark sometimes became matter of offence, and where no one else saw the remotest purpose of personal application, an unfortunate individual was made an offender for a word. Guard, I pray you, against this unhappy temper with the utmost vigilance. Never think of taking offence, until you are very certain offence was intended. Be sure to err rather on the side of forbearance and charity than of excessive suspicion. Nay, even if you have proof that there was an intention to wound your feelings, rather set it down to the score of temporary peevishness, than of settled malignity; and be ready to meet the offending individual, on the next occasion, with the same serenity and good will as ever. 19. Avoid becoming suddenly and excessively intimate with strangers, at a first interview, and especially, committing yourself to them. This is a great mark of precipitancy and weakness. Be not ready to trust everybody. Confidential friendship is a plant of slow growth. Many people appear extremely plausible, and even fascinating at first interview, who are utterly unworthy of your confidence, and will be speedily discovered to be so. 20. Never, if you can help it, put yourself in the power of any man. It is, indeed, a common maxim, that you ought never to put yourself in the power of anyone but tried friends. I would go further; never do it in any case, unless it be absolutely necessary. For example, if it be impossible for you to proceed in a delicate and highly important matter, without making a confident of someone, submit to the necessity. Make the best choice you can. But, on no account, let your communication go further. It can do no good, and may do much harm, in ways that you never thought of anticipating. The most prudent and useful public men I have ever known, were found among those who exercised the most impenetrable reserve respecting the delicate concerns of themselves and others; who did not impart the knowledge of them even to their nearest relations. 21. When you are called to converse on a subject concerning which there is known to exist, or is likely to arise, a diversity of opinion, in your congregation or neighborhood, do not be forward to deliver your opinion upon it, unless you feel imperiously called by a sense of duty to do so. And when you are called to give your opinion on such a subject, be careful to express it in a manner as little calculated as possible to mortify or irritate those who differ from you. Why should you intimate that those who think otherwise are either `weak’ or `wicked?’ You will not be likely to do good by such language; and it may deeply wound, and even permanently alienate, many of your best friends. 22. Remember that a clergyman ought ever to maintain personal dignity in conversation. This is too often forgotten. Personal dignity, in this case, may be impaired, by levity, by buffoonery, by the recital of low, vulgar anecdotes, by anything in short which evinces the want of that seriousness and self-respect, which can never be abandoned with impunity. Remember that, though it be not only lawful, but desirable, that clergymen should be affable and cheerful; yet that they can never manifest a spirit of habitual levity and jesting, without giving pain to all correct persons who observe it. Dr. Johnson was far from being a precisian, either in his feelings or manners; yet when he saw a couple of clergymen indulging in considerable mirth and jollity at a dinner table, he said with emotion, his merriment of parsons is very disgusting. And truly, when ministers of the gospel, who ought to set an example of dignity, as well as piety, undertake to exhibit themselves for the entertainment of company; to recite low, common place stories; and not only to repeat, but also to act their narratives, with all the circumstances of comedy and farce which belong to them; it cannot fail to giving pain to every mind of correct Christian feeling, and of lowering the ministerial character. 23. Be not ready to join in noisy laughter against anyone who has inadvertently committed a blunder, either in speech or action. It gives pain; and is a mark of very coarse breeding. A dignified command of the countenance is a talent of great value to one in a public station, and adapted to save him from many an embarrassing and mortifying occurrence. It is a real infirmity, and, in a minister of the gospel, an unhappy one, to be ever ready to laugh, or to be noted as a great laugher. 24. It is a great offence against good breeding to be ever ready to turn the eyes of a company on a certain individual, to whom some remark, cursorily made, is supposed to be applicable, and thus, often times, deeply to embarrass him. I have often seen this rule violated in the public assembly, as well as in the parlor. A remark is made, perhaps, which is leveled at the particular denomination or party to which an individual present belongs, or at some opinion which he holds, or some conduct with which he is known to be chargeable. In an instant, every eye is turned toward him; and perhaps some fairly turn round in their seats, to gaze with a smirk or a sneer at the supposed delinquent. There is something so indelicate in this, that a person of truly correct feeling will by no means allow himself to practice it. 25. I have long thought that the practice of retailing anecdotes was one by far too much indulged by many clergymen. To be able to tell a seasonable, appropriate, short and pointed anecdote, now and then, is certainly an accomplishment by no means to be despised, and very proper to be indulged by a clergyman, as well as by any other man. But to abound in them; to be continually resorting to them; to make the repetition of them a favorite amusement, and one of our characteristics, is indeed unworthy of a Christian minister. I could name clergymen who have a set of anecdotes, which they are constantly retailing; some of them very vulgar; a large portion of them old and perfectly stale; not a few relating to ludicrous citations and expositions of Scripture, and of course, calculated to make the Scripture ridiculous in the view of many people; and these, perhaps, repeated the hundredth time, to the loathing of many who have heard them over and over again. A man must have a better memory, and a richer fund, than commonly fall to the lot of the retailers of anecdotes, who does not repeat the items in his list, many times over, to the same individuals. But this is not the worst. The persons in question, by the constant repetition of ludicrous stories, have insensibly cherished in their minds a habitual bias to levity, and have come at length to be expected to be the general jesters for their company. 26. This propensity to the incessant retailing of anecdotes becomes more highly exceptionable, when it leads, as it sometimes does, to the recital of those which include the repetition of profane or obscene language. It is in vain to say that he who only repeats the story, is not the author of the language, and by no means expresses his approbation of it. If the ear be polluted by the words of profaneness and obscenity, it matters little who first of all uttered them. The work of mischief is accumulating by every repetition; and the desire of every Christian ought to be that it never be heard again. 27. Nearly allied to the practice of constantly retailing common place or unseemly anecdotes, is that of habitually repeating old and stale proverbs. These, from the circumstances of their having been repeated so many thousand times, have ceased to be of interest; and many of them are truly vulgar, so that to be continually repeating them would be really to subject yourself to the charge of habitual vulgarity. The truth is, making yourself remarkable for the frequent repetition of any particular form of speech, or proverbial expression, is alike contrary to all good taste, and good breeding. 28. And this leads me to lay it down as another fundamental principle of conversation, that nothing in the least degree bordering on the indelicate, or the coarse, ought ever to escape in conversation from the lips of a minister. If you wish to know how far I would carry this principle, I answer, if there be a thought or a word which the most delicate female would shrink from uttering in a public company; if there be an anecdote, which the most scrupulous matron would be unwilling to relate, if all the world were her hearers; then let no clergyman venture to give utterance, in mixed companies, either to the one or the other. His delicacy ought to be quite as scrupulous and pure as that of the most refined lady. 29. It is one of the most obvious dictates of good manners, not to interrupt another person when he is speaking; and yet how frequently is this plain rule of decorum violated! To interrupt one in conversation almost always carries with it an offensive character. It implies either that we are not instructed or interested by what he is saying; that we have not patience to hear him to the end, and are anxious that he should come to a more speedy close; or that we are wiser than he, and more competent to give instruction on the subject on which he is speaking; neither of which is consistent with that respect and benevolence which we owe to those with whom we converse. But, while you sacredly guard against interrupting others in conversation, be not impatient of interruption yourself. Bear it with calmness, and without the least indication of irritated feeling. Set it down to the score of inadvertence, of nervous excitement, of irascible feeling, of constitutional impatience; in short, of anything rather than a design to give offence, unless you are compelled by unquestionable testimony to adopt this unfavorable construction. 30. Never allow yourself flatly and offensively to contradict anyone with whom you are conversing, provided you mean to remain on good terms with him. It is always a breach of good manners, and to many persons peculiarly painful and embarrassing. If you suspect, or even if you are certain, that a statement made is entirely incorrect, instead of saying bluntly, `that is false,’ or `that is not true;’ or `the fact is not as you state it;’ how much more delicate and proper to say, `Do you not mistake?’ `Are you not misinformed?’ `I cannot help thinking that you are deceived with respect to that matter.’ But, while you never allow yourself bluntly or harshly to contradict others in conversation, always make a point of bearing it patiently when you are contradicted yourself. Remember that it much oftener arises from coarseness of the mind, and ignorance of propriety, than from any intention to wound feelings; and therefore, ought in common to be pitied, rather than resented or made matter of offence. 31. Guard against the indulgence of personal vanity in conversation. This is a foible, or rather a sin, which so frequently lowers the dignity, and interferes with the usefulness of men, otherwise of great excellence, that you cannot be too careful to fly from its approaches. In any man it is revolting; but in a minister of the gospel, or in a candidate for the ministry, it is peculiarly offensive and degrading. Let not the excessive love of praise get possession of your mind. Despise the petty and unworthy arts of those who are constantly seeking to draw it toward themselves. Beware of seeming to court observation or attention. Always remember that the larger your demands on others for their respect and admiration, the less they will be disposed to yield to you. No man is so likely to be both honored and loved as he who appears never to think of soliciting or desiring either. Whereas he who insists on often dragging into view his own excellence, and who is continually blazoning his own talents, attainments and virtues, will generally be found to lose reputation just in proportion as he takes into his own hands the task of awarding it to himself. 32. Vanity, in general, is the parent of egotism in conversation; another foible, against which I exhort you to guard. Let not the idea of yourself appear to be always present to your imagination. Talk not of yourself, your plans, your doings, or your affairs in company, if you can easily avoid it. Do not embrace every opportunity of relating something to your own advantage, or that of your family or relatives. It can scarcely be done in any shape, however ingenious, without having an unpleasant appearance, and had, therefore, better be omitted altogether. Even speaking of your own defects and weaknesses, will be considered by many as an indirect compliment to yourself; because it conveys the idea that you feel so secure in the acknowledged possession of higher and nobler qualities, that you can afford to be thought defective in those of minor importance. 33. Do not affect wit in conversation. Wit, like poetry, to be tolerable, must be very good. Now, very few persons are possessed of this commodity in its genuine, attractive character. The greater part of what is called wit, like most of the versifying in our world, is but an humble and vapid imitation of that which it wishes to be thought. Never attempt to force nature, then, in the one case, any more than you would in the other. Few things are more undignified and paltry, than to see a man impotently struggling with attempts at wit, when the only thing really ludicrous about the matter is, the utter failure of the effort. The probability is that you have not real wit. If you have, it will occasionally disclose itself in spite of your efforts to repress it. And after all, it is not a very desirable accomplishment for a minister of the gospel. It has been commonly found to be a snare rather than a treasure to those who really possessed it. 34. Do not indulge pedantry in conversation. By this you will understand me to mean a formal and unseasonable ostentation of learning; a fault into which men of superficial knowledge, more particularly professional men, are extremely apt to fall, and with which some clergymen, and especially young clergymen, are frequently chargeable. If you have ever so much learning, there is littleness in making a parade of it; and if you have but a small portion, there is something bordering on dishonesty in vaunting it as if you had much. The best rule in the world on this subject is, to get as much knowledge of every valuable kind as you can; and never to make any further display of it than the discharge of your duty necessarily demands. If you were to hear a physician or lawyer holding forth, in mixed company, on the technicalities and the recondite lore of his profession, would you not be disposed to smile? And ought you not to guard against exciting a smile in others by similar conduct on your own part? 35. Both the spirit and the language of flattery in conversation, are utterly unworthy an ambassador of Christ. In any man it is base; but in him who ought to be a pattern and a leader in all that is good, it is pre-eminently base. Yet there are clergymen who are by no means free from this charge. Their opinions of so many persons and things are either openly solicited, or indirectly required; and their temptations to gratify the feelings of many different classes of people, are so powerful, that they are not always able to resist them. I will not suppose anyone who bears the sacred office, to be so unprincipled as to indulge in the habit of indiscriminate flattery, which, as it must defeat its own purpose, is as foolish and contemptible, as it is wicked. But what I warn you against is that delicate flattery, to which many good men are prone; which frequently disguises itself under the name of benevolence; and of which, perhaps, the poison is the more deleterious, because it is so delicately and sparingly administered. Never flatter anyone. Never make your praise cheap. It is not sinful, indeed, to commend another, where commendation is really deserved; but let it be bestowed at a proper time and place; and be conscientious in falling short of what is due, rather than going beyond it. Remember how inflammable a thing human vanity is; and guard against the risk of kindling it into a flame. He that flatters his neighbor, says the wise man, spreadeth a net for his feet. 36. And as I would warn you against flattering others, so I would warn you, with no less solemnity, against inviting commendation and flattery from others to yourself. Nothing is more common, than what is most expressively called fishing for praise. Sometimes it is almost extorted; and what is it then worth? Despise the littleness, as well as abhor the sin of this miserable beggary. I have known ministers who were in the constant habit, immediately after descending from the pulpit, if they fell in with a brother clergyman, of asking him his opinion of the sermon which he had just heard. Where such inquiries are confined to very intimate friends, they are, perhaps, not to be wholly blamed; although even then, they are in a greater or less degree, indications of vanity, and spread a snare for the honesty of our friends, and had better be omitted. But when addressed, as I have known them to be, to strangers as well as friends, there is a littleness about them truly contemptible. The same general remark may be applied to those cases in which, though there is not a direct solicitation to praise a discourse, there is evidently a door opened for that purpose. I once knew a clergyman, who, so far as I had an opportunity of observing, never failed of saying, to every hearer whom he fell in with, for half an hour or an hour after the close of his own sermon, Sabbath after Sabbath, `We’ve had a very solemn subject today.’ This I have heard him repeat and repeat until it became perfectly nauseating; and have observed him to bow and smile with much complacency, when his own indirect compliment to his sermon, drew from one good-natured auditor after another, a dose of flattery. 37. Do not speak of your own performances at all, after they are brought to a close, if you can consistently with duty avoid it. If you appear satisfied with them, it will be thought vanity. If you profess yourself dissatisfied, it will be considered as an indirect method of inviting praise. If you merely make the general subject on which you have been discoursing, the subject of conversation in company afterwards, even with the purest motives, it will be apt to be misconstrued as an ingenious device to extort commendation for what you have done. Never boast, on the one hand, of the length of time, or the care which you have bestowed on your discourses; or, on the other, of the expedition and ease with which you prepare them. Never allow yourself to talk at all on such subjects, unless you are compelled to do it. A thousand other subjects, more likely in those circumstances to be useful, lie before you. If a discourse which you have delivered be commended in your presence, do not appear either to be too much gratified with the commendation, or to despise it. Receive the compliment either with respectful silence, with a slight bow, or with the shortest possible expression of thanks; and, as soon as is consistent with courtesy, change the subject. 38. Some persons, under the notion of avoiding formality and flattery, give way to a rude familiarity, which they call, indeed, by some favorable name; but which deserves to be severely reprobated. I have often known young preachers, when they had become a little familiar with their companions, in the habit when addressing them, of calling them by their Christian names only, or by their surnames only; and indulging habitually, not merely in the freedom, but also in all the coarseness of unbridled raillery. Rely upon it, this is in general not wise. Mutual dignity, and mutual respect, are indispensable to the continued existence of Christian friendship, in its most pure, delicate and profitable form. If you wish to maintain such friendship, be free and unconstrained; but never indulge in rude and coarse familiarity. Those who are worthy of your love, will certainly be repelled rather than attracted by it. 39. When I remind you of the importance of maintaining a constant regard to truth in conversation, you will consider me as enforcing a plain point in ethics, which no one can dispute. But I wish to go further than this language will be popularly considered as importing. I mean much more than that a minister of the gospel ought to avoid downright lying in company, whether the object of the lie be to flatter or to injure. It ought to be his object, in making every statement, in repeating the most trivial narrative, to guard as carefully against misrepresenting, or exaggerating any fact, as if he were on oath; to give no false coloring, no over-coloring, and not, even in jest, to misstate the smallest circumstance. I have had the happiness to be acquainted with a few men whose habits were of this kind; and it was delightful to observe what weight it imparted to their word; and how completely they were de-livered from all those troublesome explanations and retractions, to which the less scrupulous were constantly exposed. 40. Be strictly attentive to the circumstances of time, place, and company in conversation. Look round the room, before you introduce a particular new topic, and ask yourself, whether it is a suitable one for that company; or, whether there be any individuals present to whom it may be peculiarly unwelcome or embarrassing. There is an old French proverb, the import of which is, be careful never to mention a rope in the family of a man who has been hanged. It is a proverb full of good sense, and social delicacy. Yet nothing is more common than to see persons of absent or coarse minds, violating this rule. They introduce subjects, or indulge remarks, calculated to wound the feelings of some of the most estimable individuals present; and this, not for the laudable purpose of benefiting the individuals in question, or of bearing an honest testimony against vice; but from mere inadvertence or want of feeling. Think, therefore, before you speak, not only what you are about to say, but also to whom you are about to address it. It is said that Bishop Burnett was so apt to wound the feelings of those with whom he was conversing, by an infraction of this rule, from mere absence of mind, that some of his best friends were afraid of introducing him to distinguished strangers, lest he should embarrass them as well as himself by an infirmity, which, if its effects had not been sometimes painful, would have been often unspeakably ludicrous. Direct particular attention to this object; and it will soon become as much a fixed habit of your mind to advert to the persons addressed in every conversation, as to any other circumstances attending the communication. 41. When any persons impart to you a knowledge of facts in confidence, make a point of being delicately faithful to the trust committed to you. It not unfrequently happens that the sick and the dying; persons in difficulty and distresses; and persons under anxiety of mind respecting their eternal state, make communications in confidence to ministers of the gospel; under the impression that they, of all men, may be most safely trusted. In every such case, preserve the most inviolable secrecy. But there are many other cases, in which, though no formal injunction of secrecy is expressed, still it ought by all means to be understood, by every delicately prudent mind. We all know how frequently, and with what strict honor, professional secrets are kept by lawyers and physicians; and I have long been of the opinion that habits of more strict reserve than have commonly been thought needful, ought to be maintained by clergymen, with regard to all communications made to them as such, whether formally confidential or not; and that even after an ordinary conversation on any delicate or important subject, it is always best to avoid repeating what has been communicated. No one can tell how many things may occur which may render it peculiarly important that he should have kept it to himself. You may publish your own secrets; but you have no right to publish those of others. In general, a public man ought to repeat very little of what is communicated to him. It can do no harm, in common cases, to keep it secret, while the mischiefs of disclosing it may be endless. 42. It is the fault of many to be loud, and even boisterous in conversation. If the company be ever so large, the moment they become a little engaged and animated, they speak loud enough not only to be heard in every part of the room, but so as to attract and even force the attention of the whole company; and that, perhaps, when conversing on a subject which ought not to be a matter of such public proclamation. There is not little indelicacy in this. When you are publicly addressed across a room, in such a manner as plainly evinces a desire that the whole company should hear your answer, let your reply be audible, but not loud. Let mildness and dignity mark every word, but not loud. 43. Guard against the too frequent use of superlatives in your social intercourse. Persons of ardent, impetuous minds, and especially the young, are apt to manifest an undue fondness for the superlative degree in conversation. If they praise any person or thing, they seem to think of using no epithets but those which indicate the highest grade of excellence. If they commend anyone’s talent, they are sure to represent them as of the highest order. If they would speak well of a sermon, they pronounce it incomparably excellent. On the contrary, if they undertake to express an unfavorable opinion, the terms, contemptible, execrable, detestable, are the softest which they think of employing. In short, the more high wrought their figures, and the more intense and ardent their whole style of expression, the more interesting they suppose their conversation to be. Let me entreat you to guard against the habitual use of this vehemence and intensity of language. It is seldom called for. Men of sense and good taste rarely permit themselves to employ it. A strict regard to truth generally forbids it. And with respect to those who are in the habit of employing it, both their praise and their blame soon become cheap, and at length, worthless. He who wishes his approbation or his censure to go for much, must not be very lavish of either. 44. Seek all convenient opportunities of conversing with the eminently wise and good, and of listening to their conversation. Especially when you are engaged in investigating an important subject, endeavor, if possible, to enjoy the privilege of conversing on that subject with some individual, and even with more than one, of profound views, and extensive reading. You may often learn more in an hour, by conversing with such an one, than by the solitary reading or meditation of a month. Dr. Franklin once told a friend that some of his most original thoughts were suggested by the collision of conversation; and that too, very often upon subjects foreign to those on which he was conversing. And Mr. Fox, the far famed parliamentary orator, declared in the British House of Commons, that he had learned more from Mr. Burke’s conversation than from all the books he had ever read in his life (Rush’s Introductory Lectures, p. 349). 45. Finally, be constantly and vigilantly observant of the habits in conversation of those persons who are considered as most pleasant and acceptable in this department of social intercourse. In every community there are those who are universally allowed to excel in colloquial accomplishments. Now it will be very unwise to be humble imitators of such persons; but it will, undoubtedly, be the part of wisdom to take notice of the means by which they attain success; and to make use of what you see, as your own particular habits and character may render proper. I doubt whether any man ever acquired much excellence in this important art, without the happy talent of close observation, and, in this way as well as by his own good sense, making himself master of the proprieties and delicacies which become the social circle. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 35: S. REVIVAL OF RELIGION ======================================================================== Revival of Religion Samuel Miller, D.D. CHRISTIAN BRETHREN: When the real Christian reads or hears of a revival of religion, a chord is touched which vibrates with pleasure to his heart. In no event is a friend of Christ more ready, instinctively, to rejoice, than when he is informed that the Holy Spirit is poured out in large measures, reviving the graces of the people of God; causing multitudes anxiously to inquire what they must do to be saved; and many to rejoice in a good hope through grace. Long may the Presbyterian Church be favored with genuine revivals of religion, of greater and greater power, in all her borders; and long may she be blessed with ministers and members who love them; who pray for them without ceasing; and who habitually and faithfully use those means for promoting them, which the Scriptures warrant, and which the great Head of the Church is wont to own and bless! This subject appears to me, at the present time, to assume an aspect more than usually interesting, and to indicate a most momentous connection with the future. The frequency, the power, and the precious results of revivals in almost every part of the American churches within a few years past, cannot but fill the hearts of intelligent Christians with joy, while they furnish a most animating presage of the rapid manner in which the conversion of the world may be expected to proceed, when the set time to favor Zion shall come; and a no less gratifying pledge of the ease with which the Head of the Church can solve that problem so perplexing to human wisdom: How the number of candidates for the ministry may be so rapidly multiplied, as in any good measure to meet the urgent and increasing demand for spiritual laborers, both in the domestic and foreign field? Let such revivals as we have been permitted to see, but with augmented power and extent, visit the churches year after year, and fill all lands, and the work will be done. The knowledge and glory of the Lord, without the interposition of what we call miracle, will soon fill the earth; and on every side candidates for carrying the Gospel from the rising to the setting sun will be raised up, saying, with humble readiness to spend and be spent for Christ, "Here are we, send us." I cannot help recording my conviction that these revivals are the hope of the Church and of the world. In other words, the millennium is at a far greater distance than the most pious and enlightened interpreters of prophecy have supposed; or else the conversion of the heathen, and of all that are afar off, must proceed in a much more rapid manner than it has hitherto done. I am disposed to adopt the latter alternative; and, of course, to believe that the Church is warranted in looking and praying for revivals of religion far more extensive, more powerful, and more glorious, than the present generation, or indeed any other, had ever witnessed. This being my impression, I cannot doubt that it is the duty of all professing Christians, at the present day, to expect great things; to ask for great things; and to employ with increasing diligence all the means which the Spirit of God has warranted, and has promised to follow with his blessing, for the attainment of great things, in the way of REVIVALS. They are solemnly bound, in that spirit of hallowed enterprise which becomes a new exigency and new dawnings in human affairs, to endeavor, by augmented parental care and diligence; by increasing pastoral fidelity; by the more edifying example, and unwearied activity of private Christians in their appropriate sphere; by prayer more humble, importunate, and persevering than heretofore; and by redoubled efforts to sustain and extend all those associations which have for their object the reformation and conversion of the world; they are bound, I say, by all these means to endeavor to hasten the arrival of that period when nations shall be born in a day, and when multitudes shall flock to the ark of safety as a cloud, and as doves to their windows, and when converts to righteousness shall be numerous as the drops of the morning dew. In my opinion every professing Christian ought to consider the degree in which he longs, and prays, and exerts himself for the revival of religion, and for the extension of the Redeemer’s kingdom, as affording one of the most undoubted and unerring tests of his piety. Show me a professor of religion who manifests but little zeal for these great interests, and I will show you one who has great reason to stand in doubt of himself, and to examine, with new solicitude, whether he has ever taken his stand on the Lord’s side. Assuming, then, the unspeakable importance of this great subject, and the obligation resting upon all Christians, not only to desire revivals, but also to be actively engaged in promoting them; I beg leave to offer some general remarks on a few points relating to the subject; and it is my wish to do it with all that caution and reverence which becomes everyone in taking a step on consecrated ground. I. And my first remark is, that it is of the utmost importance THAT WE BE UPON OUR GUARD AGAINST SPURIOUS REVIVALS. If I were called upon to say what I mean by a genuine revival of religion, as distinguished from a spurious one, I should draw the line of distinction by saying, that a genuine revival is one which is produced by the exhibition of Gospel Truth, faithfully presented to the mind, and applied by the power of the Holy Spirit. And that all high religious excitement or commotion produced by other means than the impression of truth, is the essence of fanaticism. It is a spurious work, adapted to bring genuine revivals into disrepute, and to send a blast instead of a blessing on the Church of God; and, of course, the more extended and powerful, the more to be deplored. It is no uncommon or difficult thing to work upon the animal feelings of assembled multitudes, by mere terror, by sympathy, by vehement addresses, by fine music, by a great variety of means in which Gospel truth is not presented, and has no influence. Those who are aware what a fearfully and wonderfully made piece of machinery human nature is, and especially how susceptible of strong and diversified impression are the nerves and sympathies of that nature, will not wonder, though they may not be able fully to explain, why such powerful effects flow from a little adroit management. Who does not know that the far-famed fanatical Unitarians, who call themselves Chrystians have their revivals of a strongly marked character, their anxious seats, and all the most imposing and exciting means that have ever been adopted for making a popular impression. Nay, one of the most active and artful leaders of that sect, boasted that he had drawn at least fifty persons to anxious seats, merely by the influence of his own singing, which was, indeed, remarkably touching and powerful. It is surely unnecessary to remark, that such revivals are a disgrace to the name; that they are the fruit of animal excitement merely; and that every enlightened friend of the Redeemer’s kingdom, must mourn over their character and tendency. It is not mere excitement then, in which the animal feelings of many are roused and agitated, and in which the mere principles of nature are addressed, and called into powerful action, that constitutes a genuine revival of religion. For, as there can be no real piety in any individual heart without the reception and love of the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel; so we must estimate the real character of every religious excitement which claims to be a revival, by the degree in which pure Gospel truth is presented, embraced, and obeyed. However widespread and powerful the excitement may be, it ought ever to be brought to this obvious, fair, and decisive test: Is it produced by a blessing on the truth plainly and faithfully presented? Is it throughout regulated by the truth? And do its professed subjects manifest a general and cordial love of Gospel truth? Are their views of the character of God, of his holy law, of sin, of the ground of acceptance, and of Christian hope, -- I do not say perfectly -- but in the main, accordant with the Bible views of those great subjects? If so, we may hail the work with joy, and bid Godspeed to those who are instrumental in commencing and giving it direction. If the subjects of it, in giving a reason of their anxiety, or of the hope that is in them, appear to be moved by scriptural views of truth, addressed to the conscience and the heart; if in giving an account of their distress or their peace they manifest that their views of themselves, of the Savior, and of Christian confidence towards God, are in substance, those which the Scriptures authorize; and if they evidently bring forth the fruits of holy living, -- we must denominate such a revival a work of God, -- thank him for it, and rejoice in it as a rich blessing. But if by some strong excitement, addressed to the animal feelings, we could so work upon the nervous system of hundreds, or even thousands in a great assembly, as to constrain them to weep, to cry out with terror, to fall prostrate, and to fill the house with sobbing and groans; if this were all, we must pronounce it a spurious work, the product of fanaticism and not of the Holy Spirit. I am persuaded, my Christian brethren, that this is a point of more practical importance than is commonly imagined. To say that spurious revivals are of no use to the Church of God, is to express but a small part of the truth. They are a dreadful curse to any church. They exert a most pestiferous influence. They deceive and destroy the souls of men. They harden the worldly and the infidel in tenfold obduracy. They leave a country over which they have passed arid and desolate, like that over which a raging fire has swept, and laid it all a gloomy waste. I have more than once witnessed strong and extensive religious excitements, evidently produced by powerful appeals to animal feeling and sympathy, without suitable exhibitions of Gospel truth. The effects were, indeed, plausible, and adapted to make a deep popular impression. They did make such an impression; and were trumpeted far and wide as glorious revivals of religion. But, in a few months, the real character of these excitements was painfully disclosed. In a great majority of cases the impressions made, like the morning cloud and the early dew, soon entirely passed away; while the small minority who held out long enough to make a public profession of religion, and some who, in the fervor of their first exercises, offered themselves as candidates for the holy ministry, soon made it too evident by their unhappy mixture of levity, ignorance, censoriousness, and claims of high attainment, that they needed a new conversion before they could be fitted to adorn or to edify the Church. I once knew a minister who took unwearied, and I doubt not, honest pains, to produce a revival of religion in the church under his pastoral care. After employing abundant means, and those of the most exciting and alarming kind, he succeeded in collecting together, at the close of a solemn evening service, in which a powerful impression seemed to have been made, a large number of the professedly anxious and inquiring in his session room. There he met and addressed them, and there, without saying one word to them of their guilt and misery by nature, of Christ, of the Gospel plan of acceptance with God, of the nature of evangelical faith and repentance, or of the work of the Holy Spirit as the author of all spiritual life, he spoke to them about resolving to be for God; asked them if they could not make up their minds decisively to submit to God; and assured them that to determine in their own minds to engage in the service of God, was regeneration, was to become a Christian. With almost one consent they took the seats assigned to the hoping, and came out of the room called, and supposing themselves to be, converted persons. Most of them were forthwith hurried into the Church; but in the estimation of intelligent Christians few of them appeared to know what they were doing, or turned out to be solid, established Christians. Of such a revival, I should say with confidence, it has nothing to do with the religion of the Gospel. I repeat it then, experience proves that spurious revivals have been mistaken for genuine, and may be mistaken for them again; and that we ought never to recognize as genuine any revival which is not produced by the instrumentality of truth, which is not regulated by the truth, and which does not bring forth the fruits of truth. All else is fanatical excitement. Like a fever in the human body, it cannot fail of leaving the system relaxed and debilitated, when it declines. Like counterfeit money, it excites deep doubt and distrust wherever it comes, and ultimately interferes with the circulation of genuine coin. Beloved, says an inspired Apostle, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. II. Allow me further to suggest, the great importance of GUARDING AGAINST ALL THOSE DISORDERS AND UNWARRANTED MEASURES WHICH ARE ADAPTED TO ARREST OR TO MAR GENUINE REVIVALS. I have sometimes heard inconsiderate querists ask, whether it is possible that a work which is really of God, should be arrested in its progress or marred in its character, by the weakness of man? This question may be answered in the affirmative or negative, according to our understanding of its meaning. Let me answer it by asking another. If an individual were deeply anxious respecting his eternal interests, and if, in the midst of his anxiety, a large estate were unexpectedly left to him, which, from its extent and situation, was adapted to engross his whole attention; or, if he were suddenly engaged in all the violence of party politics, or some other angry and absorbing contest, might we not naturally expect, would not all experience teach us to fear that the new and engrossing subject would soon expel all his former anxiety? Even so, the history of the Church has evinced, that even when a genuine and undoubted work of the Holy Spirit has commenced its progress in the most promising manner, if gross disorders are admitted; if angry contentions arise; or if anything occur powerfully to distract or divide the public mind; the Holy Spirit is wont to depart, and the minds of men to be turned away from the most important concerns, to those subordinate objects which are thus urged on their attention. In these circumstances, where the sanctifying Spirit has taken up his abode in any heart, He will not be totally and finally expelled; but by thousands who had been brought by his strivings to deep conviction, to promising seriousness, and to apparently sincere resolutions, his influences have been quenched, and his presence grieved away from a people who once appeared not far from the kingdom of God. Well meaning, sanguine Christians, may fondly hope, that if the Spirit of God be really present, there is nothing to fear. But his own word, as well as the history of his dealings with the Church, plainly shows that he is a Spirit of order and of love; and that whenever there is a striking departure from either, there he will not remain; but will leave such a people to greater hardness, apathy, and unbelief, than ever. Let anyone who really desires to know the truth on this subject, look into the Apostolical Epistles, especially into the fourteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, and he will there see that, even under the ministrations of inspired men, gross disorders creeping into a church were found quite sufficient to mar the work of the Holy Spirit, and to impede the progress of the truth. Let him look into the forth part of the venerable President Edwards’ Thoughts concerning the Revival of Religion, which appeared in our country more than ninety years ago, and he will perceive that that eminently wise and holy man saw and lamented disorders amidst the glorious revivals which then blessed the Church, and had no doubt of the deplorable mischiefs produced by them. Let him read the accounts of the disorders introduced into New England by Davenport and his associates, during the great revivals under the ministry of Whitefield and his excellent coadjutors, many years since; and if he have a particle of sincere love for the kingdom of Christ, he will mourn over the evils which those disorders occasioned, grieving the hearts of God’s people, tearing the churches in pieces, and causing the Holy Spirit to depart, and give them up to strife, and finally to coldness, stupidity, and desolation. Let him notice with care the extravagancies and disorders which have attended revivals of religion within the last thirty years in different parts of the United States; revivals which were in their commencement highly promising; but which soon became marred, disgraced, and terminated, by various forms of fanatical irregularity, which disgusted intelligent and sober minded Christians, and hardened the enemies of vital religion in deeper hostility. I say, let anyone who sincerely desires to know the truth on this subject, ponder well this recorded experience of the Church of God, and then say, whether it is not both reasonable and important to lift, in relation to it, the voice of warning. If any desire to know what the particular disorders are, to which allusion is intended in these references; I answer, the very same disorders which the venerable President Edwards, and other eminently wise and pious ministers of the Gospel, lamented and opposed nearly a century ago, and which wrought such complicated and wide spread mischiefs then, and many years afterwards. Such as the excessive multiplication of public meetings, so as to leave little or no time for the duties of the family and the closet; continuing the exercises of such meetings to an unseasonably late hour, thereby deranging the order of families, and exhausting both the bodies and the minds of the people; indulging in bodily agitation, groans and outcries in public assemblies; unauthorized and unqualified persons thrusting themselves forward to perform the work of public instruction; a number of persons speaking and praying at the same time; females speaking, and leading in prayer in promiscuous assemblies; publicly praying for particular individuals by name, as graceless, or opposers of religion; giving vent to the language of harsh censure, and of uncharitable denunciation, as enemies of God, against all who oppose these irregularities; urging the public confession of secret sins, as indispensable to the attainment of a blessing; all these, and many other contrivances of a like kind, the object of which was to produce strong excitement, have been tried a hundred times, in various countries and ages, have been uniformly found to work ill in the end, and have been unanimously condemned by judicious Christians as unscriptural and mischievous. They disgust intelligent, reflecting people. They drive many from the house of God, and, perhaps harden them in hopeless infidelity. And they confirm the prejudices of many against revivals altogether. And yet there are those who believe those very means adapted to do good, and who are disposed to try them again! The truth is, there are good people who imagine that unless high popular excitement and agitation be produced, nothing desirable is done. They are ready, therefore, to adopt any new and bold measure which promises to produce the effect. Their delight is in public excitement; in producing effects on large masses of people analogous to the influence of strong drink on the animal body; not remembering that, as in the case of strong drink, such excitement is unnatural; that it is unfriendly to the calm, intelligent and humble exercise of Christian grace; that it cannot long continue; and that it will never fail to be followed by morbid depression, and debility in the end. But besides these manifest disorders, which have so often drawn a cloud over revivals of religion, and against which judicious Christians, it may be hoped, will be ever on their guard; there are other measures, to which the title of new has been given, of which I beg permission to say a word under this head. The principal of these are, at the end of a warm and pungent discourse, calling upon all who are more or less impressed by it, and who have formed the resolution to attend to the subject of religion, to rise from their seats, and declare their purpose before the public assembly; or, requesting all who are willing to be prayed for, to rise and come forward to a particular part of the church, and kneel together for that purpose; or, inviting all who are anxious about their everlasting welfare, to separate themselves publicly from the rest of the congregation, and to occupy certain seats, called anxious seats, and vacated for the purpose of being thus filled. In short, this machinery for working on the popular feeling may be, and has been endlessly diversified. Sometimes those who have obtained a hope have been requested to rise in every part of the house, and signify it. At other times, those who have not yet begun to cherish a hope of their good estate, but who resolve that they will attend to this great subject, are urged, on the spot, to signify this resolution in the same way. And sometimes those whose stubborn wills are not yet inclined to bow, and who feel no particular disposition to comply with the Gospel call, have been requested to make even this publicly known, by either rising in their seats, or leaving the house. The great argument urged in favor of this whole system of new measures is, that, as the impenitent are naturally prone to stifle convictions, and to tamper with the spirit of procrastination, it is desirable they should be prevailed upon, as soon as possible, to take some visible step which shall commit them on this great subject. This, however, in my opinion, instead of being an argument in its favor, is precisely the most powerful objection to the whole system. There is no doubt that every impenitent sinner to whom the Gospel comes, ought to be called to immediate repentance; and that all delay in embracing the Gospel is as unreasonable as it is criminal. But of all the subjects that can come before the human mind, surely religion is that in which every step ought to be taken without rashness, with distinct knowledge, with due consideration, counting the cost, and with sacred care not to mistake a transient emotion for a deep impression; or a momentary paroxysm of alarm, or of animal sympathy, for a fixed, practical purpose of the heart. If we call upon those who are anxious about their eternal interest, to take certain seats, or to stand up before the public assembly, as a testimony of their anxiety; is it wise in them publicly to take such a station, before they know whether their feelings will last an hour, or pass away with the first night’s sleep? Or, if we should call upon those who have obtained a hope in Christ, to make it known to a large assembly, by some prescribed signal; would it be right in those into whose minds this hope, whether genuine or spurious, has beamed only a few hours or minutes before the call was made, to stand forth in this high and responsible character, before there was the least opportunity to put their hope to a scriptural test? Of all methods yet devised, this appears to me most directly adapted to fill the Church with rash, ignorant, superficial, hypocritical professors, instead of solid, intelligent, truly spiritual and devoted Christians. Nor is even this, bad as it is, the worst. I feel constrained to add, that when this highly exciting system of calling to anxious seats, calling out into the aisles to be prayed for, etc., is connected, as, to my certain knowledge it often has been, with erroneous doctrines; for example, with the declaration, that nothing is easier than conversion; that the power of the Holy Spirit is not necessary to enable impenitent sinners to repent and believe; that if they only resolve to be for God, resolve to be Christians, that itself is regeneration, the work is already done: I say, where the system of anxious seats, etc., is connected with such doctrinal statements as these, it appears to me adapted to destroy souls by wholesale! I will not say that such revivals are never connected with sound conversions; but I will be bold to repeat, that the religion which they are fitted to cherish, is altogether a different one from that of the Gospel. It is, I sincerely believe, a system of soul-destroying deception! Those of you, my Christian brethren, who have seen a highly instructive and interesting volume on the subject of Revivals, by the Rev. Dr. Sprague, of Albany, a volume which I would earnestly recommend to the careful perusal of every Presbyterian in the United States, have no doubt been impressed, not only by the just and luminous views given of the subject before us, by that excellent writer himself; but also by the remarkable unanimity of opinion on the same subject, expressed in the Appendix to his work, by a long list of eminent ministers, of six different Christian denominations, most of them distinguished for their great wisdom and piety, as well as their ample experience in revivals. From the communications of three of the venerable men, whose competency in every respect to give testimony on the subject before us, will be questioned by none who know them, I beg leave to make a few short extracts. The following is the testimony of the Rev. President Humphrey, of Amherst College, whose character as a tried friend of revivals is well known. "If you ask me, what means and measures have been most eminently blessed, in the revivals which have fallen under my own personal observation, in College and elsewhere, I answer, substantially the same as were mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds in the apostolic age; the same as were employed by Edwards, and Bellamy, and Brainerd, almost a century ago. Meetings for personal conversation, commonly called, inquiry meetings have been held weekly, or oftener, with great spiritual advantage, in all the revivals which have fallen under my notice. The duty of prayer, both secret and social, has been earnestly and daily urged upon Christians; but late meetings have generally been discouraged, as interfering with the religious order of families, and tending in a short time, to exhaust the physical and mental energies of God’s people, as well as to mingle strange fire with that which is kindled from the skies. When met for social prayer, neither ministers nor laymen have indulged themselves in loud and boisterous vociferations, in audible groans, or in smiting the hands together in token of their sincerity and earnestness. They have observed, that the most noisy waters are seldom deepest; and have laid more stress upon fervency of spirit, than upon strength of lungs, or muscular contortions. With us it has never been customary, whether in our larger or smaller religious circles, to pray for sinners who may happen to be present, by name, or to indulge in equivalent personalities. The general tendency of such a practice, it is thought, would be detrimental to the cause of piety, however different the effect might be in solitary instances. Females have kept silence in all our meetings, except such as were composed exclusively of their own sex. Calling anxious sinners into the aisles, to be addressed and prayed for, has not been practiced within the circle of my observation; nor have they been requested, before the great congregation, to come forward from any part of the house, and occupy seats vacated for that purpose; and wherever such measures have been adopted, within my knowledge, I believe the cause of revivals has lost more than it has gained by them. It is unsafe to argue from the present effect of any new system, that it is better than the old. It may accomplish more in a week, but not so much in a year. It may bring a greater number of persons into the visible kingdom of Christ, but not so many into his spiritual kingdom. For myself, every new revival of religion which I am permitted to witness, serves to confirm me in the opinion, that it is safest to walk in the "old paths," and to employ those means and measures which long experience has sanctioned, and in the use of which the churches in this part of the land, have been so greatly enlarged and edified." The Rev. President Lord, of Dartmouth College, in reference to the same subject, has the following weighty remarks. "In regard to these revivals of religion, I think it important to remark, that, in every instance, they seemed the product of the Spirit’s influence silently affecting different minds with the same truths, and multiplying the trophies of divine mercy. They were an effect, and not a cause of divine interposition; and except as occasionally blemished through human weakness and sinfulness, bore the characteristics of the wisdom that is from above. We have known here nothing except by report, of the new measures for building up the kingdom of Christ. We have no machinery for making converts; and we could allow none to be introduced. We should be afraid to make or suffer an impression upon the young men under our care, many of whom will be ministers of Jesus Christ, that the Gospel can be helped, or the work of the Holy Spirit facilitated by human devices. And I think we shall hold, on this subject, to our general principles, too long settled by the experience of ages, and confirmed by the blessing of God, attending the application of them, to be now thrown away in the ardor of questionable excitements, or for the love of innovation, or even to escape the imputation of being the enemies of revivals. When shall the ministers and churches of the Redeemer know effectually their proneness to mar the beautiful simplicity of the Gospel, to add something of their own inventions to its sufficient ordinances; to lead instead of following the divine Providence, and to mistake their own dreaming for a heavenly impulse; to inflame the sacrifice with unhallowed fire, and to arrogate that power, and that glory which belong to God only? I cannot tell you how much I sometimes fear, when I look abroad upon our country, that Christianity will degenerate in our keeping. Yet let us hold to the old foundations. There are many yet to maintain the right; and the recovering spirit, we are assured, will accomplish the purposes of divine mercy, will correct and convert the world." President Griffin, of Williams College, than whom few living ministers have had more experience in revivals, employs, on the same subject, the following language, "Much has been done of late, to lead awakened sinners to commit themselves, in order to get them over that indecision, and fear of man which have kept them back, and to render it impossible for them to return with consistency. For this purpose they are called upon to request public prayers by rising; to come out into the aisles, in token of their determination to be for God; to take particular seats, called in bad English, anxious seats; to come forward and kneel in order to be prayed for; and in very many instances, to promise to give themselves to religion at once. For much the same purpose converts are called upon to take particular seats, and thus virtually to make a profession in a day, and are hurried into the church in a few weeks. These measures, while they are intended to commit the actors, are meant also to awaken the attention of others, and to serve as means of general impression. I would not make a man an offender for a word; but when these measures are reduced to a system, and constantly repeated; when, instead of the former dignity of a Christian assembly, it is daily thrown into a rambling state by these well meant maneuvers; it becomes a solemn question, whether they do not give a disproportionate action to imagination and passion, and lead to a reliance on other means than truth and prayer, and on other power than that of God. I have seen enough to convince me that sinners are very apt to place a self-righteous dependence on this sort of commitment. I have taken one step, and now I hope God will do something for me is language which I have heard more than once. Against any promises, express or implied, I utterly protest. If they are promises to do anything short of real submission, they will bring up a feeling that more the sinner is not bound to do. If they are promises to submit, they are made in the sinner’s own strength, and are presumptuous. The will, which forms resolutions, and utters promises, cannot control the heart. Sinners are bound to love God at once; but they are not bound to promise beforehand to do it, and rely on their own will to change their heart. This is self-dependence. They are bound to go forth to their work at once; but they are not bound to go alone. It is their privilege, and their duty to cast themselves instantly on the Holy Ghost, and not to take a single step in their own strength. In these extorted promises there is another evil, the substitution of human authority for the divine. It is right for Christians to urge upon sinners the obligation of immediate submission, and they cannot enforce this too much by the authority of God; but to stand over them and say, Come, now promise; promise this moment; do promise; you must promise; promise, and I will pray for you -- if you don’t, I won’t, is overpowering them with human authority and putting it in the room of the divine. The experience and wisdom of the Rev. Mr. Nettleton in revivals of religion, for more than twenty years past, are well known throughout the United States. His testimony against the new measures of which I am now speaking is strong and decisive. He informed me, with his own lips, within a few weeks, that a short time before he commenced his career as an Evangelist, these very measures (calling upon people in the public assemblies, to proclaim the state of their minds by standing up, going to certain seats, or kneeling in the aisles to be prayed for) had been extensively employed, by the Rev. James Davis, a Congregational minister in the eastern part of Connecticut, where he (Mr. N.) was subsequently called to labor; that the ultimate fruit of them everywhere, was fanaticism and disorder; that, in more than one place, the spirit which they generated presented such insurmountable obstacles to all rational and sober ministrations, that he was obliged to take leave and go elsewhere; and that in every period of his ministry since, he has found similar measures invariably productive of the same distressing effects. His judgment, therefore, long since formed; tested by much experience both in the Presbyterian Church, and in New England; and rendered more and more decisive by every day’s additional observation, is that the whole array of the measures in question, is opposed to the meekness and humility of the Gospel; that it tends to nourish a spirit of ostentation, fanaticism and censoriousness; and that, although it may appear to be productive of a greater number of conversions in the beginning, a less obtrusive system may be expected to produce more genuine and more abundant fruit in the end. Let it not be said, that calling our inquirers to "anxious seats" is the only effectual method of ascertaining who are under serious impressions, and who are not. Is it not quite as effectual, and much less exceptionable, to give a public invitation to all who are in any degree seriously impressed, or anxious to remain after the congregation is dismissed; or to meet their pastor the next evening, in some convenient apartment, for the purpose of disclosing their feelings, and of being made the subjects of instruction and prayer? Nay, why is not the latter method very much preferable, in every respect, to the former? It affords quite as good an opportunity to ascertain numbers, and to distinguish persons and cases. It furnishes a far better opportunity to give distinct and appropriate instruction to particular individuals. It prevents the mischief of dragging into public view, and even into the highest degree of publicity, those whose exercises are immature, and perhaps transient. And it avoids the danger which to many, and especially to young people, may be very formidable; I mean the danger of being inflated by becoming objects of pubic attention, and by being forthwith addressed and announced, as is too often the case, as undoubted "converts". Surely the incipient exercises of the awakened and convinced ought to be characterized by much calm self-examination, and much serious, retired, closet work. If there be any whose impressions are so slight and transient, that they cannot be safely permitted to wait until the next evening, it will hardly be maintained that such persons are prepared to "commit themselves," by publicly taking an anxious seat. And if there be any whose vanity would dispose them to prefer pressing forward to such a seat in the presence of a great assembly, to meeting their pastor, and a few friends, in a similar state of mind with themselves, in a more private manner, the Church, I apprehend, can promise herself little comfort from the multiplication of such members. After all, what is the ultimate effect of this system of new measures, as it is commonly called? Does it continue, like all the ordinances of God’s own appointment, to impress and to edify, from year to year, without abatement or weariness? Not at all. In those places in which the practice of calling out the serious, the anxious, and the hoping to the aisles, or to particular seats, as habit or caprice may dictate, has been most extensively and longest in use, all experience testifies, that when the novelty of the expedient has worn off, its exciting character is at an end; and that it soon becomes as powerless and inefficient as any other old story. This is notoriously the case in many parts of the western country; and it will soon be found to be the case in those eastern portions of the Church in which similar practices are now in high vogue. The truth is, things of this kind cannot long be tolerated among enlightened, sober-minded Christians. Solid food nourishes the body, and leaves it invigorated and comfortable. But stimulating potations excite to morbid action only, and that for a time; and then leave the system depressed and wretched. But I must postpone to one more letter some further remarks on the subject of revivals. Princeton, March, 1833. Revivals of Religion II CHRISTIAN BRETHREN: The subject of revivals of religion is so unspeakably interesting and important, and at the same time, so extensive, that I am persuaded you will not wonder at my making it the subject of another letter. There are several other topics on which I feel desirous of making a few observations. III. A third remark which I would most respectfully offer, is, that if we desire to promote genuine and salutary revivals of religion, WE MUST NOT UNDERVALUE THE ORDINARY MEANS OF GRACE, NOR MAKE TOO COMMON AND CHEAP THOSE WHICH MAY BE CALLED EXTRAORDINARY. When the ancient people of God, in their passage through the wilderness, began to loathe the plain but excellent manna which was provided for them day by day, and to call for some extraordinary supply; we find that, on their request being granted, surfeiting and mischief were the consequence. So it is with respect to Zion’s more spiritual provision. When new schemes for making a popular impression begin to occupy the public mind, a love of excitement and of agitation seems to take possession of the people. They begin to suppose that when these are absent, nothing valuable is accomplished. The ordinary exercises of the Sabbath, the weekly lecture, the prayer meeting, and the sacramental table, are esteemed light food. Something stirring; something new; something adapted to produce powerful excitement, analogous to that of strong drink, must be present, or all seems to them vapid and uninteresting. When a spirit of this kind becomes prevalent among a people, it augurs most unhappily for their spiritual interest. The object of these remarks is, not to intimate that extraordinary means of grace ought not sometimes to be employed; but that they ought not so to be employed and regarded as to place the ordinary means which God has appointed "in the back ground," and to make the popular impression that where these alone are employed, little good is to be expected. To exemplify my meaning: I am a warm friend to "Protracted meetings." They were evidently employed, on special occasions, under the Old Testament economy; but they were not made cheap by too frequent recurrence. They were considered and treated as special services. In the days of our blessed Lord’s personal ministry, we know that He kept the people hanging on his lips for three whole days in succession, and, during the greater part of this time, large numbers of them evidently remained on the ground fasting. In the Church of Scotland, protracted meetings, on sacramental occasions, were almost universal, it is believed, for more than a hundred years, and on many occasions, with richly excellent results. It was on such an occasion that a single sermon, by the celebrated Mr. John Livingston, was blessed to the hopeful conversion of five hundred souls. And such protracted meetings, have, beyond all doubt, been made signally instrumental in many parts of our own country especially within a few years past, to the commencement or the continuance of the most precious revivals of religion. Against protracted meetings, therefore, as such, thus warranted and fortified, it is probable no sincere and intelligent friend of vital piety will venture to speak. But are not such meetings extremely liable to abuse? Nay, is there not reason to believe that they have been abused, and thus made a hindrance, instead of a help, to the cause of pure and undefiled religion? And they may be said to be abused, when professing Christians begin to place their chief dependence upon them; when they look forward to them with eagerness, as the hope of the Church; when they are made, as it were, to come in place of an humble tender reliance on the Holy Spirit, and broken hearted, importunate, persevering prayer for the prosperity of Zion; when they even seem, as they have sometimes been, to be regarded as a kind of machinery which may serve as a substitute for personal religion, and persevering devotion; and, finally, they are greatly abused when they are resorted to so frequently by the same people, as to convert them into stated means of grace, and thus to make the Sabbath, and its ordinary privileges lightly esteemed in comparison with them. This is a sore evil; yet it has happened; and there is great danger that it will happen again. But if my views of the nature of the economy of grace, as well as distinct information respecting the effects in particular cases, do not deceive me, such an abuse never can happen without mischief; without such frowns and desertion by the great Head of the Church, as will leave a people chargeable with it, in a greater or less degree, to the coldness, the stupidity, and the desolation of those who are given up to "eat the fruit of their own way, and to be filled with their own devices. The truth is, men have been prone, in all ages, to lay more stress on their own inventions, than on the simple ordinances of Christ. They have honestly, but vainly, thought that the appointments of the Head of the Church were not sufficient; or, at any rate, that they might be added to not only without sin, but with advantage. Every new device for winning the attention, and exciting the mind, they have been ready to adopt; and imagined that in doing so, they did God service. This was, no doubt, the origin of a large number of those human inventions in the worship of God which deform the Romish Church. They began early. They were a long time in reaching that corrupt and revolting maturity which they now exhibit. Good men, in their pious zeal to impress the multitude and to bring souls into the Church, invented device after device for addressing the senses, and working on the feelings of men; until the piety of their inventors, and the force of habit, consecrated these devices in public estimation, as institutions of Christ, and gave them a permanent place in the apparatus of the Church; until one after another they built up that mass of superstition which forms the dire machinery by which the "man of sin," dazzles and deceives the simple. It is, moreover, one of those notorious facts, in the history of human inventions in the worship of God, as humiliating as it is striking, that after a while, more stress is commonly laid upon those inventions than on the ordinances of Christ. Uncommanded festival and fast days in the Romish Church are commonly observed with far more strictness than the Lord’s day. And many, if appearances are not deceptive, are beginning to feel as if no good can be hoped for without protracted meetings, and that they are of far more importance than the privileges of the holy Sabbath. I would say then, employ protracted meetings. They are fully warranted, by the example, as well as the spirit of the word of God. But do not make idols of them. Do not imagine that they have an inherent efficacy, independently of the Spirit of God, to produce a revival of religion. Resort to them but seldom; not as stated, but as extraordinary means. Prepare for them with much humble, importunate prayer. Remember that, like all other means, they will only be useful as far as they are attended upon with a believing reference and application to the Spirit of all grace. And be careful not to view or use them in any way which will tend to depreciate in your esteem the ordinary means of grace. Whatever or whoever does this, is a great evil, and will inevitably be followed by the frowns of Zion’s King. IV. It is of great importance in revivals to GUARD AGAINST A SUDDEN INTRODUCTION TO THE CHURCH OF THOSE WHO ARE HOPEFULLY MADE THE SUBJECTS OF CONVERTING GRACE. Until recently, the practice here opposed had few or no advocates among intelligent, sober minded Christians. If it be of any importance, either to themselves or the Church, that those who are introduced to her communion be sincere and enlightened believers, then it is, undoubtedly, desirable that, after cherishing the hope that they have become such, they should have some little time to try and know themselves, and to become known to the Church. Especially is this caution highly important in seasons of powerful awakening and revival; when many are wrought upon by sympathy, who are strangers even to deep conviction, much more to a genuine conversion; when many appear serious and promising for a while, but soon draw back, and relapse into deeper carelessness than before. Surely it would be unhappy, in every respect, if such persons were encouraged in their first paroxysms of feeling to enroll themselves publicly as professors of religion. Scarcely anything could be more directly adapted to fill them with delusive hopes, and prevent their genuine conversion. The truth is, the system which I have known to be pursued by some warm hearted and well meaning ministers; a system of high animal excitement throughout, unaccompanied with much instruction, and followed up with admission to the communion of the Church, within a few days, and sometimes within a few hours, after the commencement of serious feelings; is undoubtedly a system adapted to deceive and destroy immortal souls; to fill the Church with ignorant, noisy hypocrites and, in the end, to destroy, at once, its purity and its peace. As to the examples found in Scripture, which are supposed to justify the immediate admission of hopeful converts to sealing ordinances, such as the prompt baptizing of the Ethiopian eunuch, by Philip, and the reception of three thousand on the day of Pentecost, they are manifestly nothing to the purpose. The cases, when examined, will be found to have been peculiar, and not to have admitted of delay; not to say, that the peculiar state of the Church at that time totally alters the aspect of such facts. Besides, no one doubts that cases may be supposed, and sometimes actually arise, in which immediate reception would be wise and perfectly safe; but the question is, what course is best as a general rule? What course is adapted to fill the Church with intelligent, solid, and truly sanctified members? Is it possible to hesitate respecting the proper answer? I have been struck, and very much gratified with the remarkable unanimity of opinion of this subject, on the part of the distinguished ministers whose communications appear in the Appendix to Dr. Sprague’s excellent "Lectures on Revivals," before mentioned. The Rev. Dr. Hawes, of Hartford, in reference to this subject, speaks thus: "It is a great error to admit converts to the Church before time has been allowed to try the sincerity of their hope. This is an error into which I was betrayed during the first revival among my people, and it has cost me bitter repentance. And yet none were admitted to the Church under two months after they had indulged a hope. It is of great importance that young converts, immediately after conversion, should be collected into a class by themselves, and brought under the direct and frequent instruction of the pastor. And if they are continued from four to six months in a course of judicious instruction, and then admitted to the Church, there is very little danger that they will afterwards fall away, or that they will not continue to shine as lights in the world till the end of life." The Rev. Dr. Griffin, in speaking on the same subject, expresses himself thus: "The means employed in these revivals have been but two: the clear presentation of divine truth, and prayer. Nothing to work upon the passions, but sober solemn truth, presented, as far as possible, in its most interesting attitudes, and closely applied to the conscience. We have been anxiously studious to ward against delusive hopes, and to expose the windings of a deceitful heart, forbearing all encouragement except what the converts themselves could derive from Christ and the promises, knowing that any reliance on our opinion was drawing comfort from us and not from the Saviour. We have not accustomed them to the bold and unqualified language, that such a one is converted; but have used a dialect calculated to keep alive a sense of the danger of deception. For a similar reason, we have kept them back from a profession about three months." The ministry of few Pastors in any Church has been more honored by a succession of powerful revivals, than that of Dr. M’Dowell, of Elizabethtown. In the light of his ample experience on this subject, he speaks of it in the Appendix to Dr. Sprague’s work, before mentioned, in the following terms: "We have carefully guarded against a speedy admission to the privileges of the Church. Seldom in times of revival have we admitted persons to the communion in less than six months after they became serious." Closely allied with the too sudden introduction of hopeful converts to the communion of the Church is another mistake, as I am constrained to regard it. I mean calling upon such young converts, even before they have been recognized as professors of religion, to lead in public prayer, and even, in some cases, to instruct the anxious and inquiring, and to solve the perplexities of distressed and doubting souls. There are many things which the youngest converts may do, as the proper fruit and evidence of conversion; and it is desirable, from the earliest period of their spiritual life, to give them some appropriate employment in the new relation into which they are brought, consistent with the retiring humility which becomes them. But to set "babes in Christ" to leading in public prayer, is, in most cases, to engage them in a service for the performance of which to edification, their spiritual knowledge and experience are very seldom adequate; and, what is no less worthy of regard, when young converts find themselves called upon to come forward in this public manner, there is danger of their being puffed up, and thus receiving precisely that kind of impression which is most apt to be injurious to the young persons who, after having undergone what had the appearance of a very decisive conversion, were almost immediately called upon to pray in public; who acknowledged, afterwards, that their being thus publicly noticed filled them with spiritual pride; and who subsequently became apostates of the most deplorable and humiliating character. O how much better to have waited awhile, to see what would be the issue of their exercises, and thus to have avoided a train of circumstances which rendered their apostasy more signal, and more injurious to the cause of Christ! Let me say again, then, that encouraging young converts to speak and pray in public, in a few days or hours after their hopeful passage from death to life, is most seriously to endanger the edification of those who hear them; but it is quite as likely, nay more likely, to injure the converts themselves. And allow me to say, that this is especially the case in times of excitement and revival. Then, if ever, wisdom, prudence, and the best experience, are indispensably demanded. Then rashness, and misguided, though well-meant zeal, may do more harm in a single day, than years of laborious diligence can repair. V. Further; the real friends of revivals of religion ought to be upon their guard against the confident allegation, THAT THE PREACHING OF CERTAIN NEW OPINIONS IS ALONE FAVORABLE TO REVIVALS; AND THAT THOSE WHO ADHERE TO THE SYSTEM OF OLD ORTHODOXY CANNOT HOPE TO BE, IN THIS RESPECT, EXTENSIVELY IF AT ALL USEFUL. This allegation has been often and confidently made; yes, and in the face of multiplied and incontrovertible facts, plainly establishing the contrary, has been so often repeated, that many are weak enough, or ignorant enough, to believe it. So that, with not a few, it has come to be a received opinion, that where new opinions are not preached, no revivals are to be expected. But surely, none who have any tolerable acquaintance with the history of revivals, can be imposed upon by a deception so palpable and disingenuous. The preaching of Whitefield was as free from any tincture of new opinions, as that of the most rigorous old Calvinists among us; and yet all the world knows that the revivals with which his ministry was crowned were more extensive and powerful than have attended the ministry of any other man since his time. The same remark may be made concerning the ministry of the Tennents, President Davies, Dr. Finley, and a number of other men of similar spirit and usefulness. That they were guiltless of either holding or preaching those new, or rather revived theological speculations, which many extol, and seem to consider so peculiarly potent in their influence, all know who have read their printed discourses: yet how few of those who make the arrogant claim, which I am now opposing, have been favored with equal ministerial success! Nor was this fact, so conclusive against the claim before us, by any means confined to former times. Many individuals, among the living and the dead, within the last thirty years, might easily be mentioned, who preach the same doctrine with Whitefield, Tennent, and Davies, and have been favored with a success strikingly similar to theirs. Nay, my impression is, that nothing would be easier than to demonstrate, that, in every part of our country, up to the present hour, the more nearly the style of preaching has been conformed to the general spirit of Whitefield, Tennent, Edwards, Davies, and Bellamy, the more deep, sound, scriptural and consistent, as well as numerous, have been the revivals which have followed this dispensation. Within the last four or five years it has been estimated that at least twelve hundred congregations within the bounds of the Presbyterian Church have been graciously visited with revivals of religion: and of this number it is susceptible of proof, that not only a decided, but a very large majority have occurred under the ministry of men who rejected the new opinions. The testimonies to this amount in every part of the Presbyterian Church, north, south, east and west, are so indubitable and abundant, that no one, it appears to me, who is not either wonderfully ignorant of facts, or strangely blinded by prejudice, can resist the inevitable inference. It is not denied, indeed, that some advocates of Old-school orthodoxy, appear to have very little scriptural life and zeal, and very few seals to their ministry. And is not this the case, also, notoriously, with some individuals who are fierce advocates for New-school opinions and measures? What, then, does a fact of this kind prove? It may give reason to fear, that a man, though reputed orthodox, is really leaning upon the crutches of antinomian delusion; or, though truly orthodox, is a stranger to true piety: or, that, though truly pious, he is lacking in some of those qualities which seem necessary to prepare men for usefulness. I could name New-school men whose ministry is as strikingly without good fruit as that of the veriest drone that ever discredited the Old-school ranks; yet I never heard the most zealous advocates for Old-school principles allege this fact, taken alone, as proof of the unsoundness of their creed. VI. Finally; I would put the real friends of revivals on their guard, AGAINST THE ARROGANT CLAIMS OF SOME TO PECULIAR, NAY, TO ALMOST EXCLUSIVE SKILL AND POWER IN THIS GREAT CONCERN. It is well known to attentive observers of passing scenes, that claims of this kind are by no means infrequent. We have heard of both ministers and laymen who applied to one another, with peculiar complacency and emphasis, the title of revival-men. They openly claimed to possess some special skill in the art of producing and conducting revivals. They were announced to the churches in this high and imposing character; and held themselves up to public view as persons to be invited from place to place for the professed purpose of introducing religious excitements. Nay, these men have been known to enter congregations without the request or even consent of the pastor; to commence and pursue a system of measures for the accomplishment of their objects, without consulting him; to proceed altogether independently of him, not even asking him to make a prayer; in short, to reject entirely the cooperation of all excepting a chosen few; refusing to suffer ministers venerable for age as well as piety, who were present, to take any part with them, for the avowed reason, that they were not revival-men or not up to the times. And what, in many cases, has been the character of these self-styled revival-men? Were they generally conspicuous for their modesty, their meekness, their humility, their gravity and peculiar spirituality? Did they appear to be deeply acquainted with human nature, and deeply skilled in genuine Christian experience? By no means. It may at least be asserted that this was far from being always the case; but that, in very many instances, rashness, presumption, pride and censoriousness, often intermixed with a heartless levity, were their most prominent characteristics. They appeared, on too many occasions, like men vain of some artful machinery, in the use of which they supposed themselves to be peculiarly expert, to which they looked, and on which they depended for success, far more than on the spirit of a sovereign God. Nay, we have sometimes seen in the front ranks of these revival preachers, young men scarcely of age; of very small knowledge, and still less experience, denouncing and condemning, as if sure that they were the men, and wisdom would die with them; treating with contempt aged and eminently devoted ministers; ministers who had themselves been brought into the kingdom of Christ in powerful revivals, and had enjoyed for many years more than usual experience in those displays of heavenly grace; treating such men as these with contempt, as though they knew nothing of the matter, compared with their own deep insight and pre-eminent skill! The truth is, when the thorough-going and highly rectified spirit of which I speak had taken full possession of any individual, young or old, there is no calculating on the lengths to which it may carry him; or the wonderful degree in which it may blind him to the claims of Christian decorum, and even sometimes, alas! it would seem, to those of Christian candor and integrity! It is granted, indeed, that there are men peculiarly adapted to promote revivals of religion. Some ministers, unquestionably, preach the Gospel with more spiritual skill, clearness, force and pungency than others. There is in all their sermons, and in all their prayers, more instruction, more point, and more feeling and solemnity, than in those of most of their brethren. They have a deeper insight into the human heart; know better the avenues which lead to it; and are better versed in the varieties of Christian experience than is common even among pious men. They pray much for the blessing of God on their labors; and their whole conversation and example out of the pulpit, are eminently adapted to make an impression in favor of religion on all whom they approach. These I call TRUE REVIVAL-MEN. If there be men in the world peculiarly adapted to promote genuine revivals of religion, these are the individuals. This, however, is only saying, that men who most resemble the Apostle Paul, or rather Paul’s Master, are most likely to be instrumental in promoting real religion. But they would be the last men in the world to call themselves by way of eminence, revival-men, or to favor such a claim being made for them by others. Nothing would be more abhorrent from their minds than the thought of attaching that power to their machinery, which every page of the Bible, and all the experience of the Church, ascribe to the sovereign agency of Him who has declared, Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord. A revival-man I do know, whose ministry has probably been connected with more numerous and powerful revivals of religion than that of any other man now living: whose power in such displays of divine glory seems to consist, not in noise, in bustling trickery, or in any kind of artful management; but entirely in simple, pungent exhibitions of Gospel truth; in representing to men their true condition as lost sinners; in holding up Christ as an Almighty and willing Saviour; and in constantly referring everything to the power and grace of a sovereign God: who, instead of loving to be called a revival man, shrinks from such an appellation with instinctive aversion: who, instead of thrusting himself into a congregation, uncalled, for the purpose of making a revival, has ever labored to avoid everything which might, by possibility, wear such an aspect, or which might lead others to claim for him a revival-making power: who has always been observed, whenever he entered a congregation, whether in a state of excitement or not, to do honor to the pastor, placing him forward on all occasions, and while he made unceasing efforts to promote the spiritual welfare of the flock, hiding himself, as it were, behind its appropriate shepherd: whose retiring modesty and humility have ever been as remarkable as his pious zeal: and whose success is a standing refutation of those who contend that revivals can never be expected to occur excepting under the ministry of those who preach the new opinions, and resort to the new measures. May this venerated and beloved brother be long continued an ornament and a blessing to the American Church! Though he is not connected with my own particular denomination, I can as cordially rejoice in his labors and success as if he were, and pray that his spirit may fill the Land! But in reference to this momentous subject, my respected friends, I must now draw to a close. If we wish our beloved Church really to prosper, let us never cease to long and pray for revivals of religion. No degree of outward prosperity can compensate for the want of these precious tokens of the divine presence. Let no degree of abuse or disorder with which they have been attended, prejudice you against revivals themselves. Desire them, and pray for them with unwearied importunity. But if we desire to be favored with revivals in their genuine power, we must never cease to honor the Holy Spirit of God, and importunately to solicit his life-giving influence: and if we would not grieve away the Holy Spirit, when obtained, we must lay aside all human inventions in cherishing his work; everything tending to nourish pride and self-confidence; all carnal machinery; all parade, all ostentation, everything, in short, adapted to kindle mere animal excitement, and to bring animal feeling into collision with spiritual exercises, or to give it the predominance over them. Let no persuasion, no plausible example prevail on you to countenance these unscriptural measures. They may promise much for a time; but they have never failed ultimately to corrupt and depress the cause of genuine piety. It is deeply to be regretted that even this hallowed subject has not escaped the perversion of party violence. Attempts have been made to persuade the religious public that a large portion of our Church is unfriendly to revivals of religion. I must cherish the hope that this representation has been rather the result of prejudice than of disingenuousness. I know not of a single Synod, or even Presbytery in our whole body in which revivals of religion are not constantly and fervently prayed for, and really desired, and would not be cordially welcomed. I know, indeed, a few individual ministers and churches, in the minds of whom the disorders which have really occurred, or been reported to them as occurring, in religious excitements, have created a prejudice against the whole subject; just as, seventy or eighty years ago, in the time of Mr. Davenport, and his followers, the same unhappy cause produced a similar effect on the minds of many truly pious and worthy men throughout New England. But let us hope that the prejudice even in such minds will be but temporary. An expression of sentiment on this subject is coming in from the aged, the pious, the wise, and the experienced, in every part of our land, most happily and remarkably concurring; and affording a pledge of united hearts and united prayers in behalf of a GENERAL REVIVAL, which will do more, I trust, to bind together the affections of American Christians, that all the theories and theoretical persuasives that can be urged by human eloquence. When the Spirit of pure, scriptural revival shall be poured out from on high, in its genuine manifestations, and in large measures on our American churches, censoriousness will die. Party violence will cease. The metaphysical refinements and subtleties of a delusive theology will be no more heard. The Gospel preached, will be taken from the Bible, and not from the rakings of exploded heresies. And the hearts of Christians, instead of doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof come envy, railings, evil surmisings, and corrupt disputings,-will be knit together in love, and united in counsel and effort for the conversion of the world. MAY SUCH A REVIVAL speedily bless all our churches, and pervade Christendom! Princeton, March, 1833. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 36: S. REVIVALS CONVERSATION ======================================================================== Revivals Conversation Samuel Miller, D.D. MY DEAR YOUNG FRIEND:— To be able to introduce the great subject of religion, in an easy, seasonable, and acceptable manner, in the daily intercourse of society, is a most precious talent, the uses of which are more various, more rich, more numerous, and more important, than almost any that can be mentioned. That this ability, when it exists in a high degree, is, in part, a natural talent, cannot be doubted. The physical temperament of some men is much more favorable to the ready and unconstrained performance of the duty in question, than that of many others. More stress, however, I apprehend, has been sometimes laid on this fact, than there ought to have been. Not a few allege that they have no gift of this kind, and, therefore, content themselves in the habitual neglect of the duty. At any rate, they rarely attempt it, and think that they cannot perform it, even tolerably. But it would be just as reasonable to plead, because an easy, pleasant, and attractive elocution is natural, in a peculiar degree, to some, that therefore others who cannot attain equal excellence in this respect, ought not to attempt to speak at all. The fact is, the power of introducing and maintaining religious conversation well, though to a certain extent a natural gift, is yet capable of great improvement, nay, it may be said, of unlimited improvement; and the true reason, no doubt, why some persons of plain talents, and with even striking disadvantages of physical temperament, yet excel in this happy art, is that they have taken pains to cultivate a talent so peculiarly precious to the pious mind, and so manifestly useful in all the intercourse of life. To what appear to me some of the best means of carrying on this cultivation, I shall advert before closing the present letter. My first object shall be to point out some errors, in relation to this subject, which appear to me to be prevalent; and this will prepare the way for a few general counsels for conducting religious conversation, and also for cultivating a happy talent for the discharge of this part of Christian and ministerial duty. l. It is an error to suppose that religious conversation must be introduced on all occasions, and in all companies, indiscriminately, whether the time, the character of the persons present, and the circumstances, favor it or not. No doubt many who have but little taste for such conversation, omit to introduce it, under the plea that there is no good opportunity, when it is really otherwise. But there can be as little doubt, that there are many occasions, in which no suitable opening for it is presented. On such occasions, to drag forward the subject, in a formal manner, and, as it were, by main force, is never judicious, and often very revolting. It frequently has the appearance of being done as a kind of official task, which is never likely to do good. Be always on the watch for opportunities of saying something for the honor of your Master, and for the welfare of the souls of men; but do not think it your duty to compel people to listen to you on this most sacred, important and delicate of all subjects, when their character, their situation and their employment evidently close up every suitable avenue of approach. 2. It is an error to imagine that the same methods of introducing and maintaining religious conversation, are equally adapted to all persons, and all occasions. If I am not deceived, many adopt the notion that the very same plan of approach will answer in all cases, for the rich and the poor, the learned and illiterate, the occupant of high office, and the most unpretending, obscure citizen. This is to set at nought all the principles of human nature, and to forget that the circumstances of men have much effect in modifying their feelings and character. If we open the Bible, we shall see ample warrant for addressing some persons on this subject unceremoniously and directly; and others in a more cautious and circuitous manner. In this sense, we ought, with the Apostle, to become all things to all men, that we may gain some; not by flattering their prejudices, or countenancing their corruptions; but by endeavoring skillfully to adapt our instructions and exhortations to their several habits, attainments, circumstances, and tastes. Those who are most intelligent, and whose pride would be most apt to be offended by an abrupt address, might be approached, and perhaps won, in an indirect and gradual manner. There are thousands to whom I might safely say, Pray, sir, do you cherish the hope that you are a real Christian? But there are many others, to whom if I were to address such a question, I should expect to be shut out from all opportunity of approaching or benefiting them afterwards. Yet the very same people might, by a little address, be insensibly drawn into a free conversation on the same subject, and to answer that very question without the least offence. This is one of the many cases in which some knowledge of human nature and of the world is essential to a wise discharge of duty. Nor is it a valid objection to this counsel to say, that, if we follow it, we may be tempted to defer too much to human rank, and corrupt refinement. There is, no doubt, danger on this quarter, against which we ought to guard. But the abuse of a thing is not a legitimate argument against its use. Counterfeits do not prove that there is no true money, but rather the reverse. 3. Another very common error in religious conversation, is to say too much. A man may be too full of talk on this, as well as on any other subject. That is, he may talk so much and so long, as to become a weariness even to his pious hearers, and much more to those who are not pious. This is far from being a rare occurrence; and it becomes especially an evil, when the pious sentiments uttered, are all of the most common-place sort; and, not only so, but dealt out in that common-place, task-like manner, which very seldom makes a favorable impression among discerning people. Guard, then, against excessive talkativeness, even here. Let what you say on this subject be a real conversation. Let one object of your address be, to induce others to talk, and disclose their sentiments and feelings, that you may know how to answer them. Let your part of the discussion be as lively, pointed, and short as you can make it. Never allow it to degenerate into formal, tedious preaching, or rather prosing. 4. Once more, it is the error of some to imagine that religious conversation is to be carried on with a tone of voice, and an aspect of countenance, peculiar to itself. Hence, while these persons converse on all other subjects in a simple, easy, natural manner, the moment they pass to the subject of religion, their whole manner is changed. It becomes formal and artificial; so that you would scarcely know them to be the same persons who had been a few minutes before conversing on ordinary subjects. This is a fault as unreasonable as it is repulsive. Why should men cease to speak naturally, when they come to speak on a subject the most interesting and delightful in the world? Shun this fault with the utmost care. Do not, indeed, allow yourself to fall into the opposite extreme; I mean talking on the subject of religion with levity. But, at the same time, let all grimace, all sanctimoniousness of manner, all affected solemnity, all lofty dictation, be carefully avoided. The more simple, affable, and entirely inartificial your manner, the more you will gratify all classes; nor is this all; the more easy will you always find it to slide insensibly into religious conversation, without alarming the fears of the most thoughtless; and the more easy to recur to it again, after a little interruption from other topics. But, to guard against these errors, is not all that is incumbent upon you in privately conversing with men on their eternal interests. My next object, then, shall be to offer a few counsels, which I would fain hope may not be altogether useless. And, l. My first counsel is, that you make a point of introducing religious conversation, whenever you have a good opportunity, and that you abound in it wherever you go. It is melancholy to think how many hours ministers spend in company, without saying a word to recommend either the service or kingdom of their Master. Nay, some of these hours are spent in the company of the truly pious, with whom there is no obstacle to religious conversation; who expect it; who desire it; and who are disappointed at not finding it introduced. To be backward in introducing it in such company is unpardonable. But this is not all. In every company and in every situation, be on the watch for opportunities to speak a word for Christ. And when you do not find opportunities, by a little address, you may make them; and you will often do so, if you have as eager, and incessant desire to do good, as the miser has to turn everything into the channel of gain, and the ambitious man to gather laurels from all quarters. I have often been struck with that passage, in which the Apostle Paul, when writing to the Hebrews concerning ministers, says—They watch for souls. And, truly, the minister who acts on principles of enlightened fidelity will thus watch, not only in the pulpit, but daily, and in all the walks of private intercourse. Let me entreat you, then, to lose no good opportunity of conversing on the most precious of all subjects. Let your conversation continually be with grace, seasoned with salt, that it may minister grace to the hearers. You may say a thousand useful things in private conversation, which you never could utter in the pulpit. You may answer questions, solve scruples, obviate objections, reprove faults, and communicate knowledge in the parlor, which could by no means be brought into the sanctuary. Above all, in many cases of private discourse you may come near to the heart and the conscience, and adapt your instructions to individual exigencies, in a way altogether impracticable in addressing a public assembly. It has, therefore, often occurred to me as a fact equally wonderful and humiliating, that Christian ministers are not commonly more vigilant in availing themselves of this advantage, and more unceasing in the use of it: that their minds are not found teeming with good thoughts, pious hints, and instructive, weighty sentiments, as well as direct addresses, wherever they go. 2. Cultivate the important art of introducing conversation on the subject of religion in an easy and happy manner. One of the greatest difficulties attending this whole subject is to begin well. A formal introduction of the subject; an introduction which, as it were, announces beforehand the intention of talking piously; and which, of course, excites the fears of those who have no taste for such conversation, ought certainly, in ordinary cases, to be avoided. No less undesirable is an abrupt commencement of this species of conversation, that is, suddenly entering upon it, when something very different had been, the instant before, the subject of discourse. But why should we ever do either of these? What subject can possibly be started, by any individual, or in any company, which a man of good sense, and whose heart is filled with pious and benevolent emotions, may not soon, and without violence, convert into a medium of some useful suggestions on the subject of religion? The state of the weather; the prospects of the husbandman; the news of the day; an ordinary domestic occurrence; the return of spring; the approach of autumn; or an accident on the road; —these, or any analogous topics which may be hinted at, furnish ample occasions for the introduction of pious sentiments; insomuch that a social circle might, by a person of tolerable address, and of the proper spirit, be translated from the region of perfect levity, to the region of serious and devout reflection, before they were aware that the transition was intended. This is a happy art. All may learn it who will be vigilant enough, and take pains enough for the purpose. With a moderate knowledge of human nature; a tolerable address; a little attention to incidents as they arise; and a heart glowing with a desire to do good, the task is easy. Covet earnestly this gift; labor without ceasing to gain it; and you will not labor in vain. 3. Let your conversation be adapted to the character of the company into which you may happen to be thrown. If the company with which you are called to converse, be all professors of religion, there will, ordinarily, be little difficulty in adapting your discourse to them; for you may speak directly and pointedly on any topic which occurs as important. Especially, you may enter with freedom into all the refreshing richness of conversation on Christian experience. If, on the contrary, the company consist altogether of gay and worldly people, your utmost ingenuity will often be put to the test in leading them on to instructive and edifying, as well as pleasant discourse. Yet even this may be done, if you take them by the right handle. When the circle in which you are seated, as will be apt more frequently to happen, is made up partly of professors of religion, and partly of those who are not so, a very happy use may be made of the former, as a medium of conveying instruction to the latter. As it is oftentimes one of the most effectual modes of addressing parents, to do it through the medium of their children; so we may frequently speak to the worldly and thoughtless most impressively through the medium of the pious, who are seated in their presence. In short, study diligently the different tastes and habits of the aged and the young, the polished and the rough, the learned and the illiterate, the fashionable and the plain, in whose society you may find yourself; and endeavor to have a word in season, a set of topics, and a mode of treating them, adapted to their several characters. 4. Guard against giving your remarks on religion, in the social circle, an air of dictation and authority. This caution, which was mentioned before in reference to common conversation, is no less important in reference to the subject of religion. Ministers, from the circumstance of their being so much accustomed to speak with authority from the pulpit, are apt, spontaneously, and even insensibly, to fall into a similar manner of speaking in private; to be impatient of contradiction; and to feel, when their opinions are in any measure controverted, as if their official dignity were invaded. Let no spirit or feeling of this kind intrude into your social intercourse. The more entirely you can divest yourself of it, and sit down with your friends and associates on terms of perfect equality, as a friend and brother, who claims no authority over their consciences, but is actuated supremely by a regard to their temporal and eternal interest, the more easy and affectionate will your conversation be, and the more likely will you be to make a favorable impression on their minds. 5. In conducting religious conversation, as much as possible avoid theological controversy. I before cautioned you against the habit of falling into controversy on any subject in company. But I would now warn you that religious controversy, when you are conversing with persons with a view to their spiritual benefit, is peculiarly undesirable, and ought to be avoided as much as possible. I say, as much as possible; for there are doubtless cases in which it is not possible to avoid it, without shrinking from the defence of the truth. You will sometimes fall in with persons, who, from a love of disputation, from ill manners, from enmity to the truth, or from a desire to put your ingenuity to the test, will compel you either to be silent, or to defend your opinions. When you meet with such persons, you must manage them in the best way you can. Do not, however, even with such, allow a dispute to be much protracted. Draw it to a close as soon as practicable. Carry it on, while it lasts, with all the meekness and gentleness of Christ. And let them see that you take no personal offence at having your opinions questioned; but simply desire to defend what you deem truth, and to guard them from injurious error. But in all cases in which controversy can properly be avoided, by all means decline engaging in it. Theological disputes, in the social circle, are seldom profitable, and often highly mischievous. They sour the temper; but commonly leave each party confirmed in his original opinion. In your ordinary religious conversation, then, keep as clear of what are called disputed points in theology, as possible, consistently with conveying sound and useful instruction in divine truth. When you are compelled to touch on them, let it be under a practical rather than a polemical aspect, and in terms as little adapted to give offence as possible. When you perceive the most distant symptom of approaching controversy, take measures to avert the impending storm. This may commonly be done by a few kind words, or by giving a practical turn to the argument. It may be easy to prevent the evil; but by no means so easy to cure it when we have once fallen under its power. 6. You will sometimes fall in company with infidels, who totally reject revelation. Conversation with them is always a delicate, and often a difficult task. Make a point of treating them respectfully, as long as they maintain decorum on their part; and even if they scoff and blaspheme, do not suffer yourself to be so far borne away by irascible feeling, as to address them in opprobrious language. As long as their deportment admits of your continuing to argue with them, do it in the spirit of meekness and benevolence. In addressing them, do not permit yourself to call them by hard names, or to impute to them base motives. Endeavor to convince them that you are actuated, not by a spirit of personal resentment, or wounded pride; but by a regard to the cause of God, and their own eternal welfare. In arguing with them, however, do not merely stand on the defensive; but show them, on the plan of Butler’s Analogy, and similar books, that most of the objections which they urge against Revelation, lie with equal force against natural religion, which they commonly profess to believe. I have seldom seen an unbeliever who was able to stand five minutes before the argumentum ad hominem plan of treatment. Above all, in addressing them, while you appeal to their understandings, never fail, in a mild and respectful manner, to appeal to their consciences and their hearts. All my experience tells me that nothing is so likely to impress them as this. 7. In conversing with persons of a different religious denomination from your own, there is need of much vigilance both as to the matter and manner of your conversation. In all such conversations, guard against either manifesting or feeling a proselyting spirit. Be much more anxious to see them Christians, than to see them Presbyterians. Dwell, therefore, much more on the fundamental and precious points of our common Christianity, than on the peculiarities of either their or your church. While they see that you are deeply serious, and anxious to promote their eternal welfare, let them perceive that you are not anxious to win them to your party. Agree with them as far as you can. Treat them with pointed respect and attention; if they appear pious, with as much affection as if they belonged to your particular denomination; and even if they make overtures for joining your own church, do not be ready to catch at their proposal. Manifest no eagerness to receive them. On the contrary, rather show, in all their extent, the difficulties which lie in the way of transferring their religious connection. However unworthily, in relation to this subject, persons of other sects may treat you or yours, never allow yourself to imitate their pernicious example. 8. The introduction of religious conversation among entire strangers, is often very desirable and important; and yet, frequently, requires no little address. I said that it is often very desirable and important; for more than once have I known a minister to be in company a whole afternoon, or longer, with a circle of strangers, several of whom, though unknown to him, were earnestly desirous of hearing him engage in religious conversation; and were not a little disappointed to find the interview at an end, without his having introduced it. Many a precious opportunity of instructing the ignorant, of directing the perplexed and inquiring, and of comforting the sorrowful, has thus been lost. Guard against all such omissions. Never allow yourself to be half an hour in company, even with the most perfect strangers, without endeavoring to ascertain whether any of them have a taste for serious conversation. There are many ways of ascertaining this, without intrusion or indelicacy. A cursory remark, or an apparently incidental inquiry, may, and probably will, elicit enough to solve your doubt. Many a precious conversation has resulted from such an exploring remark or inquiry. Like the discovery of a refreshing spring in a parched and dreary wilderness, not unfrequently has a minister of the gospel, as well as a private Christian, met with a spiritual feast himself, and been the means of imparting a feast to others, when he least of all expected such a pleasure; when, perhaps, he was ready to say within himself, there is no fear of God in this place. 9. Introducing and conducting religious conversation with persons of wealth, and high station in society, is a peculiarly important, and, at the same time, a very delicate and difficult duty. Peculiarly important, because any good impression made on them, will be likely to extend itself more widely; and in many respects, delicate and difficult, because this class of persons are more in the habit of being approached with deference, and, for various reasons, more apt to be nice, and even fastidious in their feelings, than many others. At the same time, I have no doubt that the difficulties of this duty have been, by some, greatly overrated; and that plain, good sense, with a heart overflowing with piety and benevolence, will be found, humanly speaking, a safe and adequate guide, in all ordinary cases. My advice on this point shall be short. Never, on any account, court or affect the company of the wealthy and great. Never take pains to be much with them; and never boast of their acquaintance. When you are providentially thrown in their way, sacredly avoid every thing that approaches to a supple, sycophantic spirit of accommodation to their errors or vices. Never accost them with that timid, embarrassed diffidence, which may lead them to suppose that you have more veneration for them, than for your duty or your God. At the same time, let nothing of the unmannerly, the sullen, or the morose mark your deportment toward them. An old divine was accustomed to say, Please all men in the truth; but wound not the truth to please any. Let them see that Christian duty is not inconsistent with the most perfect politeness. Introduce pious thoughts, and divine truth, to their view, in a gentle and sometimes in an indirect manner; and let them see that you are much more intent on doing them good, than gaining their favor. When you have occasion to oppose them, let it be done mildly and meekly, but firmly; with the air of one who dislikes to oppose, but feels constrained to obey God rather than man. In a word, I believe that a minister of the gospel never appears to more advantage in the view of those who are considered as the great ones of this world, and is never more likely to make a deep impression upon them, than when he makes them to feel, not by ostentation, sanctimoniousness or austerity; not even by importunately soliciting their attention to his own views of truth and duty, but by exhibiting meek decision of spiritual character, that they are in the presence of a man, who regards the authority and favor of God above all things, and whose supreme and habitual object is to promote the everlasting welfare of his fellow-men. 10. Never imagine that it is your duty to violate good manners, either in introducing or continuing religious conversation. This is never proper, because never necessary. If you cannot persuade an individual, by a mild and respectful mode of address, to listen to you, it is better to forbear. An attempt to force what you have to say, on one who steadfastly or profanely resists you, is casting pearls before swine. And violating the respect which is due to any person, under the notion of promoting, in this way, his spiritual interest, is, usually, of all delusions, one of the greatest. If you watch for the mollia tempora fandi [times favorable for speaking], you will have an opportunity of approaching him, if he be accessible at all. If you wait, with a proper temper, and with humble prayer, for a door to be opened for doing him good, you will, probably, not wait in vain. 11. When you are called to converse with persons under religious impressions, address yourself to the duty with much seriousness and prayer. Remember that what you say, may influence their eternal condition; and, therefore, that every word is important; important to them, to yourself, and to the church of God. Remember, too, that the task of instructing and guiding those who are asking the way to Zion, is as delicate and difficult as it is important. It requires much knowledge of the human heart, and of human nature, and much acquaintance with the gospel as a practical system. Study to qualify yourself for this interesting and momentous duty, by much converse with your own heart; by much intercourse with those whose ministry God has eminently blessed; by reading the best books which tend to throw light on Christian character and experience; and, above all, by humble importunate prayer for that wisdom which is adapted to win souls, and to guide them in the way of peace. He who allows himself to enter on this duty without much consideration, and humbly looking to heaven for aid; or to perform it in a slight and careless manner, must make a miserable estimate both of ministerial fidelity, and of the worth of immortal souls 12. Before you enter on the duty of conversing with any one on this most important of all subjects, endeavor, if possible, to learn something of the peculiar character and temperament of the individual. There are peculiarities of this kind, which frequently exert an immediate and important influence on religious exercises. Some persons have a remarkably sanguine temperament, and buoyant animal spirits, which are apt to impart ardor to their feelings on all subjects, and, of course, to confer on their religious impressions the appearance of more decision and intensity of character than they really possess. Others labor under a constitutional depression of mind, which is ever disposed to look on the dark side of things, and sometimes borders on melancholy, and even despondency; and which always prevents them from doing justice to the evidence in their own favor; while a third class are affected with some bodily disease, which not unfrequently benumbs or agitates the mind, and creates no small difficulty in judging of its real state. Now in conversing with an individual who is anxious respecting his eternal interest, it is of great importance to know whether he is under the special influence of any of these physical difficulties, or temperamental predispositions. For, by the result of this inquiry, the course to be pursued must be in some measure modified. The undue confidence of some ought to be firmly repressed; and the precipitancy of others restrained or cautioned. The backwardness of the timid should be stimulated, and the trembling apprehensions of the melancholy and desponding, if possible, removed, by affectionate encouragement. The wise physician of the body is always careful to inquire about the presence of disturbing forces in the mind, and prescribes accordingly. In like manner, the wise physician of the soul will endeavor to explore every physical idiosyncrasy which distinguishes the spiritual patient to whom he may be called, and address him in a corresponding manner. If you have not already a particular acquaintance with him, make such inquiries respecting his habits, life, temperament, and other peculiarities, as may put you in possession of all the requisite information. And instead of making your conversation, if such it may be called, to consist chiefly of continued address on your part, which is the favorite manner of some, resort much more to the plan of affable and affectionate interrogation, which will lead the individual, at every step, to disclose the state of his own mind, and thus furnish you with some of the best indications for adapting your addresses to his case. 13. Be careful to give clear doctrinal instruction concerning the plan of salvation to those who are anxious and inquiring. I have observed it to be the manner of some in conversing with such persons, to deal chiefly in tender and solemn exhortation; under the belief that the grand object aimed at ought to be to impress the conscience and the heart, rather than to impart doctrinal knowledge. But it ought to be remembered that neither the conscience nor the heart can ever be suitably impressed but through the medium of truth. It is only as far as gospel truth is apprehended, that any genuine scriptural exercises with regard to it can exist. Carefully study, then, to impart to every anxious mind clear views of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. Not that, in conversing with such persons, you are ever to perplex them with the metaphysical refinements of theology, which ought ever to be, as far as possible, avoided. But the course which I deem of so much importance is, that you constantly endeavor to fill their minds with plain, simple, connected Bible truth; that you dwell on the scriptural character of God; the nature and requisitions of his holy law; the pollution, guilt and danger of all men in their natural state; the divinity of the Savior; the efficacy of his atoning sacrifice; the unsearchable riches and freeness of his grace; the work of the Holy Spirit in regenerating and sanctifying the heart; and the utter helplessness, and, at the same time, perfect responsibility and blameworthiness of man. Just as far as these great doctrines are fastened on the conscience, and impressed on the heart, and no further, may we hope to become the instruments of saving benefit to those whom we address. 14. Be not too ready to speak peace or to administer consolation to those who are in a serious, anxious state of mind. It is, undoubtedly, painful to see any one in distress; and the spiritual physician will be often strongly tempted by false benevolence, to encourage, and administer comfort, where he ought not. Beware of this. It is far better that an anxious inquirer after salvation should pass a few more weeks or months in a state of deep mental solicitude, and even anguish, than that he should be prematurely comforted, and led to repose in a false hope, from which he may never awake. Be not afraid, then, to be perfectly faithful; to lay open every wound to the very bottom, before you attempt to heal it. Be slow in administering comfort, while the least doubt remains with regard to the real state of the individual. Indeed I have often thought that it is very seldom proper for a minister, or any other pious man, in conversing with an anxious person, to be forward to pronounce a favorable judgment with respect to his state. You may be deceived in your opinion, and you may be the means of deceiving him fatally. It is, in general, much safer and better for him to be brought to a favorable conclusion concerning himself, by that heavenly teaching, which cannot deceive; and which, though sometimes more tardy in exhibiting its results than earthly wisdom expects and desires, always furnishes the safest and best testimony. 15. Be not hasty in publishing the exercises or situation of those whom you know to be anxiously inquiring. It is deeply painful to observe the frequency and injudiciousness with which this rule is infringed. A person, perhaps, has scarcely become conscious to himself of deep solicitude respecting his spiritual interest, and given a hint of it to his minister, or to some pious friend, before it is blazed abroad; becomes matter of public speculation; and leads a number of persons immediately to crowd around him, and offer their services as his instructors and guides. The consequences of this method of proceeding are often extremely unhappy. Some are puffed up, by becoming objects of so much unexpected attention and conversation. Others are revolted, and, perhaps, deeply disgusted, at being addressed by so many on the subject of their exercises, and by some, it may be very injudiciously. While a third class, whose impressions are slight and transient, are mortified at being held up to view as awakened persons, and afterwards lying under the odium of having gone back; and, possibly, in some cases so much mortified, as to withdraw from those individuals and opportunities, which might have been essentially useful. Besides all this, it has often happened, that the number of serious persons who have immediately clustered around an individual thus publicly announced as under religious impressions, has been so great, and their talents, knowledge, experience, and capacity for giving sound instruction so extremely various, that they have perplexed, confounded, and most unhappily retarded, the object of their well-meant attention, instead of really helping him. With almost as much propriety might a physician of the body, when he found a patient ill of a dubious disease, throw open his apartment to every intruder, and invite every medical practitioner within twenty miles of him, however discordant their theories, to come in and prescribe at pleasure for the sufferer. My advice is, that, when you ascertain that any one is becoming seriously thoughtful on the subject of religion, you keep it, for a short time, to yourself: indeed, that you thus keep the fact, until his exercises begin to assume a definite shape and character; being careful, in the meanwhile, to attend to the case with conscientious diligence yourself. When you judge the way to be open, communicate a knowledge of the situation of the individual to one or two of those persons in whose knowledge, piety, prudence you have most confidence, and whom you know to have the peculiar confidence of the individual in question. The case of the spiritual seed is a little like that of the natural. When we place a seed in the ground, we allow it a little time to vegetate under the concealment of the soil. He who should go every few hours to the spot, where it was deposited, and drag it forth, in order to see how the process of vegetation was going on, would be considered as a very unwise cultivator. So he who, in regard to seed of a much more important and delicate nature, will not give it time to shoot and grow a little, before it is forced on the public gaze, acts a part, I must think, by no means adapted to promote the best interests either of the individual immediately concerned, or of the church. If he would consent to wait a short time, the view taken would probably soon be found much more pleasant and edifying, or to assume a character which ought not to be made public at all. 16. Guard against conversing too much at one time, with those who are under serious impressions. I am deeply persuaded, that, in many cases, the minds of such persons, in consequence of being incessantly plied with conversation, even though of good quality, yet excessive as to quantity, have been kept in a state of agitation and conflict, longer than they would probably otherwise have been. And the evil has been, no doubt, increased, as I just hinted, when a number of individuals, of different degrees of knowledge, piety, and judgment have undertaken to inculcate, each his peculiar views, on the persons in question. I am confident that although persons in this deeply interesting state of mind, ought to be frequently instructed and exhorted, by competent counselors, yet few things are more injurious to them than to be annoyed by incessant, common-place conversation. It is an utter mistake to suppose that they are benefited by being always in society, even of the best kind. They need much time for retirement, self-examination and prayer, and ought to be referred much to the spirit of God, and the teaching of the Holy Spirit. A few thoughts at a time, from a pious friend, clear, seasonable, instructive, and to the point, will be most likely to be useful. After receiving these, at suitable intervals, they ought to be left much in their closets, with their Bibles and their God; and to be frequently told to look rather to the Savior than to man for help. 17. If, after becoming a pastor, you should be so happy as to know of any considerable number of individuals in your congregation who are beginning to think seriously on the subject of religion, it may become desirable to convene them weekly, or as often as convenient, for the subject of receiving instruction and exhortation together. This practice has been much recommended by experience, and is attended with several very important advantages. It enables a faithful pastor to accomplish more in the indispensable duty of conversing with the serious and anxious, in a single afternoon, or evening, than would be practicable in a week, in the ordinary method of visiting from house to house. The appointment of such a meeting, too, may induce many persons who are really in some degree serious, to come forward and put themselves in the way of conversation on the subject of experimental religion, who, if no such opportunity were presented, might conceal the state of their minds, and lose the advantage of being personally and pointedly addressed. I am also inclined to think that every pastor, even when there is not sufficient attention excited among his people to keep up such a weekly meeting of inquirers as I have described, ought to have a stated time, occurring as often, at least, as once a fortnight, and distinctly made known to his people, when he will make a point of being at home, and ready to attend to any, whether professors of religion or not, who may wish to converse with him on their spiritual state. A faithful pastor will rarely pass such an appointed time without some visitors. And some will go, perhaps, and be happily led to the Savior, who, but for such an appointment, would, humanly speaking, have lost their serious impressions, and hardened themselves in sin. Who does not know that, when the mind begins to be exercised on the subject of religion, the merest trifles will, in some cases, serve as excuses for concealing the fact? The inquirer will feel, it may be, that he ought to converse with his minister; but he cannot summon resolution to venture on the interview. He fears, perhaps, that he will not be at home; or that he will have company; or be otherwise engaged; or that it will be difficult to disclose to him his feelings. The consequence is that he does not go; and his seriousness, after a short time, wears off. But if he knew that his minister, on a certain day, would be at home; that he would have no other engagement; that he would be hoping and desiring to see persons in his state of mind; and that his very appearance at the house of his pastor on that day would itself disclose the object of his visit, and furnish an introduction to a free conversation; his excuses would probably all vanish, and he would avail himself of the precious privilege. If you should ever make such an appointment as I have last mentioned, and, if on the recurrence of the day, for several times, you should have no visitors, be not discouraged. Continue the appointment; and give public intimations, from time to time, in the manner that you may judge most suitable, that it is not made in vain. No one can tell how far such intimations may serve to rouse up the pious, and excite them to prayer and exertion. 18. Be not too hasty in encouraging those of whose seriousness you have a favorable opinion, to go forward and make a profession of religion. This is undoubtedly often done with very undue precipitation. Persons of very tender age, and others, previously of very equivocal character, have been, literally, hurried to the Lord’s table in less than a week after the commencement of their serious thoughtfulness; without allowing them time fully to count the cost; and before they were able to put their exercises to such a test as might be satisfactory to themselves or others. Hence many young persons, of both sexes, in a few months or even weeks, after making this solemn profession, have found themselves unexpectedly bereft of all comfortable hope; their evidences of Christian character gone; their interest in the subject in a great measure lost; and their minds filled with regret that they had been so hasty. It was now, however, difficult to retreat, and their whole lives, perhaps, have been spent in a heartless, and of course, a comfortless profession. It is readily granted that neither Scripture nor reason fixes any precise period, during which candidates for church communion are bound to wait, in order to put the stability of their religious character to the test. And it is equally evident, that extraordinary cases ought to prescribe rules for themselves. But, in general, it is evident that there ought to be a few months, at least, of serious and prayerful deliberation, before taking a step so solemn, so momentous, so irrevocable; a step likely to be followed with so many interesting consequences to those who take it, and to the sacred family with which they propose to become connected. Let no desire to see the rapid multiplication of professors, ever lead you to depart from this principle. I have more than once repented having given what afterwards appeared to be premature encouragement to come to a sacramental table; but never did I repent advising to a few months’ deliberation and delay, when the preparation was doubtful. 19. In conversing on the subject of practical religion, especially with those who are not well informed on the subject, be sparing in the use of that technical language, which many continually employ. I refer to a number of phrases, of standing use in many pious circles, which, although the meaning intended to be conveyed by them is undoubtedly correct and important, are yet so remote from the language of ordinary social intercourse, that they sound strangely, not to say unintelligibly, out of the circles to which I allude. Many pious ministers and others are in the habit of using this language in a manner, and to an extent, which I know render their conversation not a little revolting to those who are unaccustomed to it, and frequently present a serious obstacle in the way of their acceptance and usefulness. As it is desirable not to be misunderstood on a subject so important, I think it proper to give a specimen of the phrases to which I refer. Thus it is by no means uncommon to hear it stated, that a great revival has broken out in such a place; that there is a great religious stir in this or that congregation; that such an individual, or such a number of individuals, have been struck under conviction; that a particular person appears to be in the pangs of the new birth; that a person whose anxiety on the subject of religion is very great has been roughly handled, but is likely to be brought through; that such another has been happily brought through; that so many, in a certain place, are brought under conviction, and so many have obtained hopes, etc. Now, although I am confident I need not assure you, that I am a warm friend to revivals of religion; although the ideas intended to be expressed by the phrases in question are, in my view, perfectly sound and scriptural, and infinitely momentous; and although any one who is capable of ridiculing these ideas knows nothing yet as he ought to know; yet I cannot think that the use of these phrases, especially in mixed companies, is advisable. My objections to them are several. Some of them are, in a great measure, if not altogether, unintelligible to many whom they are addressed. Others are derided as vulgar cant, as terms expressive of the appearance of a plague or pestilence, rather than of a rich blessing, and which rather repel, than instruct or conciliate. While a third class are regarded as a presumptuous invasion of the prerogative of Him who alone can know the heart, and tell the number of those who have become reconciled to him. Would it not be better to use language which all seriously disposed persons understand and approve? Would it not be quite as expressive, and more intelligible to many, if you were to say, that a revival has commenced, or a work of divine grace appears to have commenced, in such a place: that a particular individual is under serious impressions, or is deeply anxious on the subject of religion, or appears to be convinced of sin, or is in great distress of mind: that many appear to be awakened from a state of carelessness, and to be more or less anxious, and that others appear, or profess, to enjoy the comfort of gospel hope? I presume, if you had occasion to interrogate an intelligent stranger, who you had reason to fear was destitute of piety, in relation to the state of his mind, on the subject of religion, you would hardly think it wise to begin by saying Pray, sir, are you born again? or, are you yet carnal? Yet, why not, as both the principal phrases in this question are taken from the Bible, and as you and I fully believe these phrases to be expressive of important realities? Your reason, I suppose, for not thinking it wise, would be, that this language is very imperfectly, if at all, understood by many who are well informed on other subjects; and that such persons, because they have frequently heard it bandied about by the ignorant and fanatical, and cannot enter into its precious meaning, are generally revolted by it. I am far from agreeing with Mr. Foster, the pious and eloquent English essayist, in his proposal to discard what he calls, the Theological dialect, the technical terms of evangelical religion. I am afraid that, if these terms were dismissed, the things intended by them would soon disappear also. I do not wish a single Bible phrase to be banished either from the pulpit or the parlor. Yet, I can easily conceive that there are even Bible phrases, which may be advantageously exchanged for others, more familiar to those who are ignorant of the Bible, and better adapted, until they become enlightened, to convey spiritual ideas to their minds. It is, evidently, on this principle that ministers, every Sabbath, in the pulpit, explain Scripture, by using more common language, and that which is better understood, to express its heavenly doctrines. But the language which I advise you to avoid, is not, as commonly employed, Bible language at all. And I see no advantage, but rather the contrary, in the use of terms, against which many are strongly prejudiced; and which, if they do not deserve the name of cant, will certainly, by many, be considered as bearing that character. Let your general rule be, in conversing on the great and precious subjects of revivals of religion, and Christian experience, to employ terms which are warranted by Scripture, and the most enlightened practical writers, and adapted to make the best impression on those whom we address. 20. Take pains to prepare yourself for conducting religious conversation in an easy and edifying manner. For this purpose, be familiar with practical books, and especially with the lives of eminently pious men. Take a few minutes to premeditate before you expect to go into the company of any person or persons on this important errand. Adjust in your own mind topics and thoughts for discourse, adapted to the cases of those whom you expect to meet. Study some variety in this matter. If you go over the same common-place, narrow, little round of remark, in all companies, for thirty or forty years together, you will soon entirely cease to interest any one, unless, perhaps, a stranger, who happened to hear it for the first time. Above all, let every attempt to perform the service in question, be preceded by humbly asking for divine help. Remember that God will be inquired of to grant us his aid; and that he will not give his glory to another. Remember that he can render the feeblest sentence that ever escaped the lips of simple piety, richly and eternally beneficial: while the most able and well conducted conversation, if administered without imploring a blessing upon it, may, and probably will, prove useless to all concerned. 21. If you desire to gain an easy, natural and attractive manner of introducing and maintaining religious conversation, let the foundation of all your efforts at improvement in this respect, be laid in the culture of the heart. Study daily to grow in vital piety. Perhaps there is nothing more indispensable to the happy discharge of the duty under consideration than that the heart continually prompt and speak; that heart-felt emotion and affection dictate every word, and tone, and look, while engaged in addressing a fellow-creature on the most important of all subjects. Truly, without active, fervent love to God, and to the souls of men, it will be vain to hope for the attainment of this happy art, in any considerable degree. But if your heart habitually glow with interest in this subject; if the love of Christ constrain you; if you daily cherish a tender concern for the salvation of your perishing fellow-mortals; if your mind be constantly teeming with desires and plans to do them good; then religious conversation will be as natural as to breathe. Then your lips will be opened seasonably, unaffectedly, and profitably to all around you. Then, instead of being at a loss what to say; or being timidly backward to say it; or saying it in an embarrassed, awkward, pompous, or unnatural manner; there will be a simplicity, a touching tenderness, a penetrating skill, a native gracefulness, an unction in your mode of conversing, which no spurious feelings can successfully imitate. The true reason, I have no doubt, why religious conversation is so often what it ought not to be, and so often useless, is that it is so seldom the offspring of that unaffected warm, spiritual feeling, which piety of an elevated character alone can give. 22. Finally, it will be a stimulus to diligence, and an auxiliary to improvement, in the precious art of religious conversation, if you daily and faithfully call yourself to an account for the manner in which you have performed this duty. We stand in need of something of this kind to quicken us in every department of our Christian work; and in none more than those which consist in frequently recurring details, rather than in single great acts. Never retire from any company, then, without asking yourself, What have I said for the honor of my Master, and for promoting the everlasting welfare of those with whom I conversed? What was the tenor of my conversation? What opportunity of recommending religion have I neglected to improve? From what motives did I speak, or keep silence? In what manner did I converse? With gentleness, modesty, humility, and yet with affectionate fidelity; or with harshness, with formality, with ostentation, with vanity, and from a desire to avoid censure, or to court popular applause? Few things, I believe, would have a more powerful tendency to promote watchfulness, diligence, and unremitting perseverance in this important duty, than the constant inspection and trial of ourselves here recommended. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 37: S. SAMUEL MILLER'S LETTER ON CHRISTMAS OBSERVANCE ======================================================================== Samuel Miller’s Letter on Christmas Observance December 29, 1825. By Samuel Miller, D.D. The following letter written by Dr. Samuel Miller was first reprinted in The Blue Banner, 2.11, November 1993. It had not been republished since it first appeared in 1825. Samuel Miller, D.D. (1769-1850) was Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government at Princeton. The following letter appeared in the Commercial Advertiser, New York, NY. December 29, 1825. It is listed in the bibliography compiled by his granddaughter, Margaret Miller, published in The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. IX, No. 4, October 1911, entitled, “A List of the Writings of Samuel Miller, D.D., LL.D., 1769-1850, Second Professor in Princeton Theological Seminary 1813-1850.” With much searching a copy of this article was finally obtained from the holdings of the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, Massachusetts. It is reproduced here with some minor editing and spelling changes to conform to contemporary American usage. In this letter, Dr. Miller follows a similar form of argumentation to that in his book, Presbyterianism the truly primitive and Apostolical Constitution of the Church of Christ.[1] As might be expected, he is more thorough in his book. Also, since his audience is the Presbyterian Church, as opposed to the secular and pluralistic audience of the Commercial Advertiser, his denunciations of the practice are stronger. For the Commercial Advertiser Messrs. Editors: As you have, in your paper of yesterday, availed yourself of your editorial privilege, to plead in behalf of the religious observance of Christmas, and undertaken, moreover, to “condemn the error” of the Puritans in refusing to observe this festival themselves (for in no other sense, that I know of did they ever “prohibit” the observance of it),* will you allow a subscriber to your paper, and one of the descendants of those venerable men, to say a word in their vindication? No controversy on this subject is intended; and if I know how to pen these few lines in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of any further discussion, I should be glad to do it. I assure you, sir, it makes no part of my present plan to “condemn,” or even to find the least fault with, those who think it their duty to observe Christmas, and other holy days. “Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind.” I venerate and love many who are of that opinion, though I cannot think with them. But you, surely, will not deny me the privilege of saying a word, the only object of which is to alleviate, if not to advert, the sentence which you have passed against a body of men “of whom the world was not worthy,” and whose example I wish many were as willing to follow as to praise. The “Pilgrims,” then, for themselves only, refused to observe Christmas, and other holy days, for the following reasons. I. They thought that no warrant for any such observance was to be found in Scripture. They believed that every institution of this nature, pertaining to the Old Testament economy, was abolished at the coming of Christ; that no similar days were appointed in their place; that neither the Savior nor his inspired Apostles gave the least countenance, either by precept or example, to the sanctification of any other day than the Sabbath. II. They considered the Bible as the only infallible rule of faith and practice. They denied that the Church, or any member of it had a right to institute new rites or ceremonies. They were persuaded that the Lord Jesus Christ alone was the Supreme Head and King of the Church; and had no doubt that He, and those Apostles whom He inspired by his own Spirit, were as competent judges of what was proper, and for the edification of the Church, as any individual or body of individuals have been since; and, of course, that for uninspired, and therefore fallible men, to undertake to add to the number of Christ’s appointments, is a measure, to say the least, of very questionable propriety. III. They were confident that, for a long time after the death of the Apostles, no stated festival or Fast Days whatever were observed in the Church. Justin Martyr, who wrote a little after the middle of the second century, and who gives a particular account of the institutions and habits of the Christians, gives no hint of any day being kept holy, excepting the first day of the week, or the Christian Sabbath. Before the time of Origen, who flourished about the middle of the third century, the Christians had introduced several holy-days, partly to gratify the converts from Paganism; who, on coming into the Church, wished to have some substitute for the Pagan festivals which which [sic] they had abandoned. But even at this time, the observance of Christmas was unknown. — Origen give [sic] a list of the holy-days observed at the time in which he wrote; but says nothing about a festival for Christ’s nativity; from which Lord Chancellor King, in his “inquiry into the Primitive Church within the first three hundred years after Christ,” confidently infers that no such festival was observed till after the time of Origen. Indeed the Christians during the first three centuries, differed so widely concerning the month and day of the Savior’s birth; some placing it in April, others in May, etc. that there is an utter improbability, on this ground alone, that they commemorated the event by an ecclesiastical festival. IV. The Puritans attached no little importance to another consideration. Supposing, (what they could not admit) that the church possesses the power to institute observances, which Christ and his Apostles never knew: supposing that [“]teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” or in other words, adopting “human inventions in the worship of God,” could be justified; what limit they asked, could be set to this power? How far may it be carried? When the door to uncommanded observances is once opened, by whom or when will it be effectually closed? You, and a few others, Mr. Editor, might think two or three will-adjusted church festivals, besides fifty-two Sundays in the year quite sufficient. The Protestant Episcopal Church, however, in this country, has appointed about thirty stated festivals, besides a still larger number of Fast-days. The Church of England has a greater number, it is believed, both of fasts and festivals. The Church of Rome, from whom the Church of England selected her list, observes a far greater number than either. In favor of every one of these days, serious, respectable men have something very plausible to say; and have actually uttered very contemptuous, and even indignant things against plain, simple-minded Protestants, who could not easily allow such a mass of superstition. Is it any wonder, then, that the Puritans, perceiving the tendency in all churches to go to extremes in multiplying such observances, whenever they began to be introduced; and knowing that there was no way to prevent this, but by shutting them out altogether: deliberately preferred the latter as the safer course? — and truly, if there be no Bible warrant for festivals; — no solid warrant for them in the practice of the Christian Church for the first 300 years, and, above all, none for Christmas; if the whole business of bringing institutions into the Church for which there is no Divine authority, be unlawful and of dangerous tendency; and if, whenever the practice has been admitted, it has been almost always abused, that is, carried much further than it ought to have been, I cannot help thinking that the Puritans had at least plausible, if not conclusive, reasons for taking the course which they did. I must again protest, Mr. Editor, that I have no desire to shake the faith, or alter the practice, of those who differ from the Puritans on this subject. But I could not, for my life, help doubting, whether, when you “condemned” those venerable men, as in “error” as to this point, you were really acquainted with ALL the reasons which led to their decision. I make a much more favorable estimate than is correct, both of your intelligence and candor, if you do not think the few of their reasons which have been stated worthy of some regard. Your’s, Biblicus [Samuel Miller]. *The respected author of this communication here labours under an error, as will be seen by the following quotation from the Essay on “the first settlement of our Country,” in the last number of the Boston Monthly Magazine. “In Massachusetts, anything which belonged to the Episcopal Church was treated as anti-christian, and carried the mark of the beast. CHRISTMAS HOLYDAYS WERE PROHIBITED BY LAW.” **** “While a law imposing five shillings fine for observing a Christmas holiday in Massachusetts was in force, Virginia gave full scope to all the festivities usual on such occasions in the mother country. The social and convivial feelings of men, could not, with alacrity, forego all pastime, and be resigned to abject sobriety in the form of religion. Our ancestors well knew this, and set apart one day in the year, previous to Christmas as a day of public thanksgiving and praise to our heavenly Father, for the mercies and favors of the past year. But in this there should be no resemblance of an Episcopal Christmas.” — Com. Adv. [1] Samuel Miller, D. D., Presbyterianism the truly primitive and Apostolical Constitution of the Church of Christ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1835) 73-78. Miller is discussing “The Worship of the Presbyterian Church," contending that Presbyterians Do Not Observe Holy-Days.” ======================================================================== CHAPTER 38: S. THE CHRISTIAN EDUCATION OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH ======================================================================== THE CHRISTIAN EDUCATION OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH: BY THE REV. SAMUEL MILLER, D. D., AND THE REV. J. J. JANEWAY, D. D, PHILADELPHIA : PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1840, by A. W. MITCHELL, M. D., in the Clerk s Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Stereotyped by S. DOUGLAS WYETH, No. 7 Pear St., Philadelphia. Printed by WM. S. MARTIEN. REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION. BY THE REV. SAMUEL MILLER, D. D. ADVERTISEMENT. IN the General Assembly of 1839, the following Resolution was adopted, viz : " Resolved, That the Rev. Samuel Miller, Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, J. Addison Alexander, and James Carnahan, be a committee to inquire whether any, and, if any, what measures ought to be adopted for securing to the children and young people of our Church more full advantages of Christian education than they have hitherto enjoyed." In pursuance of the foregoing appointment, the following Report was presented to the General Assembly, at their sessions in 1840, by the chairman of the committee, the Rev. Samuel Miller, D. D. and by a unanimous resolution it was referred to the Board of Publication, with a view to its publication. THE longer and the more seriously the Committee have deliberated on the adoption of measures " for securing to the children and young people of our Church more full advantages of Christian education than they have hitherto enjoyed," the deeper has become their impression, at once, of its transcendent importance, and of the exceeding great difficulty, in the present state of our country and of the Church, of doing it justice, even in theory, and much more of proposing such plans as will admit of general and convenient execution. There can be no doubt that one great end for which the Church was established by her infinitely wise and gracious Head was, that she might train up a godly seed, enlightened in the truth, and imbued with the sentiments and habits adapted to the maintenance and spread of our holy religion, in all its purity and power. This great principle is not merely left to be inferred from the general nature and character of the church, but is essentially included in the ordinances appointed by her Divine Head, and in the direct and solemn commands with which her statute book abounds. Hence, in the ancient Church, her children, while yet infants, were recognized and sealed as members ; were carried up at an early age to the great feasts at Jerusalem ; and, that they might be taught to take an interest in all that pertained to the people of God, the command of Jehovah was " These words shall be in thine heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." Nay more it was not only enjoined on parents under that economy, to teach their children all the commands of God, and continually to inculcate obedience to them, but also to make them familiar with the history of the Church continually reminding them of all Jehovah s deal ing with his covenant people ; his signal deliverances ; his heavy judgments ; and the various ways by which he led them on, and accomplished his purposes toward them. When the New Testament economy was introduced, the same great principles of duty toward the children of the Church were not only retained, but with the increasing light and spirituality of the new dispensation, were extended in their application, and urged with new force. Still, while in their infancy, the Church, by a solemn rite, was commanded to recognize her children as the members of her body ; to regard herself as their moral parent ; and to make their early instruction and discipline an object of unceasing care and labour. Some of the examples of this care, and of the happy results of it, recorded in the early his tory of the Church, are at once memorable and instructive. The pious " witnesses for the truth " in the dark ages, were, perhaps, more remarkable for nothing than for their faithfulness in the in struction and discipline of their children. In particular, the devoted and exemplary Waldenses were probably indebted, under God, to their peculiar diligence in the discharge of this duty, for their remarkable success in keep ing their body together ; in transmitting their testimony from generation to generation ; and in remaining so long as they did, a beacon for the admiration and guidance of the Church in after times. Historians tell us that these pious people were in the habit of employing every hour that they could rescue from labour and sleep, in gaining religious knowledge them selves, and in imparting it to the children and young people of their community ; that they were careful to prepare excellent catechisms, and other formularies for their youth ; and that their pastors made the religious instruction of youth a leading and unceasing object of their labours. In imitation of their example, the most pure and enlightened of the Reformed churches have ever directed their attention to the education of their children as an object of primary importance in promoting the great interests of religion. Among these churches, that of Scotland is, on several accounts, most instructive and most interesting to us, as bearing to us, more than any other, the relation of parent. This Church, from the earliest period of her establishment, has made careful provision for the early instruction and discipline of her children. By different acts of her General Assembly, from time to time, she has declared their education to be under the supervision and government of her judicatories, and directed the course of their studies accordingly. The General Assembly, soon after its first formation, in 1560, and at different times afterwards, directed the several presbyteries to settle a church school in every parish, and to see that the teacher employed in each was a pious, orthodox, well qualified man, adapted to instruct youth in the Scriptures, in the catechism, and in all the most important things, as well as in the elements of literature. By an act of the General Assembly of 1642, a grammar school was erect ed in every presbytery. The Assembly of 1700 enjoined on all presbyteries to "take special, particular, and exact notice," of all schoolmasters, governors, and instructors of youth, within their respective bounds, and oblige them to subscribe the Confession of Faith ; and, in case of continued negligence, (after admonition,) error, or immorality, or not being careful to educate those committed to their charge in the Protestant Reformed religion pointed out the mode in which they were to be punished. By the Assembly of 1706, it was enjoined that presbyteries visit the grammar schools within their respective bounds, twice a year, by some of their number. And, finally, in 1638, the General As sembly revived and ratified the acts of preceding Assemblies, by which visitations of colleges were directed to be kept up by comittees of the Assembly ; and the principal regents, professors, masters, and doctors within the same were required to be tried concerning their piety, their soundness in the faith, their ability to discharge the duties of their calling, and the honesty of their conversation. Several other Reformed churches might be cited, as furnishing eminent and instructive examples of fidelity in discharging the great duty which it is the object of this report to recommend. The Church of Holland will alone be noticed at present. By the synodical assemblies of that church it is directed that the consistories in every congregation, shall provide good schoolmasters, who shall be able not only to instruct children in reading, writing, grammar, and the liberal sciences, but also to teach them the catechism, and the first principles of religion. Every schoolmaster was to be obliged to subscribe the Confession of Faith of the Belgic churches, or the Heidelberg Catechism. With regard to instructing children in the catechism, a three-fold attention to it is solemnly enjoined in that church ; viz : first, Domestic, by Parents ; second, Scholastic, by Schoolmasters ; and third, Ecclesiastic, by Pastors, assisted by other members of their consistories ; and all whose duty it is to inspect schools, are " admonished to make this an object of their very first care." It is further provided, that no person shall be appointed to the charge of any school who is not a member in full communion with the Reformed Belgic Church, and who shall not previously have subscribed the Confession of Faith and Catechism of the Church, and solemnly promised to instruct the children committed to his care in the principles contained in the standards of the Church. More than this; it is enjoined that every schoolmaster shall employ two half days in every week, not only in hearing the children repeat, but in assisting them to understand the catechism. And to insure fidelity in these teachers, it is made the duty of the pastors and elders of each church, frequently to visit the schools ; to encourage and direct the teachers in the proper method of catechizing ; to examine the children " with mild seventy ;" and to excite them to industry and piety, by holy exhortations, by seasonable commendations, and by little appropriate rewards. Nor is this zealous and persevering labour in the religious training of youth confined to Protestant churches. It is well known, that among some of the Roman Catholic congre gations of Europe, the children are imbued with a knowledge of their erroneous system, with an indefatigable diligence and patience which may well put to shame the professors of a more scriptural creed. The consequence is, that so large a number of that denomination of professing Christians have an attachment to their sect, and an expertness in defending their superstitious peculiarities, rarely found among the mass of Protestants. When your committee contrast these facts with the state of things now existing, and which has for a long time existed, and been manifestly growing in the Presbyterian Church, in regard to the religious training of her children, they experience a degree of mortification which it is not easy to express. For a number of years, indeed, after the planting of our Church in this country, that portion of our members which had migrated from Scotland, or the north of Ireland, and their immediate successors, retained much of their European habit in regard to this matter. Their children were, to a consider able extent, trained, as was customary in the land of their fathers, and made perfectly familiar with the catechisms of the church, and the elementary principles of religion. But even this remnant of European fidelity has, in a great measure, disappeared. The cate chisms of our Church have nothing like the currency, even among this class of our young people that they had fifty years ago. From many parts of the Church in which they were then habitually taught, they are now, in a great measure, banished. The religious instruction of our youth, instead of becoming more ample and faithful, as the facilities for its accomplishment have multiplied has undoubtedly declined, both as to extent and fidelity. The children of church-members are, in a multitude of cases, totally neglected, and left to ignorance and heathenism. In other instances, they are committed to the tuition of the intemperate, the profane, and the profligate. Not unfrequently they are sent to institutions taught by papists, or other errorists, who are known to make every effort to instil their erroneous opinions into the minds of the youth committed to their care. It may be doubted whether there is a body of people at this time on earth, so or thodox in their creed, and at the same time so deplorably delinquent in the religious education of their children, as the Presbyterian Church in the United States. In this state of things, no wonder that so many of the children of our beloved Church grow up in ignorance, and regardless of the religion of their fathers ; some becoming profane and impious ; others turning aside to various forms of fatal error ; and a large majority feeling little attachment to the good old way, in which they ought to have been faith fully and prayerfully trained. And it is painful to recollect that, amidst this unhappy delinquency, the judicatories of our Church have in a great measure slumbered over the evil, and have taken no systematic or efficient order for the removal of it. The mischiefs flowing from this neglect of early religious instruction are numberless and deplorable. The first and most serious of these mischiefs is, its tendency to destroy the souls of our children. On the one hand, when the early youth of children is passed without proper instruction in divine things, it is difficult to measure or conceive the thick darkness which generally covers their minds, and appears to defy all ordinary endeavours to impart to them the knowledge of evangelical truth. When men grow old in ignorance, as well as in sin, they are surrounded with a double barrier against the entrance of heavenly light. It becomes almost necessary to teach them a new language before the instructor in such cases, can be understood. Accordingly the probability of such persons being ever brought to a saving acquaintance with the gospel, is greatly diminished, and, in many cases, rendered in a great measure, hopeless. On the other hand, when the seeds of truth and duty are early and faithfully sown in the minds of youth ; though they may long lie buried, there is strong ground of hope that they will eventually spring up, and bring forth a rich harvest. Who can estimate then, the cruelty, the awful guilt of those, whether parents or pastors, who neglect that which is so closely connected, not only with the present happiness, but with the everlasting welfare of every youth committed to their care ? Closely allied with that which was last stated, is another evil resulting from the neglect of a religious education of the children of the Church ; and that is, the frequency with which our young people may be expected, in such case, to depart from the church of their fathers, and either stray into communions of the most corrupt character, or become totally regardless of religion in any form. The fact is, even if the preaching of a pastor be ever so sound and able ; yet if he neglect the appropriate training of the young people of his charge, and leave them to the small gleanings of instruction which they will be likely to catch by the ear from the pulpit, they may be expected to grow up little better than heathen in fact, though Christian in name. The consequence must inevitably be, the decay and final ruin of those flocks which have not some other means by which to supply the places of their dying members, than the seed of the church. Further ; the pastor who neglects the religious training of the young people of his charge, will find them altogether unprepared to profit by his public ministry. If a pastor desires to render his discourses from the pulpit as profitable as possible to the youth of his flock, he cannot take a more direct course for the attainment of his object, than to attend to them with parental diligence and affection ; to become personally acquainted with them ; to meet them frequently in private as a body ; to catechize them ; to render them familiar with his person, his modes of thinking and speaking, and to imbue their minds with those elementary principles of divine knowledge which will prepare them to hear him in the pulpit with intelligence, with respect, and with profit. If a preacher wished for the most favourable opportunity conceivable for preparing the youth of his charge to listen to his sermons to the greatest advantage, it would not be easy to devise one more admirably suited to his purpose, than to meet them, by themselves, once a week, in a paternal and affectionate manner ; to teach them the elementary principles of that system which his discourses from the pulpit are intended to explain and inculcate ; thus to accustom them to his topics, his phraseology, his manner, his whole course of instruction, and prepare them to receive the richest benefit from his public discourses. There can be no doubt that one great reason why many young people receive so little profit from the pulpit discourses of their minister is, that he has taken so little pains to open their minds by previous instruction ; to prepare the soil for the seed ; to prepossess them in favour of the substance and mode of his teaching. That minister who desires that his preaching may make the deep est and most favourable impression on the minds of the children and young people of his charge, is an infatuated man, regardless of all the dictates of reason, experience, and the word of God, if he does not employ himself diligently in labouring to pave the way for their reception of his more formal and public instruction. Young people thus prepared to attend on his preaching, will, of course, understand it better ; receive it more readily and respectfully ; and be more likely, by the grace of God, to lay it up in their hearts, and practice it in their lives. Again ; the pastor who neglects the religious instruction of the children of his flock, neglects one of the most direct and powerful means of winning the parents themselves to the knowledge and love of the gospel. It cannot have escaped the notice of any attentive observer of human affairs, that there is no avenue to the hearts of parents more direct and certain than diligent and affectionate attention to their children. On the one hand, it would seem as if they could often bear to be themselves neglected, if their beloved children be followed with manifestations of interest and good will. And, on the other hand, if they see their children overlooked and neglected, scarcely anything in their view can atone for this negligence. Instances of the most striking character have occurred, in which parents appeared to receive the strong est impressions in favour of particular ministers, and in favour of the cause in which they were engaged, chiefly because those ministers had given their children affectionate paternal counsel and instruction, and appeared to manifest a peculiar interest in their temporal and eternal welfare. Nor is this all. It is undoubtedly a fact, that, in some cases, one of the best modes of addressing parents on the great subject of religion, is through the medium of their children. The catechizing, instructing, and exhorting of children in the presence of their parents, have frequently proved the means of the conversion of those parents. And it has often happened that the manifest improvement, and especially the hopeful conversion of children in catechetical and Bible classes, have been signally blessed to the spiritual benefit of their parents, and, indeed, of the whole families to which they belonged. What must be thought, then, of the indolence or blindness of that pastor who can willingly forego all these blessings, and incur all the opposite evils, by habitually neglecting the children of the flock committed to his care ? It follows, of course, that the pastor who does not diligently attend to the religious instruction of the young people of his charge, is blind to the comfort, the acceptance, and the popularity of his own ministry. Why is it that so many ministers, before reaching an infirm old age, grow out of date with their people, and lose their influence with them ? Especially, why is it that the younger part of their flocks feel so little attraction to them, dislike their preaching, and sigh for a change of pastors ? There is reason to believe that this has seldom occurred, except in cases in which pastors have been eminently negligent of the religious training of their young people ; in which, however respectable they may have been for their talents, their learning, and their worth, in other respects, they have utterly failed to bind the affections of the children to their persons ; to make every one of them revere and love them as affectionate fathers; and, by faithful attentions, to inspire them with the strongest sentiments of veneration and filial attachment. Those whose range of observation has been considerable, have, no doubt, seen examples of ministers, whose preaching was by no means very striking or attractive, yet retaining to the latest period of their lives, the affections of all committed to their care, and especially being the favourites of the young people, who have rallied round them in their old age, and contributed not a little to render their last days both useful and happy. It may be doubted /whether such a case ever occurred, excepting where the pastor had be stowed much attention on the young people of his charge. Such are some of the evils which flow from neglect on the part of the Church to train up her children in the knowledge of her doctrines and order. She may expect to see a majority of those children even children of professors of religion growing up in ignorance and profligacy; of course forsaking the church of their fathers; leaving her either to sink, or to be filled up by converts from without ; turning away from those pastors who neglected them ; and causing such pastors to experience in their old age, the merited reward of unfaithful servants. The truth is, if there be any one part of the pastor s duty, which, more than almost any other, deserves to be considered as vital and fundamental, it is that which bears immediately on the seed of the Church the nursery of Christ s family that branch of his labour which has for its object the extending and perpetuating the Church, by raising up a godly seed to take the place of their parents when they shall be laid in the dust. In this view of the subject, shall nothing be done by the supreme judicatory of our Church, to rouse the attention, and direct the efforts of our churches to this most important, but long neglected concern ? That something ought to be done is manifest. It is surely high time to awake out of sleep, and inquire what we can do, and ought to do, as a Christian denomination. The committee are not unmindful of the difficulties which beset this great subject ; and which will render a prompt and thorough return to our duty in regard to it, an arduous, if not an almost impracticable task ; difficulties arising from our long continued habits of delinquency from the scattered state of the population in many parts of our Church from the sentiments in favour of a spurious liberality, which prevail so peculiarly and extensively among many denominations of Christians in the United States, and among none more than Presbyterians and from the constant and in defatigable labour required for a faithful discharge of the duty recommended. But great as these difficulties are, they may be surmounted by faith, patience, labour, and prayer. And it is evident, that even if the difficulties attending the faithful discharge of the duty in question were far more numerous and formidable than they are, the rewards would, more than an hundred fold, counterbalance ail the care and toil bestowed on the object. At any rate, if our delinquency is ever to be repaired, and any real improvement in this great field of Christian effort attained, the sooner we begin the better. The souls of our children are precious the exigencies of the church are pressing and every hour we lose in commencing the work of reform, is a loss to all the best interests of the Church, and the world a loss stretching into eternity. After these preliminary remarks, the Committee would beg leave to present a sketch of what they think may and ought to be at tempted in reference to this important subject. They are aware that what they are about to propose, has nothing of novelty in it ; but, if adopted, would be only returning, in substance, to the forgotten and neglected usages of our venerated fathers, both in Europe and in our own country. And although they are sensible that some of their suggestions may not equally apply, and may not be capable of being carried into execution with equal convenience, in all the churches of our denomination yet they would fain hope that a plan may be suggested, which, if carried into effect, may be productive of some benefit to the rising generation. They would, therefore, most respectfully propose to the Assembly the adoption of the following recommendations, to be sent down to all the subordinate judicatories and churches under our care. I. It is recommended, that the subject of the Christian education of children be fre quently brought before the people, in the in structions and devotional exercises of the pulpit, in a manner so pointed and solemn, as may be adapted to inform the minds, and impress the consciences of parents and church officers, in regard to a matter so little understood, and so little laid to heart even by many who profess to be truly pious. II. It is recommended, that when pastors visit families, whether the visitation be performed formally or otherwise, all the children of every family be attended to with particular care ; that their names be taken down ; that every important circumstance concerning each, be recorded ; that each be affectionately noticed and addressed ; that God’s claim to them be presented and urged ; and that every practicable method be adopted to render such interviews interesting and instructive. For this purpose, there may be a little tract given to one; an appropriate, striking anecdote related to another; and some expression of interest and regard suited to win the confidence of a third, and so of the whole youthful circle. This would require no expense nothing, at least, but thought and prayer ; as tracts and other little publica tions suitable to be thus employed, may be had, if not gratuitously, at least on very easy terms, and to almost any extent. III. It is recommended, that every congregation shall establish one or more Church Schools, adapted to the instruction of children between six and ten years of age. These primary schools had better, usually, be taught by females, decidedly pious, intelligent, and of known attachment to the doctrines and order of our Church. These teachers ought to be selected by the church session, and go verned by rules formed by that body. Females would be preferable as teachers in such schools; because they may, for the most part, be had on more economical terms than teachers of the other sex ; and because, if of a suitable character, they will be apt to train up their pupils with more soft and gentle manners. As children of this tender age cannot travel far to school, there ought to be several of this class of schools in every congregation of any size; as not more than twenty-five, or, at most, thirty scholars of this age ought ever to be placed under one teacher. In these schools, the Bible ought to be used every day, and the Shorter Cate chism of the Church recited at least once every week ; and the pastor and elders ought frequently to visit them, and see that the teachers are faithful ; that all the methods of instruction employed are of the best kind; and that the manners and habits of the children are such as become those who are training up for usefulness here, and for the family of Christ hereafter. In these lower schools, it may be proper that the females be sometimes employed, at the discretion of the teachers, in sewing, and in other occupations adapted to their sex. The exercises, every day, should be opened and closed with prayer. IV. It is recommended, that in populous towns, infant schools be established as far as circumstances will admit. These of course, should be placed under the direction of pious, enlightened females ; and it is important that all the religious exercises which take place in them be in conformity with the usages of our own church; and that nothing be admitted which will have a tendency to introduce forms which distinguish other denominations. In these infant schools, the simpler portions of the Holy Scriptures, the " Catechism for Young Children," furnished by the Assembly s Board of Publication, and such oral instruction as may be adapted to the weakest capacities, ought to be constantly employed. V. It is recommended, that there be established in every presbytery at least one grammar school or academy, and in the larger and more opulent presbyteries more than one, adapted for training youth in the more advanced branches of knowledge, and preparing such of them as may desire it, for an introduction into college. These academies ought to be under the immediate instruction of ripe and accomplished scholars men in full communion with the Presbyterian church; of pious and exemplary deportment; and of known attachment to the faith and order of our church. These institutions ought to be under the supervision of the respective presbyteries in which they are placed, and a committee of ministers and elders appointed by each presbytery to visit them, and to watch over the whole course of instruction and discipline in them. It is by no means, indeed, intended to advise that no pupils be received into such academies but such as are connected with the Presbyterian Church, but it is intended to be earnestly recommended, that all the religious exercises in the same be strictly Presbyterian in their character ; and that no youth be allowed to enter them, or to continue a day in them, who is not perfectly correct and unexceptionable in his moral character, and disposed to treat the ordinances of religion with entire respect. In these academies, it is recommended that the Larger Catechism of our church be made a class book ; and, if not wholly committed to memory, at least made the subject of recitation and commentary, and accompanied with such other reading and oral instruction as may be adapted to make the pupils familiar with the faith and order of the Presbyterian Church, and with the considerations which explain and vindicate the same. VI. It is recommended, that when any of our youth are destined to enjoy the privileges of a college or university, there be the utmost care exercised in selecting for them those in stitutions in which their moral arid religious training will receive the most faithful attention ; institutions in which, as far as they can be found, the professors are orthodox and pious, and in which the whole weight of their instruction and influence will be thrown into the scale of pure and undefiled religion, as well as sound learning. No child of the Church ought ever to be sent to any seminary of learning, however high its literary character, in which sound religious instruction is not made a constant and governing object of attention. That parent who selects for his son a college in which his moral and religious in terests will run the risk of being sacrificed, or even jeoparded, for the sake of indulging some petty taste or prejudice, is chargeable with an unfaithfulness and cruelty of the most inexcusable kind. In several parts of our Church, academies and colleges have been founded by presbyteries and synods, and placed entirely under the direction of the judicatories which founded them. This, where it can be done, is a wise plan ; and adapted more effectually to secure to our youth the advantages of thorough and unshackled religious training, than is possible upon any other plan. VII. It is recommended that all parents and heads of families be in the constant habit of assembling the children and youth of their families in the evening of every Lord s day, and spending at least an hour in attending to the recitation of the catechism, and such other modes of oral instruction in divine things, as the capacity and character of each may require. Let the head of the family, whether male or female, as the case may be, take this opportunity of speaking seriously to each of the young persons present, and administering an affectionate but solemn rebuke, for any disorderly conduct on that day, or the preceding week, closing with exhortation arid a comprehensive prayer. And that this do mestic service may not interfere with attendance on public services which, in some churches, are statedly held on that evening ; in such churches, let tfye hour devoted to this family interview be the one immediately preceding the evening meal. In all cases in which the catechism is recited, let one or two proof texts be carefully quoted and committed to memory, for the support of each answer ; and let the children be always reminded that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and that the catechism owes all its authority and value to the fact, that it contains the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. VIII. It is recommended, that pastors and church sessions be diligently attentive to the catechizing and religious instruction of all the children and young people under their care, through the whole course of their childhood and youth. No recitation of the catechism in any other school or place ought to supersede this. However constantly and faithfully it may be attended to by the parents, or by Sabbath-school teachers ; still the pastor and and the elders ought to deem it a privilege as well as a duty, to convene the children of the church, and to endeavour to establish that acquaintance with them, and that influence over them, which will be likely to result in rich advantages to both. Even if a wise and faithful pastor were certain that the religious instruction of the children committed to his care would be adequately discharged without his aid ; still he ought, as we have seen, for his own sake, as well as theirs, to desire to bring his personal instruction into contact with their minds ; and thus to prepare them to love his person, and profit by his ministry ; and to prepare himself to understand, in some measure, the character and wants of each, and the best means of doing them good. Nor ought these meetings with the children of the church to be so rare as they too commonly are. Some pastors assemble their children to be catechized and addressed once or twice a year, and others, at most, once in two or three months. It is deliberately be lieved by the Committee that such infrequent meetings are of little or no real value. As a source of instruction to the children, they are of very small advantage, if of any at all ; and as a means of making the pastor personally acquainted with the children, and enabling him to judge of the temper, capacity, and disposition of each ; to adapt himself to their respective characters ; to mark the progress or retrocession of each ; and to gain the confidence and affection of all they might almost as well be omitted. These interviews ought to take place every week to be attended with as much punctuality as the public exercises of the Sabbath ; and to be engaged in with pencil and memorandum-book in hand, so that the appearance and outmaking of each may be kept in mind from week to week ; and to be conducted throughout with the indefatigable diligence, patience, and affection which are adapted to reach and win the hearts of the children. In large congregations, the members of which are widely scattered, it may not be easy, or even practicable to meet all the children of the same church, in a single body, once in every week. In this case, it may be expedient to have two or three little assemblies of children convened in different parts of the congregation every week ; and once in each month, the whole of the children and young people of the congregation may be assembled in the afternoon of the Lord s day, in the church ; and there, instead of the usual afternoon service, a service intended especially for their benefit may be conducted, in the presence of their parents and others, in such a manner as to be even more instructive, solemn, and touching to all present than the ordinary service. But this matter may be conducted, where circumstances render it expedient, somewhat differently. Suppose that there are three catechizing stations in different parts of the congregation. These may be all punctually attended in the same week, and even on the same day of the week, one by the pastor, and the other two by two of the elders. On the succeeding two weeks, the pastor may change places with his elders ; so that he may, in turn, attend every class once a month, and, at the end of the month, meet and address them all in a body, as before suggested. These exercises on the catechism will be of little value, if the children be merely called upon to repeat by memory the words of the formulary. Every answer ought to be analyzed and explained in the most simple and patient manner condescending to the weakness of the youthful mind, and endeavouring to communicate truth in the most practical and affectionate form. In any and every case, it is important that the elders take a part in this work, that they may become personally acquainted with the children of the church, and also that the work may not be neglected when the pastor is unwell or absent. IX. It is recommended that one or more Bible Classes be established in every congregation. The best methods of conducting these will readily occur to every enlightened pastor, and although they are, and ought to be primarily intended and adapted for the instruction of the young, they may, and ought to include as many, of both sexes and of all ages, as can be prevailed upon to engage in the study of the Bible. X. It is recommended that all the Sabbath schools in every congregation be under the constant supervision and direction of the pastor and eldership. Sabbath schools are too often surrendered to the guidance of irresponsible persons, and sometimes to persons making no profession, and manifesting no practical sense of religion ; and whose teaching, of course, must be of a very equivocal character. And some times books are introduced from well meaning donors, and regulations formed by no means adapted to promote the spiritual interests of the children. Every thing of this kind ought to be avoided. All the teachers employed, all the books used, and all the regulations adopted ought to be such as the pastor and session approve. The pastor, as often as his engagements allow, ought to step in, if it be but for a few minutes, to the various schools, and manifest his interest in them by a word of counsel or of prayer, as the case may be ; and thus put himself in the way of knowing personally how every thing is conducted, and how every thing prospers, and thus qualify himself to preside over the whole with intelligence and fidelity. XI. It is recommended that the baptized children of the church, be assembled three or four times in each year, and be affectionately addressed and prayed with by the pastor. At these interviews it will be generally advisable to have the parents present, and also the elders, and to accompany the exercises with such tender appeals to parents, as peculiarly charged with the religious training of their offspring ; and to the elders, as being the spiritual overseers of the youth of the church, as may tend at once, to remind both of their duty, and to impress on their minds a sense of their solemn obligations. As almost every church may be supposed, of course, to have one or two social services, in the secular evenings of each week, these interviews with baptized children may be made, once in three months, to take the place of one of these meet ings, so as to avoid the undue multiplication of public services, which might prove oppressive both to the pastor and to the people of his charge. XII. It is earnestly recommended that all our Church Sessions, Presbyteries, and Synods direct particular attention to this important subject. It will be expedient for them once a year, at least, to ascertain how this great concern stands in their bounds. And if they duly appreciate its importance, it will often engage their attention. They will feel that it is impossible too early to enter on the work of forming a large and digested system of religious training, which shall, in some good degree, carry us back to the habits of our venerated fathers, on this subject, with such improvements as the advantages and facilities furnished by modern times may enable us to apply. XIII. It is recommended that the foregoing system, as far as applicable, be enjoined by the General Assembly to be adopted at all our missionary stations among the. heathen. If it be important among the regular and established churches of Christendom, it is in some respects still more vitally important in evangelizing the pagan world. It is believed that the advantages of directing special at tention to heathen youth, have never yet been either sufficiently appreciated or pursued. When the time shall come, in which, as the Scriptures declare, " nations shall be born in a day," perhaps nothing will be more likely to prepare the way for such wonders, than having previously scattered amongst youth the seeds of gospel truth. It may, perhaps, be remarked by some, on a survey of the foregoing recommendations, that they present an amount of attention, and of unceasing labour which cannot fail of pressing heavily on the mind, the heart, and strength of every pastor. This is not denied. To accomplish, from year to year, the aggre gate of what has been recommended, must indeed, make large draughts on the time, the thoughts, and the efforts of every spiritual overseer. But surely no faithful minister will complain of this. Can he wear out in any branch of labour more likely to turn to great account ? Can he devote himself to any object more worthy of his care ; more adapted to reward his work of faith and labour of love ; or more fitted to build up the Church, and promote his own acceptance and happiness, as an ambassador of Christ, than to train up a generation to serve God, when he shall have gone to his eternal reward ? THE END. REPORT TO THE SYNOD OF NEW JERSEY ON THE SUBJECT OF PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS. BY J. J. JANE WAY, D.D. ADVERTISEMENT. The Synod of New Jersey, in session at New Brunswick, October 16, 1844, passed the following resolution : " Whereas the Christian Education of the children and youth of the church lies at the foundation of her prosperity; whereas this matter has been, and continues to be, deplorably neglected in most of our churches : and whereas there is no probability that this object can be in any good degree attained, unless it be systematically and patiently pursued by the Judicatories of the Church, Therefore, Resolved, That Drs. Janeway, Davidson, Magie, and Murray, Ministers, and Messrs. John J. Bryant and James Crane, Elders, be a Committee to inquire whether any, and if any, what further measures ought to be adopted to secure the formation of a wise and efficient plan in regard to this subject, and for carrying the same into execution, and to make report at the next meeting of Synod." In pursuance of the above appointments, the following Report was presented to the Synod at their Session in 1845, was adopted, and ordered to be printed under the direction and revision of the Committee. REPORT ON PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS. THE Committee appointed by the Synod, at its last meeting, (( to inquire whether any, and, if any, what further measures ought to be adopted to secure the formation of a wise and efficient plan" for "the Christian education of the children and youth of the Church, and for carrying the same into execution;" respectfully submit the following Report. The Committee are deeply impressed with a sense of the great importance of an efficient plan for the religious education of our children and youth. They see the difficulties to be encountered in carrying any wise and adequate plan into effect ; but they are convinced, that efforts ought to be speedily made for affording to them greater advantages, than they have hitherto enjoyed, for gaining a suitable knowledge of the great doctrines and precepts of our holy religion. The General Assembly of 1839, appointed " the Rev. Samuel Miller, Archibald Alexan der, Charles Hodge, J. Addison Alexander, and James Carnahan, a committee to inquire whether any, and, if any, what measures ought to be adopted for securing to the children and young people of our Church more full advantages of Christian education, than they have hitherto enjoyed." This committee, by their chairman, Doctor Miller, made a long, able, and comprehen sive report on the subject, to the General Assembly for 1840. "By a unanimous resolution" of that Body, " it was referred to the Board of Publication with a view to its publication." By the Assembly of 1844, Messrs. J. W. Alexander, S. B. Wilson, Hoge, Young, Boardman, and Montfort, were appointed a committee to consider the expediency of establishing Presbyterian Parochial Schools, and to report on the whole subject at the next meeting of the General Assembly." On the minutes of the Assembly for this year is the following record : " The Committee on Parochial Schools appointed by the last Assembly, reported, requesting longer time, and were continued. Messrs. Hoge and Montfort tendered their resignation, and Drs. Phillips and Snodgrass were appointed on the committee in their places." Here the Committee might give a brief sketch of the plan recommended for adop tion by the Assembly of 1840; but as the committee will have occasion to notice it in a subsequent part of this report, they will now only remark, that the excellence of this plan, as will appear from reading the report, consists in this : that it contemplates giving to our youth a thorough moral and religious training, under the supervision of parents and church officers, through every stage of their education, from infancy to mature age. It is designed to form their morals and hearts, by the influence of divine truth, as well as to enlighten their understandings. Suppose the circumstances of the Presbyterian Church in this country, were such as to permit this plan to be immediately acted upon and carried into full operation, what a beneficial and wonderful change would it produce ! Our children and youth would grow up imbued with the knowledge of the doctrines and precepts of our holy religion, and sit under the preaching of the gospel prepared to hear the discourses delivered from the pulpit, with much greater advantage. They would be armed against the assaults of error, and saved from the danger of being enticed from the church of their fathers; and, by the blessing of God on such means, many of them would be savingly converted, and become her spiritual members. A larger proportion too of our youth, it might be reasonably expected, would seek the ministry of the gospel ; and, by their previous training would enter Theological Seminaries with higher qualifications, and leave them with richer furniture for their great work, and become able, learned, and devoted ministers of Jesus Christ. That objections may be urged against this plan, the Committee are well aware. To the principal ones they will endeavour to give a candid answer. It may be objected that the plan is too sectarian ; that it will interfere with the establishment of Public Schools; and that it is impracticable and visionary. 1. In reply to the first objection, we wish it to be distinctly recollected, that the Presby terian Church is, among her sister churches in this country, distinguished by the Creed and Form of Government which she has adopted, and published for the information of the world. Now, if she believes these doctrines, and form of government to be scriptural, she is unquestionably bound to endeavour to propagate the one, and to establish the other, as extensively as she may be able ; and especially to teach them to her children and youth. It is certainly the duty of a parent to instruct his children in the doctrines and form of church government, which he believes to be in accordance with the Sacred Scriptures. While he is diligently engaged in discharging this duty, he cannot be justly reproached as acting inconsistently with what he owes to others. The church sustains the relation of a parent to her members ; the duties of a parent are binding on her ; and she, while acting like a parent, is as free from blame as a parent who performs the duties he owes to his children. To bring against our church the charge of sectarianism, because she adopts measures for teaching her children the knowledge of her creed and ecclesiastical order, is idle. It is giving to a word a perverted meaning ; and, by the abuse of a word, attempting to deter her from doing an obvious duty. The Presbyterian Church, as already said, differs in her creed and form of church government, from her sister churches in this country, and in communicating instruction to her children, (no one will affirm she is bound to withhold instruction from them,) she must either teach what she believes, or teach nothing more than what all sects believe. But who has a right to prescribe the latter as her rule ? Who can free her from obligation to teach whatever God teaches in his word ? Are not the sacred Scriptures the standard of faith, and is she not bound to fashion her own faith, as well as the faith of her members, by this infallible standard ? To this divine standard she must conform ; and as she may not add to it, so she may not take from it. Had she done her duty more faith fully, and instructed her children and youth more diligently, so rich and blessed a harvest would have been reaped from the seed sown and labour bestowed, that she would regard the charge of sectarianism as idle wind. Coming from her own members, she would consider it either as a mark of ignorance, or as an indication of unsoundness in the faith and coming from others she would despise it as a senseless accusation. 2. The second objection that may be made to the plan, is, that it will interfere with the establishment of Public Schools. In replying to this objection, the Committee admit, that public schools, both in New England and in the state of New York, have been useful in diffusing knowledge through the community. Children and young persons have been taught in them the elements of learning and science, together with some moral precepts. When first established in New England, these schools were under a religious influence, and aimed at forming the heart, as well as enlightening the mind. The inculcation of religious truth was not considered by our Puritan forefathers as unsuitable to public schools. Not only was the Bible read, but the Assembly s Shorter Catechism was diligently taught in them. The multiplication of Christian sects, however, in that part of our country, has expelled from many schools that invaluable Catechism, and greatly deteriorated their beneficial influence. Many are now accommodated to the taste of Unitarians, Socinians, and Universalists. In the city of New York, the Roman Catholics have aimed at subjecting the public schools to their own control ; and to meet the wishes of this sect, every thing offensive to their taste was expunged from the schoolbooks ; not excepting historical facts, reflect ing on the conduct of papal Rome in former years. A favour that would not be granted to any other Christian denomination, was not sufficient to satisfy their unreasonable demands. The reading of the Bible in the schools was displeasing to them ; and had not the friends of that divine book interposed their influence, the teachers would have been prohibited reading its inspired pages to their young pupils. So liable to abuse are schools under the control of the state. What disgraceful disclosures in regard to the conduct of certain trustees and teachers of the schools, in a particular ward of the city of New York, have been made in the trial of Dr. Reese ! Are children, while receiving education, to be entrusted to the care of such men ! The education of her young members, belongs to the Church ; and to her they have a right to look for better schools than the state can provide ; schools in which they will be taught to know God and his Son Jesus Christ, and the way of salvation. The State cannot educate them aright; nor may the Church resign them for this purpose to the State. She cannot, consistently with her high obligations, devolve on the State a duty which was assigned to her by her glorious Head, long before these public schools were thought of. The State regards its young citizens merely as inhabitants of this world, and feels itself bound to provide only for their present welfare. It has no reference to a future world ; it makes no provision for their instruction in the way of salvation. The Church, on the other hand, regards her children as young immortals ; committed to her care, that she may train them up for the enjoyment of future happiness and glory in another world. Fidelity to her trust requires her to teach them the great doctrines and precepts of our holy religion; the character and offices, the humiliation and work, the love and grace of her Divine Saviour, Jesus Christ our Lord. To neglect this is to betray her trust. The Church has been remiss in her duty. Oh ! that she were duly impressed with her failure ! The public mind is aroused, in a measure to a sense of the importance of diffusing knowledge through the community ; but it is not impressed with a conviction of the unutterable importance of sound morals and true religion. Knowledge is not a sufficient basis for the support of our free insti tutions. They demand a broader and firmer foundation; knowledge and sound morality, and both sanctified by true religion. It is the Church s vocation to produce this conviction on the public mind. Let her awake then to her high destiny. Let her use every means she can devise for this great purpose. While labouring, by her ministers and missionaries, to publish the great doctrines, and that perfect moral code, revealed in the Scriptures, to all within her reach ; let her remember that she is bound especially to watch over her youth, and see that their minds be well imbued with divine truth, and their memories stored with the precepts of Christianity. Now, if ALL THE CHURCHES, of every denomination of Christians in these United States, were to waken up, and to establish schools for their children and youth, taught by in telligent, pious, competent teachers, under the supervision of church-officers, the salutary effects of the system would soon become very apparent. The conduct of pupils coming forth from such schools, would compare well with the conduct of pupils from public schools. The State, seeing their establishments to be, in a great measure, unnecessary, would gradually come to occupy its proper place, by affording aid to Church schools; just as it now furnishes aid to Academies and Colleges, under the supervision and control of incorporated Trustees. But as the Church has failed in her duty, or been unable, from the circumstances in which she has been placed in a new country, inhabited by various sects of religion, weakening each other s strength, to make adequate provision for the religious education of all her children ; the State has seen and felt the necessity of erecting public schools, to dispel the prevailing ignorance of the people, and thus to qualify them for the exercise of their elective franchise, and to bring to a successful result the great experiment making in this country, of a people governing themselves. But if no better than public schools be scattered over our country, designed only to enlighten the understanding, while the heart is neglected, and no efforts are made to inculcate the doctrines, and impose on the conscience the restraints of revealed religion, the grand experiment, it is to be feared, will result in a melancholy disappointment. A race of irreligious and infidel youth, such as may be expected to issue from public schools, deteriorating, more and more, with revolving years, will not be fit to sustain our free institutions. In such hands they will first be thrown by anarchy into wild confusion ; and then engulphed in one or more military despotisms. Let the Church foresee the evil, and apply the remedy. Let her multiply her religious schools. Let her indoctrinate her youth in the knowledge of the great truths and duties of our divine religion ; let her mould their hearts by the gospel, and control and stimulate their consciences by its touching and powerful motives. From such schools will come forth a race of intelligent, moral, and religious men, into whose hands the destiny of our beloved country might, under the smiles of a benignant providence, be safely entrusted. They would solve the great problem to the full satisfaction of an admiring world. Let all the churches, of every donomination in our country, engage in this great enterprise of Christian benevolence ; and then, citizens, who love her interests, as well as their country, may seek an alteration in the law. They may, with a fair prospect of success, apply for a RULE of the state, that every taxpayer, that every man, when he pays his tax for education, may signify to what denomination of Christians, it shall be applied. By such a law each tax-payer would have the satisfaction of knowing that his money went to the support, not of error and irreligion, but of TRUTH. If any should decline exercising their privilege their money would be entirely at the disposal of the State. May we not indulge the hope, that God will in mercy overrule the danger to be apprehended from the general establishment of public schools, from which religious instruction Of AN EFFICIENT KIND is excluded, to stir up his Church from her remissness, and to stimulate her to engage with great activity and zeal in establishing better schools ; in which the young shall be trained up in the knowledge of his inspired truth, and taught to fear his name, to believe in Christ for salvation, to serve their Creator, by practising every Christian duty, and adorning them selves, with humility and every other lovely grace ? Among the ascension gifts bestowed by our ascended Lord on his Church, the apostle, in his epistle to the Ephesians, (Ephesians 4:11) names " Teachers" Commentators differ in their exposition of this name ; assigning different employments to the persons designated by it. But may we not reasonably conclude, from its connexion with the word "Pastors" that they were appointed to assist pastors, by teaching young converts and the children of the Church the elementary principles of Christianity ? If this interpretation be correct, then, the establishment of Church schools is enforced by apostolic example. That it is correct, appears from a passage in the epistle to the Romans, (Romans 12:7) where the apostle says, "or ministry, let us wait on our ministry ; or he that teacheth on teaching" Here it is admitted, even by commentators who give a different meaning to the word " teachers" in the preceding text, that such an office is referred to. This office was peculiarly necessary in primitive times, to prepare catechumens and young persons to hear with greater advantage, the discourses of pastors : and it is, at all periods of the Church, necessary and useful. 3. A third objection may be urged against the plan reported to the General As sembly, that it is impracticable and misionary. Let us test this objection, and ascertain whether it is not far too sweeping in its condemnation. Indeed, by a careful examination of the plan, it will be seen, that in every particular it might be, in a short time, reduced to practice, in a large portion of our church. The first particular in the plan is, " that the Christian education of children be fre quently brought before the people in the instructions and devotional exercises of the pulpit ;" and the second, " that pastors pay particular attention, in their visits, to the children of every family." Here is nothing impracticable. One pastor may indeed do this better than another ; but every faithful minister may, by exercise, learn to reduce these recommendations to practice in some degree. Cannot almost every congregation establish " one or more Church schools, adapted to children between six and ten years of age, to be taught by intelligent, pious females, selected by the Session? 7 This is the third recommendation. Equally practicable is the fourth particular, which recommends, " that, in populous towns, infant schools be established, as far as circumstances will admit." The fifth recommendation is, " that there be established in every Presbytery ONE GRAMMAR SCHOOL, or ACADEMY, and in the larger and opulent Presbyteries more than one, adapted for training youth in more advanced branches of knowledge, and preparing such as may desire it, for an introduction into college." In regard to this it is admitted, that some of our Presbyteries are too small and feeble to sustain a grammar school ; but many have sufficient ability for the purpose ; and, in the course of a few years, the weak ones may become strong. The remarks under this particular, by the Committee who prepared and recommended the plan, are worthy of attentive consideration. The sixth recommendation must commend itself to every Christian s judgment as obligatory and wise. It is this, " that when a youth is to be sent to college, the utmost care be exercised in selecting an institution in which his moral and religious training will receive the most faithful attention." The seventh is equally wise and obligatory. It relates to the duty of parents and heads of families spending an hour of the Sabbath evening in hearing their children recite the catechism, and giving them other oral instruction suited to their capacity. This duty needs to be recalled to the minds of parents and heads of families; for it is too much neglected. Many, it is believed, have declined in this useful practice ; because their children are taught in Sabbath schools. These schools are valuable aids ; but parents should remember they are not allowed to use them as a substitute, by devolving an imperative duty of their own upon others. Many Sabbath school teachers are not even professors of religion ; and surely no pious parent should surrender his children to the teaching of such, without taking a supervision over them, and exerting parental in fluence, by adding his own instruction, both by catechising them, and giving other oral instruction. It behoves pastors to insist on this point, and to urge on parents the due and regular discharge of this important duty. Let parents imitate the wise and judicious practice of their departed ancestors, who were so exemplary in performing a duty so intimately connected with the highest welfare of their offspring. The eighth recommendation, "that pastors and church sessions be diligently at tentive to the catechising and religious in struction of all the children under their care, through the whole course of their childhood and youth," cannot be objected to as impracticable or unreasonable. If the details under this particular may seem a little startling, or as imposing an onerous duty, the committee offer such considerations as may serve to win over a mind unwilling at first to comply with them, and lead to attainments in practical duty, that, at the beginning, might be deemed unattainable. The ninth recommendation about the establishment of BIBLE CLASSES, is at once practicable and profitable to the young. The tenth, "that all the Sabbath-schools in every congregation be under the constant supervision and direction of the pastor and eldership," should never be forgotten. The original design of these schools was, to instruct the children of ungodly parents, gathered from the streets and alleys of the cities. In that stage of these useful institutions, the supervision of pastors and sessions, was not felt to be necessary. But when these schools were rilled with the children of the Church, almost to the exclusion of those for whose benefit they were originally intended, this supervision was seen to be so proper and necessary, that the influence of the General Assembly was invoked to establish it ; and that high court, deeming a recommendation to that effect required by the due government of our Church, did not hesitate to grant it. Any session that allows Sabbath-schools to act independently of their supervision and direction, fails in the due exercise of that authority with which it is invested. The eleventh recommendation is, " that the baptized children of the Church be assembled three or four times in each year, and be affectionately addressed and prayed with by the pastor." This is a service that one who has been in the. ministry for some time, will find no difficulty in performing ; and young pastors, by essaying it, will, in a few years, find themselves enabled to perform it, with increasing facility. The twelfth, and thirteenth which is the last, present nothing impracticable, as will be seen at once by any one who barely reads them. Thus it appears, that the plan reported to the General Assembly of 1840, which may, at first reading, seem repulsive, from the change of habits it contemplates producing, when carefully examined, in all its particulars, is seen to be practicable and truly desirable. The Committee would offer to this able and comprehensive plan an additional recommendation ; that in every congregation there be established one or more schools for the instruction of children, from eight to fourteen years of age, by intelligent, pious male teachers, selected by the session, to prepare the youth to enter the GRAMMAR SCHOOL, at a proper age, and to carry on others, who do not intend to go to a Grammar school, to such attainments in knowledge, as will fit them for the avocations in life in which they are to be engaged. Now, in carrying the whole plan into execution, the Committee allow, that difficulties, arising from various sources, will have to be encountered; but they see none that may not be overcome, by a due degree of care, patience, and perseverance. Look at Scotland. There such a plan has been completely realized. We are aware it may be objected, that the condition of our country is widely different from that of Scotland. Admitted. We know our territory to be vastly more extensive than that of Scotland; that our population is far more sparse, and far less homogeneous, than that of Scotland ; that the people of this country are cut up into a great variety of sects, intermingled with each other ; that many of our congregations are small and feeble, and composed, in some places, of persons of various habits ; and that prejudices exist in many minds against the adoption of such a plan. In view of all these things we are in favour of commencing operation, and hope that success will crown our exertions, sooner than in Scotland. There the General Assembly in 1560 directed the Presbyteries "to settle a church-school in every parish, with a pious, orthodox, and well qualified teacher ;" but it was not till 1642, eighty-two years after wards, that they directed "a Grammar school to be erected in every Presbytery." If our Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assembly begin to operate on the plan proposed, with zeal, and diligence, and perseverance, in less than eighty -two years, we, or our successors in the ministry, will see Church-schools established in very many Presbyterian congregations throughout the United States, and Grammar-schools in many Presbyteries in our connexion ; and our children and youth blest with advantages for acquiring knowledge, and receiving a moral and religious training, far superior to those which their fathers have enjoyed. The Committee are in favour of having carried into execution the whole plan pro posed to the Assembly of 1840; and as several parts of it are already reduced to practice, by different pastors and sessions, they would recommend, that special attention be paid to the establishment, in the congregations, of that description of schools now recommended. Such a school has been established in the Scotch Presbyterian Church, in Grand Street, New York. It is well endowed, and successfully conducted ; and has contributed much to the prosperity of that church. Similar schools have been connected with the new churches now forming in the upper parts of that city, through the liberal instrumentality of a wealthy family. And the establishment of similar schools in most, if not all the congregations under the care of this Synod, would not require a greater outlay of money, than is now required for the due education of their children. What seems particularly necessary in the commencement of this great plan of Christian education, is, the awakening of the attention of our congregations to the unutter able importance of securing to their children a moral and religious training. They are not impressed on this subject as they ought to be ; and means should be used to produce the impression. Pastors and sessions need to be aroused, and to feel more deeply than they have hitherto felt, the duty of paying greater attention to the religious education of the children and youth of their congregations. In conclusion the committee submit for adoption the following resolutions : 1. Resolved that it be recommended to all the pastors, elders, and intelligent individuals in our congregations, to purchase and care fully read the report on the subject of Christian Education made to the Assembly of 1840, and published, in conformity to their resolution, by the Board of Publication.* * No. 48 of the Society s Publications, price 25 cents. 2. Resolved, that it be recommended to all the pastors, belonging to the Synod, to preach at an early season, on the subject of a proper Christian education of children, with a view to calling up the attention of their people to this important matter, and of producing on their minds a conviction of its unutterable value. 3. Resolved, that it be recommended to the pastors and sessions to endeavour to establish, in their respective congregations, that class of schools recommended by your committee. 4. Resolved, that the Presbyteries of this Synod be directed to inquire annually what is doing in regard to the Christian education of children, by their pastors and sessions. 5. Resolved, that this Synod will institute annually an inquiry on this subject. 6. Resolved, that the Stated Clerk report to the General Assembly that this Synod have taken action on this subject. Printed by WM. S. MAHTIEN. Stereotyped by 8. DOUGLAS WYETH, No. 7 Pear St. Philadelphia. University of Toronto Library DO NOT REMOVE THE CARD FROM THIS POCKET Acme Library Card Pocket LOWE-MARTIN CO. LIMITED ======================================================================== CHAPTER 39: S. THE DUTY, THE BENEFITS, AND THE PROPER METHODS OF RELIGIOUS FASTING ======================================================================== The Duty, the Benefits, and the Proper Methods of Religious Fasting Samuel Miller "And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting." Daniel 9:3 This is the language of the prophet Daniel. He is speaking of that which occurred in Babylon, where he and his brethren were in captivity. It was a dark and distressing day. Religion was at a low ebb among the professing people of God. Even their deep adversity had not led them to repentance and reformation. And idolatry, attended with the most deplorable moral corruption, reigned among the heathen around them. Everything to the eye of sense appeared in the highest degree discouraging, not to say desperate. But this holy man trusted in God; and in the exercise of faith, saw, beyond the clouds which encircled him and his people, a ray of light which promised at once deliverance and glory. He perceived nothing, indeed, among the mass of his Jewish brethren which indicated a speedy termination of their captivity; but he "understood by books" (Daniel 9:2) ­ that is, he firmly believed, on the ground of a recorded prophecy delivered by Jeremiah ­ that the period of their liberation was drawing nigh. In this situation, what does he do? Instead of desponding, he "encourages himself in the Lord his God" (cf. 1 Samuel 30:6). And, instead of allowing himself to indulge in a spirit of presumption or indolence, on account of the certainty of the approaching deliverance, he considers himself as called to special humiliation, fasting, and prayer; to humble himself before God under a sense of the deep unworthiness of himself and his companions in captivity; and to pray with importunity that their unmerited emancipation might be at once hastened and sanctified. Such is the spirit of genuine piety. It neither despairs in adversity, nor is elated with pride at the approach of help. On the contrary, the firmer its confidence in the divine fidelity, the lower does it lie in humility and penitence, and the more powerfully does it excite to holy action, and to holy desires to be a "worker together with God" (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:1; 1 Corinthians 3:9). It was when this man of God distinctly understood that the desolations of seventy years were coming to an end, that he "set his face to seek unto the Lord God by prayer and supplications with fasting" (cf. Daniel 9:3). The captive Jews in Babylon, as a body, seem to have been in the habit, before this time, of observing certain stated days of fasting and prayer; but they were evidently observed in a formal and heartless manner; and, therefore, instead of proving a blessing, had but increased their guilt. The exercise of the servant of God, to which our text refers, was of a very different character. It was with him a season of special, earnest, elevated devotion; prompted by special feelings; consecrated to a special object; and accompanied by those special circumstances of humility which indicated a soul deeply abased before God, and fervently engaged in pleading for his blessing. I shall take occasion from the example of Daniel to consider the duty of FASTING, as a suitable and very important accompaniment of special humiliation and prayer. And in pursuance of this design, I shall request your attention to the DUTY, the BENEFITS, and the PROPER METHOD of RELIGIOUS FASTING. After which the way will be prepared for some remarks more immediately practical. The Duty of Fasting I. The DUTY of religious fasting will claim our attention in the first place. It is unnecessary to say that fasting is abstinence from food. It is not, however, every kind of abstinence that constitutes a religious fast. Some abstain from their usual aliment because, from indisposition, they loathe it; others, because they cannot obtain it; and a third class, because abstinence is enjoined by medical prescription. But the Christian, as such, refrains from choice, denying his appetite from religious principle, and with a view to spiritual benefit. Now, when it is affirmed that occasional fasting ­ in this sense, and with this view ­ is a Christian duty, it is not intended to be maintained that it is one of those stated duties which all are bound to attend upon certain fixed periods, whatever may be their situation or the aspect of Providence towards them. There is no precept in the word of God which enjoins the observance of a particular number of fast days in each year. It is to be considered as an occasional, or perhaps, more properly speaking, a special duty, which, like seasons of special prayer, ought to be regulated, as to its frequency and manner of observance, by the circumstances in which we are placed. But although the times and seasons of religious fasting are left, as they obviously must be, to the judgment and the conscience of each individual, it may be confidently affirmed that it is a DIVINE INSTITUTION; that it is a duty on which ALL CHRISTIANS ARE BOUND, at PROPER SEASONS, to attend. This, it is believed, may be firmly established by the following considerations. 1. The LIGHT OF NATURE seems to recognize this duty. Abstinence from food, either as an aid or an expression of piety, has been common in all ages and among all nations. Those who have attended to the various forms of paganism know that in all of them fasting has had a place, and in some of them a very prominent place. In entering on important undertakings, and in preparing for sacrifices of more than common solemnity, their fasts were often protracted and rigid to an almost incredible degree. Now, the question is, how came this practice to be so general, nay universal, among those, whether polished or barbarous, who enjoyed no written revelation? Was it a dictate of nature? Then our position is established. If abstinence from food is a natural expression of deep humiliation and mourning, no further argument is necessary to show that it ought to accompany seasons of special prayer and peculiar approach to God. Was it the result of tradition handing down to all generations the practice of the first parents of our race, received from him who made them, and placed them, with the knowledge of his will, under a dispensation of mercy? Then is our position still more firmly established. From one or the other of these sources the practice must have been derived; and either of them will go far towards furnishing the warrant in question. 2. The EXAMPLES of religious fasting recorded in the word of God are multiplied and very decisive in their character. Out of many which might be selected, the following are worthy of special notice. Joshua and the elders of Israel evidently kept a solemn fast when their people were defeated by the men of Ai; for they remained all day, from morning till eventide, prostrate on their faces before the ark, with dust on their heads, in exercises of the deepest humiliation and prayer (cf. Joshua 7:6). David, we are expressly told, fasted, as well as prayed, while he humbled himself under a heavy judgment of God, sent on him for his sin in the matter of Uriah (cf. 2 Samuel 12:16). Even the hardened Ahab fasted and cried for mercy when the judgments of God were denounced against him by the prophet Elijah (cf. 1 Kings 21:17). The pious and public-spirited Nehemiah, while he was yet in Babylon, set apart a season of special prayer accompanied with fasting when he heard of the desolations of the city and people of God (Nehemiah 1:4); and afterward, when he came to Jerusalem, he proclaimed a public and solemn fast, to deplore the low state of religion and to pray for pardoning and restoring mercy. Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, appointed a day of fasting and prayer throughout his kingdom when the confederated forces of Ammon and Moab came up against him (cf. 2 Chronicles 20:3). The inhabitants of Nineveh, though pagans, when the prophet of God proclaimed his approaching judgments, immediately set apart a season of special prayer and fasting, in which not only all the adult inhabitants, but also their infants, and the very beasts which served them, were required to abstain from all aliment. For it was proclaimed and published by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, "Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God" (Jonah 3:7-8). When Queen Esther felt herself and her people to be in danger from the conspiracy of Haman, she set apart a season of solemn prayer and fasting: that is, as she explains it, neither eating nor drinking for three days in succession, in which all her maidens in the palace, and all the Jews in Shushan, were united (cf. Esther 4:16). The devoted and inspired Ezra, when setting out on his important mission to Jerusalem, assembled the returning captives at the river Ahava, and there "proclaimed a fast, that they might afflict themselves before God, and seek of him a right way for themselves and their little ones, and for all their substance" (cf. Ezra 8:21). And it is remarkable that the blessing of God attended the exercise of fasting in every one of these cases. The armies of Joshua were, thenceforward, victorious. David, though deprived of the child for whose life he prayed, was forgiven his great sin. Nineveh, though exceedingly guilty, was spared. Jehoshaphat was made to triumph over his formidable enemies. Even the impenitent Ahab was favored with the delay of that dreadful judgment which had been denounced against him. Esther and her people experienced a signal deliverance. And Ezra obtained the blessing which he sought with such humble importunity. After the coming of Christ, we find the same practice continued and making a part of almost every extraordinary season of devotion. Jesus Christ himself entered on his public ministry after a long season of preparatory fasting (cf. Matthew 4:2). And although there is no doubt that his was a case of miraculous abstinence, still the general principle held forth and countenanced is the same. We find also the apostles, in almost every instance of setting apart candidates for the gospel ministry, accompanying the ordination solemnities with fasting (cf. Acts 14:23). The pious Anna the prophetess, was engaged in "serving God, day and night with fastings and prayers" (cf. Luke 2:37). When the Lord appeared to Cornelius, the "devout" centurion, and imparted the knowledge of his will to him, we are informed he was engaged in fasting and prayer (cf. Acts 10:1, Acts 10:30). And the apostle Paul speaks repeatedly of his habit of waiting on God by fastings, as well as by prayer, and other means of divine appointment (2 Corinthians 6:5; 2 Corinthians 11:27). In short, we scarcely find in all the scriptural record, either in the Old or New Testament, a single example of an extraordinary season of humiliation and prayer which is not accompanied by the abstinence of which we speak. Now, I ask, can it be supposed that a fact so frequently repeated concerning pious people ­ in so great a variety of situations, from early periods of the Bible history to its very close ­ could have occurred by mere accident or caprice? It cannot be. That which stands forth sanctioned by the example of the people of God in all ages, and by the Author of our holy religion himself, is surely no human device, but an institution of Heaven. 3. Again, we may infer that religious fasting is a divine institution from a variety of precepts and direct intimations found in various parts of scripture, especially in the New Testament. And here I shall say nothing of the fixed periodical fasts solemnly enjoined under the ceremonial economy ­ as all grant that these are superseded by the new dispensation, and that no specific days have been divinely appointed to succeed them. But it is remarkable that (even under the ceremonial economy), besides the stated fasts, occasional ones were ordered by the express command of God. Thus Jehovah proclaims to the people of Judah, by the prophet Joel, in a day of great political and moral desolation: "Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God, and cry unto the Lord" (Joel 1:14). But there are more than intimations to the same amount in the New Testament. Take, as an example of these, that remarkable passage in our Lord’s sermon on the mount. "Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest (evidently taking for granted that they must and would fast), anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly" (Matthew 6:16-18). Again, our blessed Saviour, in speaking of some of the higher attainments in Christian character and power, says, "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting" (Matthew 17:21). And again, when some persons asked him, "Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast often, but thy disciples fast not?" (cf. Matthew 9:14-15). He replied, "Can the children of the bride chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and THEN SHALL THEY FAST IN THOSE DAYS." And, accordingly, as I have already hinted, we find a number of striking examples of fasting, on occasions of special prayer, after our Lord ascended to heaven, and before the close of the inspired history. And the apostle Paul, in the seventh chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, in speaking of Christians withdrawing for a time from the ordinary concerns and relations of life, gives it his sanction ­ and assigns as a reason for it ­ "that they may give themselves to prayer and fasting" (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:5). But the duty of religious fasting will be still further illustrated and confirmed when we consider, II. In the second place, the BENEFITS which may be expected to result from the proper per formance of this duty. The Benefits of Fasting And in reference to this point, it behooves us to be ever upon our guard against the dictates of a vain superstition. For, as the practice of fasting for religious purposes has probably been in the world ever since the fall of man ­ and we have every reason to suppose was thus early received from the Author of our being ­ so this practice began very early, like every other divine appointment, to be perverted and abused. The heathen evidently considered it as highly meritorious, and as purchasing for them the favor of the deities whom they vainly worshipped. And some of the ancient heretics, supposing that there was, as they expressed it, a certain "malignity in matter" ­ and that the less they had to do, in any shape, with material objects, the better ­ taught their followers to consider abstinence, as far as possible, from all aliment, and especially from animal food, as in itself the highest merit in the sight of God, and as one of the most important and essential of all duties. Hence they imagined that the more any one mortified, enfeebled, and emancipated his body (without destroying life), the nearer he approached to moral perfection. But not only did the early heretics fall into the grossest superstition on this subject, the great body of professing Christians, very soon after the apostles’ days, began to pervert the practice of fasting to superstitious purposes. Christians, in fact, began very early to be corrupted to Gnostic dreams and pagan habits. As early as the close of the second century, they seem to have commenced the practice of observing Wednesday and Friday of every week as days of fasting. Not long after, we find them observing one great annual fast to commemorate the death of the blessed Saviour. This fast was kept, after its commencement, for different periods of time, by different persons ­ plainly showing, as indeed many of them confessed, that it had no divine appointment for its origin, but was a mere uncommanded invention of man. Some kept it for one day; but the more common practice was to keep it precisely forty hours, because they supposed it was just about forty hours from the time of our Lord’s death until he rose from the dead. And hence it was called, in ancient calendars, the quadragesimal fast, or the fast of forty. This time, however, as early as the sixth century after Christ, was extended by human superstition to forty days instead of forty hours; and the reason assigned for this change was that the Saviour himself fasted forty days and forty nights. Of this annual fast, as well as of all the Fridays in the year, the Romish church has long been in the habit of making a most superstitious use. The more serious and devout among them make themselves, without any divine warrant, the perfect slaves of this observance, and consider eating meat in Lent, or on Friday, as a mortal sin. Still more servile, if possible, is the rigor of Mohammedan fasting. The votaries of that imposture consider periodical abstinence from food as forming a large part of the duty of an exemplary Mussulman, and perhaps, next to the pilgrimage to Mecca, as the most important part of the price of heaven. And, in conformity with this delusion, the whole of their month Ramadan, the ninth in their year, is a great fast, during which the law of their religion is that no one shall eat or drink, or suffer the least particle of aliment to pass his lips, from the commencement to the termination of light on each day. Now, all this is weakly and criminally superstitious. For "meat," as the inspired apostle expressly tells us, "commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse" (1 Corinthians 8:8). And, therefore, in estimating the benefits of religious fasting, we ascribe to it no mystical charm, no sanctifying power. We have no idea that there is any merit in macerating and enfeebling the body; nor can we regard with any other sentiment than that of abhorrence, the doctrine that abstaining from particular kinds of food ever did or can make expiation for sin, or serve, in any form, as the price of our acceptance with God. But we consider religious fasting, when properly conducted, as attended with the following benefits: 1. It is a natural and significant expression of our penitence for sin. We may say, perhaps, the primary design, the most obvious and immediate object of fasting, is tomortify and afflict the body, as a token of our penitence before God; as an acknowledgment of our entire dependence upon him for all our comforts, and also of our utter unworthiness of them as sinners. For as few things more effectually destroy the inclination for food than great distress of mind, so there seems to be no more suitable emblem of real mourning for sin than voluntarily refraining from food. Fasting is also a proper expression of penitence, inasmuch as it carries with it an implied confession that all our comforts, even to a morsel of bread, are forfeited by sin; and that we might justly be deprived of them all, if a holy God "should deal with us after our sins, or reward us according to our iniquities" (cf. Psalms 103:10). To which may be added, that the inconvenience to which abstinence from food gives rise is well adapted to make us feel how entirely dependent we are on the bounty of Providence, not only for our enjoyment, but also for our very existence from day to day. 2. Another very important benefit of religious fasting is that by denying the animal appetite we "keep under the body, and bring it into subjection" (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:27). The tendency of the flesh, in our fallen nature, to gain the mastery over our better part is that great standing evidence of our depravity which the word of God everywhere recognizes, and which all history and daily observation, with melancholy uniformity, establish. This unhallowed dominion is first broken when the "reign of grace" (cf. Romans 5:21) commences in the heart. But still the carnal principle, "the flesh" as the scriptures call it, has too much influence even in the most pious; and to mortify and subdue it is the great object of the spiritual warfare, from its commencement to the last moment of the conflict. When, therefore, the professing Christian indulges the flesh, and pampers appetite over a plentiful table from day to day, he nourishes this unfriendly principle, gives it strength, and, of course, increases its power over his better part. It is undoubtedly found by universal experience, that when the body is constantly gratified by fullness of aliment, it is more heavy, more sensual, and imparts to the mind a more fleshly and lethargic character, than when the appetite has been wisely denied. Hence it will always be found that habitual luxury, in direct proportion to the degree in which it is indulged, is unfavorable to deep spirituality. Probably they were never found united in any individual since the world began. On this principle is founded the importance of that self-denial which our blessed Saviour requires as a distinguishing characteristic of his disciples. Upon this principle rests that great gospel maxim delivered by the apostle: "They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts" (Galatians 5:24). Now, one of the most obvious means of effecting this purpose is to deny the appetite for food. This tends emphatically to "keep under the body" (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:27), to restrain animal desire, to counteract sensuality, and to promote a holy superiority to all those "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul" (1 Peter 2:11). Accordingly, it may be asserted, that in all ages, those Christians who have been most distinguished for "mortifying the deeds of the body," bringing it "into subjection" (1 Corinthians 9:27), and "setting their affections upon things above" (cf. Colossians 3:2) have been no less remarkable for the frequency and seriousness of their seasons of religious fasting. 3. A third benefit to be derived from fasting, when properly conducted, is that it renders the mind more active clear, and vigorous. The connection between mind and body, however mysterious, is yet manifest and familiar. And there is, perhaps, no fact in the whole history of this connection which experience more uniformly attests than that repletion is unfriendly to the highest and most successful mental operations. The seeming exceptions to this law of our nature are so few, and of such a character, as rather to confirm than contradict it. He, therefore, who desires to attain the highest efforts and the best products of his intellectual faculties must often abstain, either in whole or in part, from his usual amount of bodily aliment, even though that amount be habitually moderate. Fasting, then, is, beyond all controversy, one of the best preparatives for high intellectual effort. It imparts a degree of acuteness to the understanding, of vigor to the imagination, and of activity and promptness to the memory, which are not experienced in other circumstances. Hence, it is well known, that some of the pagan philosophers, when about to meet their adversaries in public debate, were in the habit of entering on the conflict fasting, that their intellectual powers might be more awake, acute, and active. Did they cheerfully submit to this privation for the purpose of preparing their minds for meeting with advantage a fellow worm? And shall Christians refuse to submit to the same privation, for preparing them to wait upon God with alacrity, and with holy elevation of sentiment and affection? If any man is desirous of preparing his mind for the highest acts of devotion; for the most complete withdrawal, for a time from the world; for being lifted above the vanities and sensualities of life; for collecting and fastening his whole soul on God and heavenly things ­ among other means of attaining his hallowed object ­ let him not omit to accompany them with real fasting. He who neglects this precious auxiliary to devotion (for so it assuredly deserves to be called) has not well considered either the structure of his own frame or the spirit of the word of God. 4. A further advantage accruing from well conducted religious fasting is that it ministers essentially to the bodily health. Few things are more severely trying and ultimately undermining to the human body than habitual repletions. A statesman and philosopher of our own country ­ distinguished at once for his talents, his practical character, his vigorous health, and his long life ­ was accustomed to observe a fast (either total or partial) one day in every week, assigning as the reason of it no religious motive, but that he wished "to give nature a holiday." And he had no doubt of its solid benefit to his bodily health. The practice, I am persuaded, was founded in the clearest and soundest principles of physiology. Truly our nature needs such a "holiday" much oftener than we are willing to yield it. The most enlightened physicians have given it as their opinion that thousands accounted temperate, and really so in the popular sense of the term, are bringing themselves to premature graves for want of such frequent respite from the burden of aliment as an occasional day of fasting would furnish. It is plain, then, that any sacred religious habit which secures such a respite ­ which tends, in the course of each month and week, to preserve us from the effects of habitual indulgence and repletion ­ cannot fail of contributing to the preservation and vigor of our bodily health, as well as preparing our minds for prompt and active application to the most important of all objects. 5. There is one more advantage of frequent religious fasting by no means to be despised. I mean making it systematically subservient to the purposes of charity. Some pious persons ­ whose pecuniary circumstances were narrow, but whose love to God and their fellow-men was uncommonly fervent ­ have practiced fasting, in part at least, upon this plan. They have constantly omitted one meal in a week, and sometimes more, that they might be able to give to those who were still poorer than themselves, what the meal or meals in question would have cost them. I have no doubt that this will strike some worldly-minded sensual professors of religion as extreme, and as almost a ridiculous, if not contemptible, effort of benevolence. But I will say, in the language of a narrator of such a case, "Such charity, instead of being contemptible, shows a strength of principle and a greatness of soul beyond the ordinary standard; and a self-denial so applied, adds magnanimity to benevolence." And I will venture to say, further, that if every professing Christian in the United States would consent to omit as many meals in each year as upon every principle he ought, and would honestly throw the value of them, annually, into the Lord’s treasury ­ for sending the gospel to the benighted heathen, and to the destitute everywhere ­ not only would his bodily health be better, his life probably longer and happier, and his soul more richly fed and edified; but were nothing else cast into that treasury, there would be pecuniary means sufficient for sustaining all the Bible and missionary operations that American zeal and instrumentality could carry on for the benefit of every part of the world. Let me entreat you, then, my friends, to lay these considerations seriously to heart. A duty so manifestly founded on the divine will, and attended with so many important benefits, cannot be disregarded without both sin and loss. Remember that it involves interests concerning which you are not at liberty to "confer with flesh and blood" (Galatians 1:16). And remember, too, that in this whole concern, you have to do with him who "weigheth the spirits" (Proverbs 16:2) ­ who cannot be deceived and "will not be mocked" (cf. Galatians 6:7). The Proper Method of Fasting III. Consider, in the third place, that METHOD OF OBSERVING A RELIGIOUS FAST which will render it truly profitable. And I begin this head by remarking, that the frequency with which every individual Christian ought to fast, and the extent to which he ought to carry his abstinence on each occasion, are questions concerning which no definite rule can be laid down. The word of God prescribes no precise law as to either of these points. The whole subject is left, as the subject of alms-giving is left, to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. No one can open the Bible without perceiving that we are bound to give alms to those who need them; that "we have the poor always with us, that whenever we will we may do them good" (cf. Mark 14:7) But how often, and how much we are bound to give is nowhere said. Yet I have no doubt that in the great duty of fasting, as well as of alms-giving, where the heart is right with God, and where there is a sincere and humble desire to walk in that course which is adapted to promote our best interest, there will be no material mistake with regard to the path of duty. That degree of abstinence which is salutary and not uncomfortable to one, would be deeply injurious as well as painful to another. The great END of the duty is to be regarded. God "will have mercy, and not sacrifice" (Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7; cf. Hosea 6:6). Fasting, like the sabbath, was made for man, and not man for fasting. No one, therefore, ought to carry abstinence to such an extreme as to impair or endanger his bodily health ­ of which there have been undoubtedly, some mournful examples, both in ancient and modern times. We have no more right to injure our bodies than we have to enfeeble our minds. Yet this, it must be acknowledged, is by no means the extreme to which the masses of professing Christians, at the present day, are inclined. On the contrary, it is manifest that the tendency in general is to deficiency rather than excess in this important duty. For one who injures himself by excessive frequency or protraction of his seasons of abstinence, thousands, it is probable, either wholly neglect this self-denying duty, or perform it in a most superficial and inadequate manner. The abstinence in religious fasting may either be total or partial. When it is continued for a single day only, it ought in many cases to be total; and, with most persons, may be so, not only without injury, but with profit. Of this every one must conscientiously judge for himself. But when the fast is continued through several successive days ­ as it sometimes ought to be in a great physical or moral crisis of life ­ then it is obvious the abstinence should be only partial; that is, aliment ought to be sparingly taken, not to gratify appetite, but merely to sustain nature. The prophet Daniel, in a period of protracted pious humiliation, tells us that he "ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine into his mouth" (cf. Daniel 10:3). Nor let any one imagine that it is not his duty to fast, because the abstinence of a single day, and even from a single meal, in some degree incommodes his feelings. This is no valid objection to the duty. In fact, as you have heard, one great design of the privation is to "afflict the soul" (cf. Isaiah 58:3, Isaiah 58:5), to humble us under a sense of our weakness and dependence, and to remind us, by a feeling of want, of the purpose for which we submit to the privation. If no such feeling were induced, an important purpose of the exercise would be defeated. Thousands were fully persuaded a few years ago, that total abstinence from that fell destroyer, ardent spirit, would weaken their bodies and injure their health. But no man ever honestly made the experiment without finding that his fears had all been delusive. No less delusive, be assured, is the plea that you cannot comply, in an enlightened manner, with the Christian duty of fasting without injury either physical or moral. To those who think otherwise, I would say, "Have you ever FAIRLY MADE THE TRIAL?" If you think you have, MAKE IT AGAIN, in the fear of God, and with humble prayer for divine direction. And imagine not that a mere feeling of emptiness, and even importunate hunger, must necessarily mark the approach of mischief. So far from this, they are feelings which you often need for your physical as well as moral benefit; and no injury will be likely to flow from them, when carried to a proper length, unless unguardedly followed by an excessive indulgence of appetite. The duty of fasting may be considered as devolving on men in all the circumstances and relations in which they are placed. Seasons of devout fasting ought, undoubtedly, to be observed by INDIVIDUALS, in private, with a special reference to their own personal sins, wants, and trials; by FAMILIES, who have often much reason as such, for special humiliation and prayer; by PARTICULAR CHURCHES, whose circumstances are frequently such as to call for seasons of peculiar mourning, penitence, and supplication; by WHOLE DENOMINATIONS OF CHRISTIANS, who have very often occasion to humble themselves before God on account of the absence of his Spirit, and the prevalence of some great evils in the midst of them; and, finally, by nations, when suffering under the righteous displeasure of God, or when sensible that, for their sins, they are exposed to his heavy judgments. Of all these we have examples in the word of God; and if the spirit of the gospel were reigning in the midst of us, we should often see examples of them all at the present day. In delineating the METHOD in which a religious fast ought to be kept, let it be observed: 1. First of all, that it will be outwardly kept in vain, unless the heart is sincerely engaged in the service. Let pagans, Mohammedans, and nominal Christians flatter themselves, as you have heard, with the dream that the mere physical observance of abstinence, independent of the state of the soul, will recommend them to God. But let us remember that the character and exercises of the inner man are everything here. Yes, my friends, in fasting, as well as praying, the engagement of the heart is the great and essential matter. There is no piety in merely abstaining from food aside from the spirit and purpose with which it is done. It is in this case as in the observance of the sabbath. A man may shut himself up from all the world on that day; or he may spend the whole of it in the house of God; and yet, if his heart is all the time going after the world, he does not sanctify the sabbath at all in the most important sense of the term. So it is with the case before us. We may keep multitudes of fast-days ­ with all the external exactness of popish, or even Mohammedan vigor ­ and yet be nothing the better for them; nay, instead of receiving benefit, may contract guilt by them all. A holy God might, and doubtless would, still say to us, as he did in substance to his professing people of old, "Is this such a fast as I have chosen?" (cf. Isaiah 58:5). "Have ye fasted to me, even to me, saith the Lord?" (cf. Zechariah 7:5). "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me" (Matthew 15:8). "Their appointed fasts are an abomination unto me; I am weary to bear them" (cf. Isaiah 1:13-14). The primary consideration, then, in keeping a religious fast, is that the whole soul be truly engaged in the work; that while we use the outward symbol of humiliation, and penitence, we labor to have our minds deeply occupied and affected with the humbling realities which we express with our lips. A heartless and hypocritical prayer, in any circumstances, is a virtual insult to him to whom it is addressed; but a HEARTLESS AND HYPOCRITICAL FAST seems to be a DOUBLE INSULT, because offered under the guise of double solemnity and humility. In searching, therefore, for the characteristics of an "acceptable fast," we must begin here. The more deeply, feelingly, and constantly the heart is engaged in the service, the more pleasing to God, and the more profitable to ourselves will it ever be found. 2. While the state of the heart is everything here, a real abstinence from aliment is also essential to the proper and acceptable performance of this duty. Such a remark as this may appear to many unnecessary; and I should certainly deem it, were there not some serious persons who adopt, and endeavor to inculcate, the strange notion that nothing more is implied in the duty in question than "fasting," as they express it, "in spirit:" meaning, by the phrase, mere moral abstinence, or "abstinence from sin." Hence, those who adopt this opinion suppose that a regular and acceptable gospel fast may be kept, while the animal appetite is fully indulged as usual, provided there be an effort made, for a season, greater than usual, to shut out evil and to maintain a spiritual and devout frame. In this sense they interpret that solemn passage in the fifty-eighth chapter of the prophecy of Isaiah, "Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness," etc. (Isaiah 58:6)? In this pointed appeal it is manifest we are to understand Jehovah not as saying that "loosing the bands of wickedness" includes everything that belongs to a religious fast; but that the true penitence and moral reformation form, as we have before intimated, its best accompaniment and its most essential fruits. I am constrained, then, to consider this notion which I am opposing as a mere evasion, and not a very plausible one, of a plain Christian duty. It is nothing less than egregious trifling with the heart-searching God, and cheating ourselves by a miserable subterfuge. We might just as well talk of giving alms "in spirit," or paying our debts "in spirit." No, my friends, real abstinence from food is, no doubt, intended in all the examples and precepts which are given us on this subject in the word of God. And we "rob him" (Malachi 3:8), and "wrong our own souls" (Proverbs 8:36), when we shrink from the literal self-denial implied in the abstinence in question. In fact, those who decline submitting to the literal privation of food of which we speak not only contravene both the letter and spirit of scripture (when describing an acceptable fast), but they entirely give up some of the most important benefits to which, as we have seen, this privation is naturally subservient. 3. It is important to the proper observance of a religious fast that we retire, during its continuance, as much as possible from the world, shut out its illusions, and endeavor to break its hold of our hearts. One grand object of observing such days at all is that we may occasionally come to a solemn pause; that we may break the spell which is so apt to bind us down to the grovelling pursuits of time and sense; and take an honest retrospect of our infirmities, failures, and sins. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that in solemnities which have such an object, we should sacredly withdraw, for a time, from all worldly cares and allurements, that we should put a firm negative upon every appetite and passion which might tend to drag us down to the dust of the earth; and try to get away from the snares and entanglements of this passing scene. With the utmost propriety, then, when a public fast is proclaimed, it is commonly recommended that all servile labor and recreation be laid aside. This is no less important to the spiritual observance of the day than as a testimony of outward respect. And quite as indispensable is it, when an individual or family resolve to fast in private, that every occupation be as far as possible suspended, which may even remotely tend to draw off the mind from an entire and unreserved devotion to the appropriate exercises of the day. 4. Days of religious fasting are to be devoted to a deep and heartfelt recollection of our sins and unfeigned repentance for them. It is true, indeed, that in all seasons of special as well as ordinary prayer, our mercies as well as our sins ought to be recollected and acknowledged. And, therefore, in celebrating a religious fast, thanksgiving is by no means inappropriate or to be forgotten. It is a matter of thankfulness to a sinner, in any situation, that he is out of hell; and, surely, the sinner who is truly penitent can never see greater reason for gratitude than when he is deeply pondering before God the number and aggravation of his sins; and remembers that to such a rebel, life and glory are offered. Still, it is evident that the primary object of a religious fast is evangelical humiliation. To attempt to keep such a fast, then, without entering deeply into the consideration of our sins, and mourning over them, is really to place out of sight the most prominent object of the observance. This is peculiarly "a day for a man to afflict his soul" (Isaiah 58:5) for all the pollutions of his nature, for all the evil he has done, and for all the abominations which are committed around him. This is a season in which it is incumbent upon us, if ever, to call to mind with cordial penitence our personal sins, our family sins, the sins of the church, and of the nation; to labor, if I may so speak, with concentrated effort, to take strong, profound, and abasing views of our heinousness in the sight of God; to meditate upon them again and again, until the heart is in some measure broken and contrite; to repent, as in dust and ashes; and to apply anew to that atoning blood, by which alone our guilt can be washed away, and to that "Holy Spirit of promise" (Ephesians 1:13), who alone can destroy the reign of corruption and "heal all our backslidings" (cf. Jeremiah 3:22). Such exercises, though humiliating, "do good as doth a medicine" (cf. Proverbs 17:22). "Blessed are they who thus mourn, for they shall be comforted" (cf. Matthew 5:4). 5. As days of religious fasting ought ever to be marked by a special recognition and a deep sense of our sins, so this recognition, if it is of the right stamp, will ever be followed by genuine reformation. That confession which is not succeeded by amendment is worse than vain. It is manifestly heartless, and, of course, adding sin to sin. Where the heart is really broken and contrite on account of transgression, that transgression will be sincerely loathed and forsaken. If, therefore, a season of humiliation and fasting leaves us as much in love with sin, and as hardened in habits of iniquity as it found us, there is abundant evidence not merely that we have failed of being profited, but that we have contracted guilt by the observance. Hence we find a holy God expressing his righteous displeasure, and denouncing his severest judgments against his professing people of old, because, while they wearied him with their fastings and prayers, they remained as obdurate and disobedient as ever. To such he declares, "When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence" (Jeremiah 14:12). 6. In keeping a religious fast, everything like ostentation, or self-righteousness, should be put far from us. The Jewish hypocrites, in the days of our Lord’s ministry, displayed much of this unseemly spirit. As they loved to "pray standing at the corners of the streets, that they might be seen of men (cf. Matthew 6:5);" so even in their private fasts (for to these the Saviour seems to have had a particular reference in reproving them), they put on "a sad countenance, and disfigured their faces, that they might appear to men to fast" (cf. Matthew 6:16). And when the Pharisee went up to the temple to pray, it was one of the grounds of his boasting, and his confidence toward God, that he "fasted twice in a week" (cf. Luke 18:12). In both these cases, our Lord denounces the spirit which they manifested as diametrically opposed to all true religion, and warns his disciples against it. And, truly, if there is any exercise in the Christian’s life from which a spirit of ostentatious display and of proud self dependence ought to be shut out with abhorrence, it is when he is prostrate before the throne of mercy, professing to mourn over his sins, and to acknowledge his ill-desert in the sight of God. Then, surely, if ever, the most unfeigned abasement of soul, the most cordial self-renunciation, the most heart-felt application to and reliance upon the righteousness of the divine Surety, as the only ground of hope, ought not only to be expressed in every word that is uttered by the lips, but to reign in every feeling, affection, and hope of the inmost soul. The only language ever becoming the redeemed sinner, and especially in such a season as this, is "God be merciful to me a sinner!" (Luke 18:13). "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world" (Galatians 6:14). 7. Once more: Christian fasting ought ever to be accompanied with more or less of sympathy and benevolence to the destitute. This point has already been alluded to, but a distinct notice of it in this connection is indispensable. The word of God lays much stress upon it as a concomitant and evidence of acceptable fasting. "Is not this the fast that I have chosen," says Jehovah by the prophet, "that thou deal thy bread to the hungry; that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?" (Isaiah 58:6-7). What occasion so appropriate to sympathize with those who are hungry from necessity, as when we submit to the privation from choice, and as an aid to prayer, in approaching him who is the common Benefactor of the rich and the poor? With many people, it is almost as much a matter of mortification and self-denial ­ that is, it requires almost as much, and, in some cases, even more of painful effort ­ to give a trifle to the poor, as it does to abstain, when hungry, from a favorite meal. It appears peculiarly proper, then, for all professing Christians, and especially those who feel this backwardness to an important duty, always to make their seasons of special prayer occasions of liberality, in some form, to the indigent. Surely there are few things more reasonable and becoming than that, while we are engaged in mourning over our sins, and confessing our unworthiness of the least of all our comforts, we should practically show mercy to others, as our heavenly Father has done to us. Then is the time to devise plans of mercy and benevolence; to cherish forgiveness of injuries; to make restitution to those whom we may have injured; to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked, and cause "the widow’s heart to sing for joy" (Job 29:13). Above all, such solemnity is an appropriate season for devising the best of all charity to the benighted, perishing heathen: FOR OPENING THE HEART IN PRAYER AND CONTRIBUTIONS, THAT THE PRECIOUS BIBLE AND THE LIVING TEACHER MAY BE SENT TO THE MILLIONS WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD THAT "FAITHFUL SAYING, AND WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION, THAT CHRIST JESUS CAME INTO THE WORLD TO SAVE SINNERS" (1 Timothy 1:15). Practical Reflections The foregoing discussion suggests a number of practical reflections, to several of which your serious attention is requested. 1. From what has been said, it is evident that the great duty of religious fasting is by far too much neglected. It is a self denying duty, having nothing in it adapted to gratify either the reign of appetite or the love of praise. It is an unfashionable duty. Even many serious professors of religion have no taste for fast-days. Indeed, they are agreeable to the natural inclination of no man. They are seldom, there is too much reason to believe, observed in private; and when recommended by public authority, either in church or state, the honest and faithful observance of them is confined, I fear, to a small part even of those who profess to take the word of God for their guide. This is deeply to be lamented. It argues a low standard of piety in the church generally. If the spirit of the apostolic days were more prevalent, if we had more of the spirit of Baxter, and Flavel, and Brainerd, and Edwards, and Payson, there would be a much more frequent recurrence than there now is to this important auxiliary of special prayer. It would be much oftener resorted to by individual Christians, and more especially by ministers, in bewailing before God the small measure of their success. We should never hear of an ORDINATION SERVICE being DISGRACED BY A SUMPTUOUS DINNER, instead of [marked by] solemn fasting. We should be told of churches in every direction availing themselves of this rational and gospel means of adding interest, and feeling, and humiliation to their seasons of special prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit. In a word, we may say of deep and spiritual piety, "This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting" (Matthew 17:21). And until the latter shall be extensively restored, we cannot rationally expect to see the former revived and prevalent. Dear brethren, we pray in words, we pray abundantly, for the universal revival of religion and the dawn of millennial glory; and, when we hear of those triumphs of the Holy Spirit’s power in various parts of our land ­ over which, we doubt not, there is "joy in heaven" (cf. Luke 15:7), as well as on earth ­ we feel as if we had ample encouragement to prayer. We have the highest encouragement. But we have no reason to expect that we shall receive these blessings, and certainly shall not be suitably prepared for their arrival, unless we are found waiting for them with that deep contrition and humiliation, as well as longing importunity of spirit, which belong to the frequent and faithful discharge of the duty now recommended. 2. We are led to reflect, by what has been said, on the reason why fast-days, even when appointed and decently observed, are productive of so little beneficial effect. The plain reason is that religious fasting, when attempted, is seldom attended upon honestly and sincerely, in the appropriate spirit of the institution. The abstinence from food, the deep and peculiar humiliation of soul which professedly accompanies it, and the solemn vows and efforts to "crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts" (cf. Galatians 5:24) which it implies, are all so distasteful to the carnal principle that they are seldom sincerely ­ much less thoroughly ­ carried into effect. The exercise is made, for the most part, a formal and superficial one; and leaves those who undertake to perform it, perhaps, more cold and unfeeling than before. So that, I fear, many of our fast-days in modern times, as was certainly the case in times of old, become the means of hardening, instead of softening the heart; and of drawing down the hotter displeasure of God upon us, instead of averting his wrath. Unless we enter cordially and in good earnest into the real design of such days, we had better never pretend to observe them. They are but solemn mockery. And, perhaps, on no occasion have we more reason than on the approach of such a season, whether private or public, to pray fervently that the Holy Spirit may enable us to sanctify it in a manner well pleasing to God, and to the furtherance of his cause in our hearts and around us. 3. Another reflection suggested by what has been said is that every part of the service enjoined upon us as Christians is a reasonable service. None of the commandments of God are grievous. For every duty that he requires of us, there is a just and adequate reason, and a reason which makes as much for our own true welfare and happiness as for the glory of him who lays the duty upon us. We see, for example, that religious fasting is not enjoined for its own sake; or because it has any inherent power to recommend us to God; or because he delights to inflict upon us the pain of privation; but because, when properly conducted, it tends to promote the benefit of both our souls and our bodies. It is favorable to our bodily health. It is friendly to the culture and strength of our intellectual faculties. It is an important means of mortifying and subduing our corrupt passions, of weaning us from sin, and of promoting our true happiness here and hereafter. Thus the wisdom as well as the goodness of God appears in all that he requires of us. If our nature were not morally diseased, we should not stand in need of so much discipline, and discipline of the corporeal as well as of the mental kind. But as our nature is deeply diseased, we must not wonder at our constant need of medicine which, though not commonly pleasant to the taste, is always salutary when properly applied. Instead of repining that we need it ­ or, needing it, that our heavenly Sovereign has placed us under a dispensation which requires us to use it ­ let us be thankful and submissive. The principles of his government are as benignant as they are holy. "Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come" (1 Timothy 4:8). 4. Finally, from the foregoing view of the subject, the reflection is obvious, that WE have no less reason for fasting and humiliation than our fathers of former ages. Let us not imagine that there was some special character either in the men or the events of ancient times which rendered the exercise in question more needful to them than to us. By no means; human nature is the same, religion is the same, and the causes of Christian mourning are the same now as they were when Joshua, David, Nehemiah, and Paul fasted and laid in the dust before the mercy-seat. What though the number of the hopefully pious be greater in our day than in theirs? What though the God of all grace has gladdened the hearts of his people in many places by "pouring out his Spirit" and "reviving his work?" (cf. Acts 2:17-18; Habakkuk 3:2). How many millions of our fellow men around us still remain in hardened rebellion! How many churches in our land, notwithstanding all the precious revivals with which it has pleased God to favor us, are to this hour as cold, as desolate, and almost lifeless (in a spiritual sense), as the tombs which surround their places of worship! How many personal, domestic, ecclesiastical and national sins press heavily upon us as a people, and cry aloud for the judgments of a righteous God! Think of the abounding atheism and various forms of infidelity, the pride, the degrading intemperance, the profanations of the sabbath, the fraud, the gross impiety, the neglect and contempt of the gospel, and all the numberless forms of enormous moral corruption ­ which even in the most favored parts of our country prevail in a deplorable degree, and in the less favored hold a melancholy and undisturbed reign. Think of these abounding sins; and think also in how small a degree multitudes even of the professing people of God seem to be awake to the great responsibilities and duties of their high vocation; and then say whether we have not reason for special humiliation and prayer? My beloved hearers, if we see no cause on account of these things for weeping and mourning and fasting before the Lord, it is because we have never had our eyes opened to see the evil of sin; never yet taken our stand among those who bear Jehovah’s "mark upon their foreheads" (cf. Ezekiel 9:4), and who "sigh and mourn for all the abominations that are done" (Revelation 22:4) in the land. Professing Christians! whatever name you bear, unless you are really found in these ranks of the faithful, how can you expect, when the angel of Jehovah’s judgment passes by (as pass by he assuredly will), that your habitations will be spared ­ or that, amid the surrounding darkness, there will be "light in your dwellings?" (cf. Exodus 10:23). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 40: S. THE GUILT, FOLLY, AND SOURCES OF SUICIDE ======================================================================== The Guilt, Folly, and Sources of Suicide Samuel Miller Samuel Miller first preached these two sermons on suicide in New York City in February 1805, and subsequently published them as a pamphlet, The Guilt, Folly and Sources of Suicide: Two Discourses (New York: T. and J. Swords, 1805). To the Young Persons Under the Author’s Pastoral Care From the moment of my consenting to publish the following discourses, I resolved to inscribe them to you. In doing this, it is my aim not to conciliate your attachment by flattery, nor by warm professions to proclaim my own fidelity as your pastor; but to gain a larger share of your attention to a subject which appears to me worthy of your most serious consideration. If it is true, as I, with others, have expressed a belief, that the young are the most apt to fall into the crime of suicide, it is obvious that these discourses, though intended to have a general application, are especially applicable to you. It is certain that in preparing them for the pulpit, and afterwards for the press, the idea that they might, in some degree, promote your welfare, was the object more particularly in my view ­ the hope which I most fondly cherished. There is little prospect of success, on the principle of human probability, in addressing those who have become inveterate in corrupt habits, or whose minds are already prepared for the last act of violence which a despairing mortal can commit. But to admonish the young; to instruct the inexperienced; to warn those who are entering on the stage of life, against the errors, the excesses, the false hopes, and the numberless delusions to which they are exposed; and to endeavor to imbue those whose character and habits are yet imperfectly formed; as they are among the most important, so they are also among the most encouraging parts of our pastoral duty. If, in these respects, the following pages should be found, even in a single instance, productive of good, I shall consider myself as richly rewarded. That you may "escape the pollutions" (cf. 2 Peter 2:20) which surround and assail you; that you may prove the comfort of your parents, the ornament of the church, and the benefactors of society; that you may be inspired with that heavenly wisdom which "hath length of days in her right hand, and in her left hand riches and honor" (cf. Proverbs 3:16); and that you may, finally, through the power and grace of the Redeemer, be prepared to live and reign with him forever; these, my dear young friends, are the cordial wishes, the unceasing prayers of Your affectionate pastor, Samuel Miller New York March 1, 1805 The Guilt, Folly, and Sources of Suicide Samuel Miller "Then said his wife unto him, ’Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Curse God, and die.’ "But he said unto her, ’Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?’ " Job 2:9-10 Job, in the days of his prosperity, was "the greatest of all the men of the east" (Job 1:3). His immense wealth placed him in a high station, and gave him an extensive and commanding influence. His disinterested and liberal charity endeared him to every friend of human happiness. His wisdom and piety excited the admiration, and rendered him the oracle, of his countrymen; and surrounded by affectionate and dutiful children, he seems to have possessed, in a large measure, every requisite for earthly enjoyment. "When the ear heard him, then it blessed him, and when the eye saw him it gave witness unto him. Because he delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon him, and he caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy" (cf. Job 29:11 - Job 29:13). "When the young men saw him they hid themselves, and the aged arose and stood up. In his presence, princes refrained from talking, and the nobles held their peace" (cf. Job 29:8-10)."He chose out their way, he sat as chief, and dwelt as a king among them" (cf. Job 29:25). How long he was permitted to enjoy this prosperity, the sacred historian has not informed us. But in the process of time it pleased the Sovereign Disposer to lay him low in adversity. He was deprived of his possessions by a variety of disastrous occurrences. His sons and his daughters, in the midst of festive enjoyment, were all cut off at a single stroke. The honors which, in his prosperity, a selfish and deceitful world had heaped upon him, were now withdrawn. And to complete his wretchedness, the venerable man himself was smitten with a tormenting and loathsome disease. Sudden and melancholy reverse! Lately rolling in princely affluence; now a beggar. In the morning greeted by a numerous and happy offspring; in the evening childless. A few hours since blessed with vigorous health; now tortured and disfigured by a disease which renders life a burden. Once followed, and even loaded with testimonies of public respect; now almost universally neglected, and "had in derision by those whose fathers he would have disdained to have set with the dogs of his flock" (cf. Job 30:1). In the day of affliction, to have an enlightened, affectionate, and pious friend, capable of soothing our pains and beguiling our sorrows; especially to have the companion of our bosom, that "friend that sticketh closer than a brother" (Proverbs 18:24), of this character, is an inestimable blessing. Many a man, by the tender endearments, and the prudent counsel, of a faithful wife, has been guarded from important mistakes, and even snatched from destruction. But the wife of this afflicted saint was of a very different character. Instead of the soother and lightener of his woes, she became his tormenter. Instead of pointing him to the proper sources of consolation, she tempted him to despair and death. How destitute at once of the softness of her sex, the affection of a companion, and the decorum, to say nothing of the purity of virtue, must that woman have been, who could approach her husband, already overwhelmed by sorrow, with such language as this," ’Dost thou still retain thine integrity?’ Wilt thou still serve a master who, in return for all thy faithfulness, has treated thee so unkindly? ’Curse God, and die’ (Job 2:9)[1] Set at defiance that power which has now done its worst. Live no longer in dependence upon him who has loaded thee with miseries. Be thine own deliverer. Take refuge in a voluntary death from a world which offers thee nothing but evil." Here appears to be a direct and explicit proposal of suicide.[2] And if ever there was a man who might either wisely or innocently have resorted to this mode of terminating his sufferings, perhaps Job was that man. The most abject poverty stared him in the face. The negligence and derision of his former acquaintances must have made him almost willing to fly forever from the sight of man. The strongest ties which bound him to the world had been broken in the loss of his property, and in the death of his children. A distressing, and apparently incurable, disease rendered all future enjoyment of life hopeless. And the only near relative which a bereaving providence had left him, was a grief instead of a comfort. Many a modern infidel would, no doubt, pronounce these circumstances an abundant justification of suicide, and would readily join this woman in her wicked proposal, "Curse God, and die" (Job 2:9). But Job "feared God, and eschewed evil" (Job 1:1). He had the magnanimity of a man, and the fortitude of a believer. He, therefore, firmly and indignantly replied, "Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10). It is my design, from this passage, to offer some remarks on the crime of suicide: a crime of the deepest die; a crime which has become alarmingly frequent in our land, and in our city;[3] a crime, therefore, against which it becomes those who would "declare the whole counsel of God" (cf. Acts 20:27) to bear public and solemn testimony. By suicide is meant not merely self-murder by immediate violence, but also the destruction of our own life by wanton exposure to violence from others, or by any indirect means. The duellist is guilty of this crime. He who commits a felony with the express view of being put to death, by the hand of public justice, is also guilty of it; and, in general, everyone who, voluntarily and without necessity, places himself in the way of danger. There are occasions, indeed, on which it is the duty of men to put their lives in jeopardy, and even resolutely to sacrifice them. The case of martyrdom is one instance of such duty, and the case of just and necessary war is another. But it is possible, in either of these cases, to court death foolishly and wickedly. We are bound to use all lawful means to preserve our own lives; and, therefore, he who, in any case whatever, destroys his life, or who permits it to be destroyed, when he is able, without denying the truth, or abandoning duty, to save it, is chargeable with the whole guilt belonging to the crime which we are about to consider. Perhaps some of my hearers will say, "What interest have we in the discussion of such a subject? Does the preacher suppose that we are capable of that miserable insanity, either intellectual or moral, which actuates self-murder? Let him rather direct his reasoning and his rebukes against the numerous other crimes to which we, or our children, may be in some measure exposed. But let him not take up our time in showing the evil of suicide, against which every feeling of nature presents a barrier, and of which every dictate of reason shows the egregious folly." Brethren, be not deceived! Every individual who hears me has an interest in this subject. Who can foresee the situation in which he may hereafter be placed, or the temptations by which he may hereafter be assailed? Or who can tell how soon the conduct of a near relative, or of a valued friend, may bring the subject home, with the deepest interest, to his bosom? It is probable that the most of those who have fallen into this deplorable sin were once as ready, as any of my present hearers can now be, to think and to say, "What, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?" (cf. 2 Kings 8:13). In truth, it becomes depraved creatures, with regard to every sin, to be humble and watchful; for there is no sin into which they may not fall, if forsaken by restraining grace. That we may, therefore, be armed against the hour of temptation ourselves, and that we may be able to convince and warn others, let me request you seriously to attend, while I endeavor, first, to lay before you the guilt and folly of the sin in question; and secondly, by tracing the evil to its sources, to put you on your guard against such principles and habits as may lead to danger. The Guilt and Folly of Suicide I. My first object shall be to show that suicide is really a crime. This is the more necessary, because the contrary has been asserted. There have been some who professed to believe that, although no man has a right to take away the life of another, yet every man has a right to dispose of his own life. In opposition to these, it is my purpose to show that suicide is a sin against God, against human nature, against our fellow men, against all the dictates of enlightened reason, and against all our interests and hopes beyond the grave. Let us attend to each of these considerations in detail. 1. To destroy our own lives is A SIN AGAINST GOD. That God is the Author of our existence; that he sent us into the world; and that our time, and talents, as well as our persons, are his property, are self-evident propositions, which none but an atheist will deny. To suppose that rational and moral creatures, endowed with such capacities, and formed for such activity, could have come into existence by accident, or without any specific destination, is too unreasonable for credulity itself to admit. But if there is a God who made us, who has a right to our services, and whose providence extends to all his creatures and all their actions, then there is an end for which we were all made, a task which we are bound to accomplish, a term of service which it is our duty to fulfill; and, of course, he alone who placed us here has a right to decide when this task is done, to judge when this term of service ought to close, and, in a word, to dispose of the life and the talents which his power has bestowed. This is the representation which the scriptures everywhere give of human life. They speak of it as a term assigned, a course marked out, a race set before us. Hence, the pious Job asks, "Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? Are not his days also like the days of an hireling?" (Job 7:1). And in the spirit of the principle which this interrogation implies, he resolves, "All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come" (Job 14:14). The same lesson is taught by the apostle Paul, when he exhorts, "Let us run with patience the race that is set before us" (Hebrews 12:1); when he expresses an earnest desire to "finish his course with joy" (cf. Acts 20:24); and when, toward the close of life, he exclaims in holy triumph, "I have finished my course, I have kept the faith" (2 Timothy 4:4). Such is the language in which the inspired writers speak of the life of man: a language which plainly teaches us that we are not at liberty to dispose of our own lives,[4] or to determine the period of our continuance in the world; but that we are to be patient and active as long as God is pleased to retain us in the present state, and to wait his pleasure for the period of our dismission. To take into our own hands the decision of this question; to abandon, without leave, the station in which we are placed, is the most unequivocal rebellion against God, the most direct opposition to his providence, a presumptuous attempt to escape from his control, and an ignoble breach of fidelity to a rightful Sovereign. So consonant are these instructions of scripture with the dictates of reason, that we find even a heathen moralist expressing himself on this subject in language remarkably similar to that of the sacred volume. Socrates, after being condemned to die, decides, in the strongest terms, against the lawfulness of suicide. He declares that men are the property of God; that they are in his custody; that they have no right, by a voluntary death, to escape from the sphere of action in which he has placed them; and that those who do so are as just the objects of divine displeasure and punishment as a slave who flees from the service of his master.[5] Such are the sentiments expressed by a heathen sage in his last moments when, with death immediately before him, and surrounded by his beloved friends and pupils, he might be supposed to utter the fulness of his heart.[6] Some of the advocates of this crime have contended that, as God is a benevolent being, who delights in the happiness of his creatures, he cannot be supposed to regard with displeasure one who lays down his life when he ceases to enjoy it. But if this position is admitted, then it will follow that every man is at liberty to pursue his own happiness in whatever way he chooses; or, which is the same thing, that no act is displeasing to God, or a crime, which the agent commits with a view of promoting his own happiness: a doctrine which, if conceded, would lead to the justification of the most atrocious crimes; would destroy the firmest principles of moral obligation; and render the caprice of man, instead of divine law, the ultimate rule of action. It is impossible, then, to justify suicide upon any other principles than those of atheism; or, at least, without a total denial of the government and providence of God. And this remark will receive much confirmation when we recollect that the greater part, if not all those who have undertaken, at different periods, to be the advocates of the crime under consideration, either, were more than suspected of holding atheistical tenets, or avowed principles altogether inconsistent with any rational system of theism. To consider man as a creature independent, free from the restraints of divine authority, at liberty to dispose of his own life and talents without reference to the will of the Creator ­ what is this but practical atheism? What is this but a figment of an impious imagination, which though sometimes formed in minds professing to believe in the existence and providence of God, can only be cherished by a heart radically hostile to his character and government, and secretly desirous, if it were possible, to hurl him from his throne? 2. Suicide is A SIN AGAINST HUMAN NATURE. If there is a crime that may be called unnatural, this is emphatically that crime. It offers violence to the principle of self-preservation, which is innate and universal. It is an outrage on the dignity of those faculties with which the Author of nature has endowed us; and it is not less inconsistent with the virtues of fortitude and self-command, which so highly exalt and adorn the human character. The fear of death is one of the strongest principles that dwell in the bosom of man. But why should this principle operate not only more generally and strongly in human beings than in the other animals, but almost exclusively in the former? It is difficult to assign any other reason for this fact, than that the all-wise Creator intended it as a barrier against the crime which we are considering: a crime which the brutal tribes have neither temptation nor ability to commit; but against which man, depraved, afflicted, and covered with evil, requires to be guarded by restraints of the most powerful kind. He, then, who breaks through these restraints, who surmounts that abhorrence of self-destruction, which the Author of nature has so closely interwoven with every fiber of our constitution, is as great a monster in morals as an atheist in religion, or as the most hideous assemblage of deformities in animal nature. But suicide is not only repugnant to every genuine feeling of human nature; it also offers insult to every just principle of human dignity. I know that the advocates of suicide are, in general, the most loquacious assertors of the dignity of man. This is the idol which they profess to worship, and contending for its honors they consider as their greatest merit. But does it comport with the dignity of our nature to act the part of cowards, poltroons, and deserters? Have fortitude, patience, and self-command ceased to be virtues? Putting moral and religious obligation out of the question, is it not more honorable for a rational being to bear afflictions with firmness, to meet misfortunes with magnanimity, and to surmount difficulties with triumph, than to sink under their pressure, or to fly from the conflict? The outrage which this crime offers to the noble faculties with which the Creator has endowed us also deserves our serious consideration. If the soul of man were less important, if his faculties were less dignified, the extinction of life would be an event comparatively trivial; the violence which it does to our nature would be of smaller account. But voluntarily to destroy a life, which is connected with the exercise of such exalted powers; wantonly to cut off a moral agent, so capable of activity and usefulness; to extinguish talents so rich, various and productive; is offering a violence to human nature as degrading as it is criminal. Nor is this reasoning invalidated by contending, as some advocates of suicide have done, that to destroy this mortal life is liberating these noble faculties from a species of imprisonment, and transferring them to a more enlarged and useful sphere of action. How do they learn this? The immortality of the soul, and a future state of bliss or suffering, are fully ascertained by revelation only: a revelation which, while it unfolds to our view another world, solemnly forbids us to precipitate ourselves by suicide into its awful realities. 3. Suicide is A SIN AGAINST SOCIETY. The benevolent Creator, who placed us in this world, has bound us to our fellow men, by many strong and interesting relations. These differ in number and in kind, according to circumstances; but they exist in all cases, and under all varieties of condition. It is a dictate of nature, as well as a doctrine of revelation, that "no man liveth to himself, and no man dieth unto himself" (cf. Romans 14:7). In the civil magistrate, in the minister of the gospel, and in all who ­ by their office, their talents, or their wealth ­ hold conspicuous stations, this crime is peculiarly atrocious, because they are connected with those around them by more numerous and more important ties than other men. And when such persons, regardless of all the obligations which bind them to society, abandon the post at which they are placed, they act a part which deserves to be stigmatized as selfish, unsocial, and base. Instead of living to bless mankind, by their instruction, their example, their beneficence, and their prayers, they meanly fly from the scene of labor and usefulness; and, attentive only to their own feelings, they deliberately rob their fellow men of all the benefits which it was in their power to confer by a patient course of piety and virtue. Nor is this all. When such an one destroys his life, he not only deprives society of an important member, and withholds from it the benefits which he might have bestowed, by continuing to live; but he also inflicts a positive injury, by displaying a mischievous example, and by recommending, as far as the influence of his conduct reaches, the same practice to others. But admitting that he who meditates suicide is neither a magistrate, nor a minister of the gospel, nor bound to society by any public or peculiar ties; yet let it be remembered that the community has just claims upon all its members, from the highest to the lowest; and that to violate these claims, or to abandon the duties which they involve, is a criminal desertion, a fraud practiced upon our species, an injury, the extent of which it is impossible to calculate, but which we have reason to believe is, in most cases, serious and lasting. Nor let anyone plead that his case is peculiar, and that society can lose but little by the destruction of a single life: for if one individual, because he feels the inclination, has a right to take away his own life, then every other individual who feels a similar inclination has the same right. And if everyone were to think and act accordingly, into what a field of blood would our world be converted! What darkness and mourning would cover the face of society! What distrust, anxiety, and consternation should reign in every family, and torture every bosom! But we may go further. Besides the injury done to society in general, he who destroys his own life seldom fails to inflict the deepest wounds upon all who stand more immediately related to him in domestic and social life. Say, miserable man! [you] who are contemplating the crime of self-murder, have you no parent, the evening of whose days, by this crime, would be embittered, or whose grey hairs would be brought down with sorrow to the grave? Have you no amiable partner of thy life, who would be precipitated by this step into the deepest affliction? Have you no tender babes, who by your desertion would be left fatherless, and exposed to all the dangers of an unpitying world? Have you no brethren or sisters to share in the grief, and the disgrace of your unworthy conduct? Are there no friends who love you, who would weep over your folly and sin, and feel themselves wounded by thy fall? In short, would the execution of your wicked purpose disturb the peace of no family? torture no bosom of sensibility and kindness? defraud no creditor? plunge no friend into difficulty? rob no fellow creature of advantage or enjoyment? Ah! if the evil terminated in your own person, though still a crime, it would be comparatively small. But the consequences of such a step would probably extend beyond your conception, and last longer than your memory. Stay then, guilty man! Stay your murderous hand! Extinguish not the happiness and the hopes of a family ­ it may be, of many families! Forbear, O forbear to inflict wounds which no time can heal, and which may tempt survivors to wish that you had never been born! Let no one say that he is useless in the world; that his life is of no value, either to his relatives, or to mankind; and, therefore, that he does no injury by taking it away. If any man is really useless, it is his disgrace and his sin; and to think of justifying one crime by pleading that he has committed the previous one, is as wretched logic, as it is detestable morality. But the degree of our usefulness in society is a question concerning which, as we are not competent to judge, so we are not at liberty to decide for ourselves. The victim of depression and melancholy may sometimes think himself an unprofitable member of the community, a mere cumberer of the ground, when his services are really substantial and important. And even admitting that he is, at present, so afflicted, so infirm, so vicious, so degraded, or so unfavorably situated in any respect, as to be entirely useless, has he lost every capacity of being otherwise in time to come? Or, if this capacity is now lost, is every possibility of recovering it precluded? May not his infirmities be hereafter removed? the clouds which hang over him dissipated? his vices be repented of and abandoned? his reputation be restored? and his means of usefulness become, if not great and extensive, at least important in a moderate sphere? If these things are duly considered, it will be manifest that there is not an individual breathing who can, with propriety plead, in defense of despair and suicide, that he is useless; as there is certainly no individual, on this side of the grave, whose life either is not, or might not be, of some value to mankind. It may be demonstrated, then, that suicide is generally prompted by the most sordid and unworthy selfishness. It is a crime which sacrifices everything on the altar of individual feeling. It is a practice which reverses all the doctrines of social benevolence, and sets up as a principle of action the detestable maxim, that private caprice and private enjoyment are to be regarded as more worthy objects of pursuit than public happiness. It is a crime, therefore, of which even an atheist, on his own principles, ought to be ashamed, but which the Christian should regard with peculiar abhorrence. 4. If we examine THE MOTIVES which immediately prompt the unhappy to despair and suicide, we shall see, perhaps, still more strongly, the sin and folly of their conduct. No considerations whatever can possibly justify a step which has been shown to be a sin against God, against human nature, and against our fellow men. But if we attend to the motives which have generally led to this crime, we shall find them not only insufficient to justify it, but also manifesting a degree of weakness and infatuation altogether unworthy of the rational character. Let us go to yonder victim of impatience and despair, who wanders silent, melancholy, and alone, meditating the termination of his sorrows by the pistol, or the poisonous draught. Let us approach, and inquire why he is disgusted with life. You are embarrassed in your circumstances; you have been robbed of your property by fraud, or by disastrous occurrences; you have been precipitated from the height of affluence to the most abject poverty; "you cannot dig, to beg you are ashamed" (cf. Luke 16:3), and therefore resolve to fly from life. But before you take this dreadful and irrevocable step, pause a moment, and answer me the following questions. Is a large portion of property indispensably necessary to happiness? Have not thousands been contented and happy with as small a pittance as that which you yet possess? Nay, have not some found more real enjoyment after being thus reduced, than they found in the days of their affluence and prosperity? Was not the Saviour of the world, when he sojourned upon earth, without "a place where to lay his head?" (cf. Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:58). And has he not, by his example, made poverty and sufferings honorable? Besides, though you are now in straitened circumstances, may not a kind providence hereafter smile upon you, and reward your industry with comfort and plenty? Who can tell but that, like Job, your "latter end" (cf. Job 42:12), in this respect, "may be more blessed than your beginning?" But even supposing the worst, will you destroy a life on which so much depends, for the sake of treasures which are transient and unsatisfying; for a little glittering dust, which perishes in the using; "for so much trash as may be grasped thus?" Miserable estimate! Ignoble alternative! Live! and exhibit the sublime, the edifying spectacle of one struggling with want, and yet holding fast his integrity. If we inquire of another, we shall find that he is hurried on to despair by the prospect of disgrace. He has, perhaps, been betrayed into infamous crimes, or led, less criminally, into circumstances which, he fears, have destroyed his reputation, and he cannot think of surviving his character. But, alas! deluded man! are you so thoughtless as not to perceive that your calculation is as false as the design which you harbor is criminal? If you are now in disgrace, what advantage will you gain by hiding yourself in the grave? Certainly none. On the contrary, you will aggravate instead of diminishing the evil, because you will seal yourself up under eternal infamy, and cut off all hope of regaining public esteem. Rather live! and, by a course of worthy actions, endeavor to retrieve you character. Live! and testify by your future conduct that you are neither irreclaimable nor unprincipled. A third is, perhaps, afflicted with a tormenting, or apparently incurable disease. He prefers death to a life of torture, and therefore determines to wait for his regular dismission from suffering. To such an one I would say, "No man can certainly tell whether a disease which he thinks incurable may not afterwards be found to admit of some remedy, or at least of some alleviation. Dark and dismal as your prospect now is, you may, like Job, be again restored to health and enjoyment; or if not perfectly restored, your burden may be rendered comparatively light and tolerable. But supposing that your case is hopeless, and that your whole life is destined to be a scene of suffering: which is most becoming in a rational being, and especially in a Christian ­ to bear suffering with firmness, or to fly from it by illicit and cowardly means? What is it that raises to such an elevation the character of the martyrs and other primitive sufferers for the gospel? What is it in their conduct which men of all habits and modes of thinking admire, and which sometimes even ’extorts a trembling homage’ from the blaspheming infidel? It is that divine magnanimity which deliberately chose to suffer the most excruciating tortures, rather than to escape from them by the sacrifice of principle, or by yielding to forbidden demands." A fourth, it may be, will plead that he has the certain prospect of an ignominious death, by the hand of public justice ­ or of a still more dreadful execution, by the lingering torments of savage foes ­ and he is, therefore, justifiable in dispatching himself in a more private and easy manner. Such have been the reasonings and conduct of some renowned personages, whose conduct on other occasions was more heroic, and more worthy of the rational character. But the same reasoning which was employed in the case of painful and incurable disease applies equally to this case. No man can be absolutely certain that the death which he considers as inevitable will be realized. Divine providence has frequently interfered, in a most extraordinary manner, for the deliverance of those from whom all prospect of relief, from human sources, was cut off. But, setting this argument aside, who can tell what important ends the death which he fears is intended, by infinite wisdom, to answer both to himself and to society? Unreserved submission to the will of God is always safe; while the smallest attempt to counteract this will is always both criminal and dangerous. Had those celebrated heroes of old, who embraced a voluntary death, rather than fall into the hands of enemies, or die by public execution, consented to live, and meet the dispensation of providence with unshaken fortitude, they would have displayed a more sublime heroism; and none can tell how much they might have promoted the welfare and glory of their country. Another has been disappointed in love; and, in the first emotions of despondency, considers life as insupportable. That tender passion which binds the sexes together, and lays the foundation of domestic happiness, is despised by none but those who never felt it; is condemned by none but those who renounce the authority of God, and are enemies of human happiness. But while this passion is allowed to be most important, and, when properly regulated, most laudable, yet let us not imagine, like those who borrow their principles of morality from the stage, or from novels, that love is the main business of life, and the attainment of its wishes all that is worth living for. There are considerations which should be regarded as paramount to everything of this kind. There may be, and there doubtless is, in this respect, an idolatry, as criminal as it is unworthy of the rational character. But allowing to each case of disappointed attachment all that importance which the subject of it may require, how many considerations immediately present themselves which should induce the sufferer to lay aside despondency, and determine to live! A little time may restore peace to a mind which is now perturbed and melancholy. The object fondly sought may hereafter be attained, and abundantly reward a long and anxious pursuit. Or if this is not the case, a kind providence may have in store for the discouraged and despairing a more suitable and a more happy connection. A sixth, perhaps young in years, but old in dissipation and vice, has run the round of what he calls pleasures; and having found little happiness in this course, and supposing that life can afford nothing better, he resolves to escape from a scene in which he finds no objects that can any longer interest or gratify him. This is not infrequently the case with those wretched mortals who have sought no enjoyments but those of the sensual kind; who have cultivated no taste but for scenes of dissipation and licentiousness. But how degraded is that mind that can find no interesting employment, no gratifying pursuit in such a world as this! Where are those elevated pleasures which arise from the cultivation of our minds, from the acquisition of knowledge, from walking with chosen companions in the delightful fields of literature and science? Where are the sublime gratifications which flow from feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, instructing the ignorant, and directing the miserable wanderer "in the homeward way?" Where are the heavenly pleasures which arise from the exercise of grace and the discharge of holy duties? Can a world in which these are to be enjoyed be said to afford nothing that is worth living for? Blind and mistaken mortal! make trial of some of these pleasures; explore some of these paths to happiness, which you have hitherto neglected, and see if they be not worthy of your regard. Above all, open the volume of God, unfold the precious record of redeeming love, and there learn, by delightful experience, that the gospel provides employment and pleasure for the mind, as much superior to the low gratifications of the sensualist "as the heavens are higher than the earth" (Isaiah 55:9). Finally, a vain worshipper of human applause supposes suicide to be a distinction of bold, independent, and elevated minds, and therefore becomes his own murderer to get a name, to evince that he has firmness and courage enough to commit the crime. But we may say of suicide, what has often and justly been said of duelling: that it is, in most cases, the result of cowardice rather than real courage. A distinguished infidel, who lately died, when the dead body of his son, who had destroyed his own life, was found, exclaimed, "Poor insane coward!" and was never afterwards heard to mention the unhappy event.[7] Such, mistaken votary of fame! such is the sentiment that spontaneously arises in almost every mind in contemplating the conduct of the self-murderer! And thus will it generally be found, that what is fondly regarded as a source of honor, is in reality a monument of shame. But leaving out of sight the disgraceful nature of this conduct, let me ask him who contemplates this mode of raising himself in the estimation of his fellow man, whether there are not a thousand ways in which he may more worthily display his courage than by such a miserable act of weakness and folly? Is the exercise and the display of magnanimity your object? Go, and in the faithful discharge of Christian duties ­ in the achievements of benevolence, in ruling your own spirit, and in opposing error and vice in every form ­ you will find scope enough for the firmest courage, and the greatest elevation of soul. Go, set your face as a flint against the sneers and blasphemies of unbelief; wage inexorable war with the Hydra of corrupt fashion; contend with zeal and perseverance for the faith once delivered to the saints; submit to labor, self-denial, and ridicule for the sake of doing good; in a word, dare to stand at your post, and to be faithful in the discharge of every duty, whoever may oppose you, and whatever it may cost you. This is magnanimity worthy of men, and of Christians. This is magnanimity which will live and be remembered with honor, when "the name of the wicked shall rot" (Proverbs 10:7) ­ when that wretched vanity, which so mistakenly sought for a name, shall be buried in oblivion. Such are some of the considerations which have frequently prompted men to despair and suicide. Pride, vanity, impatience, cowardice, a criminal love of the world, a false estimate of happiness, the most unworthy and degrading selfishness: these, however decorated with plausible names, are the real motives which prompt to nine-tenths of the suicides that occur. But are they motives which an enlightened and virtuous mind can possibly vindicate? No, brethren, they are motives which reason forbids, which religion condemns, and which even a serious infidel must regard with disapprobation. 5. Once more, suicide IS SOLEMNLY FORBIDDEN BY ALL OUR INTERESTS AND HOPES BEYOND THE GRAVE. It is common to see announced, in our vehicles of public intelligence, that such an one, in a melancholy hour, "put an end to his own existence." It were well for those who live and die in rebellion against God, if death were really the termination of their existence; for hideous as is the thought of sinking into the gulf of annihilation, even this gulf would be preferable to the abyss of the damned. But, alas! wretched as this hope is, it is cherished in vain. The infidel, indeed, will tell me that death is nothing; that it is only "diverting from its ordinary channel a portion of that red fluid" which appears necessary to the vital functions; that in destroying his own life, he only alters the modification of a small portion of matter ­ only arrests the motion of an animal machine. For, let it be distinctly remembered, that there is no class of men who go so far in denying the real honors, and trampling on the noblest prerogatives of human nature, as those who are ever prating about the dignity and perfectibility of man. These are the proud teachers who would persuade us that man is a machine; that the soul is a non-entity; that eternity is a dream; and, of course, that the destruction of life is a trifle unworthy of notice.[8] But woe to the unhappy mortal who, embracing this impious delusion, lifts the murderous hand against his own life! How will he be astonished and confounded to discover that the extinction of this moral life is something infinitely more serious than had ever been told him; that it is cutting the "slender thread on which hang everlasting things;" that it is terminating the day of grace; that it is putting an end to every opportunity of repentance and reformation; that it is hurrying an immortal spirit before the tribunal of its Judge, and fixing the condition of the soul in endless misery, or in endless joy! But perhaps it will be asked, "Can we entertain no hope of the final salvation of one who destroys his own life?" This is a question which it ill becomes a blind and erring mortal to decide. It is possible that a child of God may be so far under the power of mental derangement, as to rush unbidden into the presence of his Father. I believe that instances of this kind have sometimes occurred; and, if so, concerning the salvation of such persons no doubt can be entertained. But it may be questioned, on very solid ground, whether a real Christian, in the exercise of his reason, ever became his own executioner. Let those inclined to adopt a more favorable opinion, ponder well that solemn declaration of the Spirit of God, "No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him" (1 John 3:15). How small, then, is the proportion of self-murderers for whom we can cherish the least hope beyond the grave! When men leave the world in an act of daring and deliberate rebellion against God, distrusting his providence, agitated by the worst of passions, and trampling upon all the obligations which bind them to their Creator and their fellow men, how can Charity herself avoid considering them as "strangers from the covenants of promise"(Ephesians 2:12), and weeping over them as "children of perdition!" (cf. John 17:12). This conclusion will be confirmed, if we look into the sacred history, and examine the characters of Saul, Ahithophel, and Judas, the only instances of suicide which the pen of inspiration has recorded. Do we discover in the last moments of these wretched self-destroyers anything to warrant a hope concerning their state after death? Alas! no. We find them throughout manifesting that spirit of pride and enmity to God, and that hateful compound of malice and despair, which characterize the fiend, and which torture the bosoms of the accursed in their dark abodes. With what solemn language, then, does the consideration of his future destiny address everyone who contemplates this mode of terminating earthly sorrows! Pause, O man! and recollect, before the irrevocable step is taken ­ recollect that you are to exist beyond the grave! Are you, then, prepared to die? Are you sure ­ miserable as your present state may be ­ are you sure that death will not land you in still greater misery: in that prison of eternal despair, "where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (cf. Mark 9:44 ff.), and where the heaviest calamities of this life will sink into nothing when compared with that "torment, the smoke of which ascendeth for ever and ever?" (cf. Revelation 13:11). Such are the guilt, the folly, and the doom of the self-murderer. May God of his infinite mercy preserve us all from an infatuation so deplorable, from a crime of such complicated malignity! "Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!" (Numbers 23:10). Amen. The Sources of Suicide We have seen the guilt and folly of suicide. With respect to such an evil we cannot be too fully apprized of its sources, nor be too carefully put on our guard against those sentiments and practices which may lead to the fatal temptation. Let us, therefore, proceed, in pursuance of our plan, II. To develop some of the sources of this crime, and to point out some of the principles and habits which expose to danger. There are many who believe that suicide always arises from insanity. If by this is meant, that every self-murderer is impelled by a dreadful infatuation, which renders him a proper object of pity as well as of blame, it is doubtless a just opinion. But if the meaning is, that everyone who commits this crime ought to be, of course, considered as in that state of mental derangement which is commonly denominated insanity, and which places its unhappy subject, for the time being, out of the class of moral agents, it is, I am persuaded, not only an error, but also an error of the most mischievous kind. Instances frequently occur, in which men destroy their lives with the utmost apparent coolness, with great deliberation, after long and formal reasonings on the subject, and after the most regular disposition of their worldly affairs. To pronounce such persons insane, is a departure from every principle of probability, and from all propriety of language. It will be said, perhaps, that the commission of a crime so repugnant to every feeling of nature, and to every dictate of reason, can never be supposed to take place but by a person of disordered mind. But is not the murder of a parent, a husband, a wife, or a child, also an unnatural as well as an atrocious crime? Yet, when cases of this kind occur, we generally and justly ascribe them rather to great moral depravity than to intellectual derangement. But those who ascribe suicide, in all cases, to insanity, are not merely chargeable with a speculative error. Their doctrine is calculated to do practical mischief. It tends to diminish, in the minds of those who embrace it, the moral odium which ought ever to be attached to the crime in question; and it tends, no doubt, further, to divert the attention of men from other and much more frequent sources of this crime, and to put them off their guard with respect to some of the most formidable enemies of our happiness and our lives. It shall, therefore, be my endeavor, in the sequel of this discourse, to expose some of the principal sentiments and practices which have already proved fatal to thousands, and by which thousands more are daily placed in circumstances the most perilous and threatening. 1. Suicide may be traced in many, perhaps in most cases, to FALSE PRINCIPLES IN RELIGION AND MORALS. The most powerful ties which bind men to the present state of existence, are allowed, on all hands, to be the love of life and its enjoyments, and a strong sense of moral and religious duty. But if the former is taken away, as it frequently is, by a series of afflictions, how perilous, how deplorable is the situation of him who is either destitute of the latter, or has a feeble impression of its importance! We may confidently assert that, in the large family of woe, there are thousands who, if they were not restrained by their principles, would, long since, have laid down the burden of life, and abandoned, without leave, the station in which providence has placed them. Every opinion, therefore, which is adverse to this sense of duty ­ every opinion which tends to make God less an object of fear and love, the standard of holiness less powerful, sin less odious, the soul less precious, and eternity less awful ­ must obviously weaken the barriers against suicide; because all such opinions render life, in the estimation of those who embrace them, less important, and death a less interesting and solemn event. Thus, when a man believes that there is no moral Governor of the universe; no Judge to whom he is accountable for his actions; no heaven to be sought; no hell to be avoided; will he not, of course, feel himself at liberty to dispose of his own life at pleasure? And if he is at any time weary of existence, and finds the affections which bind him to his family and friends more than counterbalanced by the pressure of suffering, what is there to prevent his taking refuge in the grave? It is true, indeed, as was formerly observed, there are strong reasons why even the atheist ought to condemn and abhor suicide; but it is equally true, that the native tendency of his principles is to cherish that cold selfishness, that proud impatience, and that gloomy despair, which have so often prompted, and which so naturally prompt men, to fly from life whenever it becomes a burden. Nor is it merely the extreme of infidelity, or total atheism, which may be considered as leading to the sin in question. To believe that the God who "judgeth the earth" is a being "altogether such an one as ourselves" (cf. Psalms 57:11; Psalms 50:21); to deny his authority over us; to regard his threatenings as empty formalities, and his mercy as mere connivance at sin: in short, to adopt any radical error concerning his character and will, the relation which we sustain to him, or the genius of the gospel ­ every mistake of this kind has a tendency, in proportion to its magnitude, to weaken the sense of moral obligation, to take away from the mind its most precious supports, and to render it the dupe of every impatient feeling, and the sport of every desperate passion. Do you demand proof of this? Inquire at what periods, and in what communities, the crime in question has been most common, and you will find that it has been precisely at those periods, and in those communities, in which impiety and profligacy were most prevalent. In the early ages of the Roman republic, we are told, that suicide was seldom committed. But when luxury, aided by the Epicurean and Stoical philosophy, had corrupted their simplicity and virtue, the Romans soon began to seek shelter in voluntary death from their misfortunes and the effects of their vices; and it was not long before this crime attained a most alarming frequency among that people. A comparison of the state of opinions and morals in different parts of modern Europe, would lead, it is believed, to a similar result. And the history of our own country, beyond all question, illustrates and confirms the position before us. At a period not very remote, when simple and industrious habits characterized even our populous cities, and when licentious principles were comparatively little known, a case of self-murder was one of the rarest occurrences. But more lately, with the increase of luxury and infidelity, we have seen this unnatural crime every day gaining ground. Do you call for evidence still more pointed and explicit? Examine those apologies and attempted justifications of their conduct which self-murderers have frequently left for the information of survivors, and you will seldom fail to perceive that either total infidelity, or some other modification of anti-Christian opinions, perverted their judgment, corrupted all their reasonings on the subject, and impelled them to the fatal deed. One professes to believe that there is no God; another denies the doctrine of his providence; a third supposes that he is "all mercy," and that a disposition to punish sin makes no part of his character; and all agree in asserting that men have a right to dispose of that life which the Creator gave, and which he alone can restore. There is probably no perpetrator of this crime, from the blind atheist, who sits in Christian light, to the deluded Gentoo [Hindu], immersed in pagan darkness,[9] who does not reconcile his mind to the wicked purpose either by the total rejection of religion, or by the adoption of erroneous and corrupt opinions. The mischief done by false principles in such cases as these, is too evident to be questioned, and too shocking to be contemplated without horror. And here I cannot help remarking more explicitly, what was transiently hinted in another place, that the mischievous influence on popular opinions produced by many dramatic representations, and by licentious novels, may probably be considered as leading to many cases of the crime before us. Perhaps some will pronounce this a far-fetched and illiberal supposition. But let me ask such objectors, whether many of these compositions do not make virtue and religion appear contemptible, and vice honorable, attractive, and triumphant? Do they not frequently put corrupt opinions into the mouth of some favorite hero, the splendor of whose character, in other respects, is made to embellish the most detestable sentiments, and the force of whose eloquence is employed to recommend the most criminal maxims? Do they not often represent the most odious crimes that mortals can commit, and suicide among the rest, as venial faults, and sometimes as no faults at all? In a word, are not many of them constructed precisely as if their leading object were to frame an apology for every passion, and to plead for the indulgence of every corrupt propensity?[10] Is it far-fetched or illiberal to say that such compositions have a tendency favorable to suicide, and that those who habitually delight in and peruse them are in the high road of danger? No, brethren, it is rather a subject of astonishment and regret that so many who bear the Christian name appear to be so little impressed with a sense of this danger, and that some even doubt its reality. Infidelity, then, or, what is little if any better, those lax principles of religion, which make God an accommodating and capricious being, his law a solemn mockery, and his gospel a minister of sin, may be considered as the fatal delusion which is not only poisoning the hearts and corrupting the morals of multitudes, but which is also daily precipitating thousands into premature graves. Where this delusion reigns, no virtue can be considered as stable, no moral tie as permanent, no life as secure. This is the blind and relentless guide who first flatters, deceives, and plunges into misery; and then, having no consolation to administer, with cold indifference prepares the instrument of death, puts it into the hand of his victim, and, with "demon smile," prompts him to the murderous purpose. Mortals! behold your danger, and fly from it! When you listen to the sneers and suggestions of the infidel, remember that you are not only listening to one who would destroy the hopes of the soul, but who may also be regarded as indirectly a conspirator against your lives. Avoid with abhorrence his principles and his artifices. Be it your study to be early instructed and fixed in those principles which will enable you to detect his fallacies, to answer his arguments, and to despise his sneers. Unless you are thus armed, there is no danger to which you may not be considered as exposed. Ah! how perilous, how pitiable is the situation of that youth who is permitted to go forth on the stage of action, without principles, without any acquaintance with the gospel, without a knowledge either of the dangers to which he is exposed, or the means of defense! What can we expect of such an one, but that, like the mariner who ventures abroad on the trackless ocean, without compass or chart, he will be deceived by every false appearance, become the sport of every tempest, and be, at length, either dashed on the rocks, or swallowed up in the merciless waves? 2. Another source to which we may trace many instances of suicide is AN EARLY AND EXCESSIVE INDULGENCE IN THE PLEASURES OF LIFE. When sensual pleasures are sought and indulged under the restrictions, and with that moderation which the law of God, as well as reason requires, they, no doubt, have their value, and are to be regarded as a substantial part of human enjoyment. When this economy of pleasure, if I may so express it, is early and diligently observed, that vigor, both of body and mind, which is so necessary to earthly happiness, will generally be retained till the close of life. But when worldly pleasures become our chief business, the grand object of pursuit, they never fail to disappoint themselves, and to defeat their own purpose. The most exquisite gratification, when frequently repeated, and especially when carried to excess, palls upon the sense; the capacity for enjoying it diminishes with each inordinate repetition; and when indulgence is carried still further, it produces disgust and loathing. Yes, my young friends, he who makes haste to enjoy life may "spread happiness into wild luxuriance," may appear, for a time, to taste the most enviable felicity; but he is over-drawing from that fund of enjoyment which should exhilarate his following years; he is "exhausting that radical vigor" which is necessary to render his cheerfulness permanent; and all that can be expected, after a little while, is languor, satiety, and weariness of life. That such an infatuated course has sometimes produced these melancholy effects, and terminated in suicide, is too well attested to admit of controversy. An eminent medical writer[11] tells us that a gentleman of polished manners, and comfortable circumstances, one day said to him, "A ride out in the morning, and a warm parlor and a pack of cards in the afternoon, is all that life affords;" and that, in a short time afterwards, to show that such a life had lost, in his estimation, all its charms, he shot himself. The annals of suicide, beyond doubt, record many cases of a similar kind. Those wretched beings who, by early excesses, as irrational as they are criminal, have exhausted all their sources of enjoyment, and lost all relish of life, not infrequently terminate their mad career by this unnatural crime.[12] The sordid objects of their idolatry ceasing to be a refuge from themselves, they sink under the burden of their own minds. How miserable, then, is the prospect, and how extreme the danger, of him who has grown up destitute of all taste for any pleasures but those of the sensual kind; who finds no happiness but in the whirl of dissipation, in the sound of the viol, in licentious company, or in the luxurious indulgence of the festive board; who has run round and round again the whole circle of enjoyments of which he is capable, and can find nothing new to interest or gratify him? No wonder that such an one should be frequently ready to say, "My soul is weary of my life" [Job 10:1]. No wonder that he should "fill up the circle of his joys long before he has completed the measure of his duration, and either wretchedly sit down for the remainder of his days, in gloomy discontent, or rashly cut them short in despair." 3. A habit of INTEMPERATE DRINKING frequently leads to weariness of life, despair, and suicide. It would be impossible, in the bounds of a common discourse, to trace and enumerate all the evils arising from this pernicious indulgence. Its destructive effects on the bodies, the minds, the estates, the reputation, and all the comforts of those who yield themselves to its power, form one of the most melancholy chapters in the history of man. But in reciting the numberless evils to which intemperance gives rise, we may unquestionably consider suicide as among the most conspicuous and dreadful. I speak not now of the tendency of this sin indirectly to destroy life; to injure the bodily health; to bring on languor, organic obstructions and derangements, the most loathsome and tormenting diseases, the vitiation of the whole system, and finally death.[13] I speak not now of those poisonous effects of the intoxicating draught, which are proclaimed by the pale looks, the emaciated forms, the trembling hands, and the tottering step of multitudes around us, who are gradually sinking into untimely graves. On this picture of human degradation and destruction I forbear, at present, to dwell; and God grant that none of those who now hear me may ever become acquainted with it by personal experience! But I speak of those instances in which habits of intemperance have so perverted and disordered the mind, so clouded every prospect, so tortured the animal feelings, or so plunged their miserable subjects into melancholy and despair, as to tempt them to take refuge from the burden of suffering in a voluntary death. Instances of this kind are by no means rare. Rare, did I say? It is probable that a large portion of the suicides which occur are directly or remotely connected with this species of intemperance. The course by which habits of intoxication conduct men to this catastrophe is direct and natural. While these habits debilitate the intellectual, and pervert the moral faculties, they inflame the passions, and add new strength to every corrupt propensity. While they weaken the power of self-command, they give a force to the appetites, and a turbulence to the feelings, which require a more than ordinary share of self-government. They derange the nervous system; give rise to a host of morbid sensations; produce languor, self-loathing, and madness;[14] and from these the transition is short and rapid to weariness of life, despair, and suicide. Every drunkard, then, may be said to be in danger of falling into this crime. In his intervals of sobriety and reflection, he may imagine that such an event is impossible. Every feeling of his nature, and every principle of his heart, may rise with indignation against it. But in those periods of degradation, when he is under the power of the destructive stimulus; when reason is dethroned; when passion, in all its brute fierceness, bears sway; when torturing sensations, self-reproaches, and gloomy prospects render life a burden, he stands on the brink of a precipice, into which no one can assure him that he may not, in an evil hour, desperately plunge. 4. Another habit, which frequently leads to the crime under consideration, is that of GAMING [gambling]. The evils arising from the vice of gaming, like those of drunkenness, are too numerous to be recounted within moderate limits, and too dreadful to be contemplated without horror. Among the many dangers attending this vice, one, and by no means the smallest, is that it is, more than almost any other, delusive and fascinating. With regard to most other crimes, their guilt is too obvious to be denied, and their odium too flagrant to be encountered without a blush. But in gaming there is a semblance of decorum and fairness which reconciles to the practice multitudes who mean to support a character for probity; a magic charm, which has frequently overcome the strongest minds; a progressive influence, which gradually steals upon its victim, until his subjection is completed, and his destruction sealed. Gaming, when it takes possession of the mind, and becomes a habit (and everyone who indulges in it at all ought to remember that he is in danger of this) is, perhaps, one of the most unrelenting and cruel tyrants that ever held in subjection a miserable slave. It dazzles but to deceive; it flatters but to trample under feet; it allures but to destroy. It tends to undermine every virtuous principle, to harden the heart, and to convert him who once abhorred duplicity and fraud, into a determined villain. The gamester is agitated by a thousand contending passions. At the cast of the die, or the turning up of a card, he is alternately the sport of hope and fear, joy and grief, confidence and despair. He is held in a suspense more painful than racks and tortures, till it is decided whether his wishes succeed; and when he finds that they succeed not, which is generally the case, he retires mortified, reproaching himself, out of humor with mankind, filled with malignant passions, or perhaps weary of life, furious, and desperate. Do you doubt the truth of this representation? Let me carry you to the gaming table, and unfold to you the scenes which are there presented. Enter that apartment, where the votaries of this work of darkness are assembled. Behold the hollow eyes, the pale complexions, the haggard looks, which mark its wretched occupants! See the suspense, the anxiety, the fear, the rage, the horror, the despair, which alternately sit upon the countenances of the miserable group! Hear the disputes, the mutual recriminations, the oaths, the imprecations, the blasphemies, which break forth on every side! See one victim of plunder after another retiring, ruined in fortune, covered with shame, stung with remorse, finding no consolation from within or without; and, unable to encounter the upbraidings of friends, the reproaches of conscience, the contempt of the world, or the tears of a ruined family, flying to the instrument of destruction to set him free from a life which he no longer considers as a blessing! [15] Is this an exaggerated picture? No, my hearers, it is a representation dictated by truth and soberness. It is a scene exhibited, in whole or in part, every day in our own city; and would to God we were not sometimes called to witness and deplore the miserable end which has been described! The same scenes are also displayed in other populous places. We are told that, in the city of Paris, where the number of suicides is greater than in any other city in the civilized world,[16] a majority of the cases which occur are those of persons who have become unfortunate and desperate at the gaming table. In every part of the globe, and in almost every class of society, this destroyer boasts of his victims. Yes, brethren, gaming is that fascinating and dishonorable vice ­ I repeat it, gaming is that fascinating and dishonorable vice ­ which is daily destroying the fortune, the probity, the peace, and the lives of thousands. It is a vice from whose haunts no one who once permits himself to enter them can be sure of escaping with safety; a vice, therefore, from which everyone who would avoid destruction should fly with trembling steps. With what painful emotions, then, must the friend of human happiness contemplate the evident progress of this vice in our city! [17] It is enough to appall the stoutest heart to look upon the scene! Our young men, the hope of the church and of the state, are growing up a race of gamblers, sporting away at once their time, their health, their principles, and their lives. Our aged men, surrendering that virtuous dignity which should adorn the hoary head, are also found in the same places of criminal resort, and giving the countenance of their example to the fashionable corruption. Nay, even some of our females, who aspire to an elevated place in society, are not ashamed to be seen spending a large portion of their time in a systematic and enthusiastic devotedness to gaming, and formally initiating their daughters into this "mystery of iniquity" (2 Thessalonians 2:7). Guilty parents! you are treasuring up misery and tears for yourselves and your offspring! Unhappy children! flee from the contagion of parental example, or you are undone! 5. Suicide is frequently produced by THE INDULGENCE OF CRIMINAL LOVE. It is unnecessary, in illustrating this assertion, to premise that wedded love is the source of rich and extensive benefits to mankind. Constituted by our all-wise Creator as the great cement of society, it sheds numberless blessings on our apostate world. It lays the foundation of domestic union, peace, and happiness. It creates the tenderest relations; gives rise to the purest affections, and binds those who partake of its comforts to life and to the community, by ties of the strongest and most interesting kind. It elevates the character of the individual, by cherishing some of the noblest virtues; and extends at once our enjoyments and our usefulness, by carrying us beyond ourselves, and multiplying our interests, our cares, and our hopes. Marriage does more to soften the heart, to cultivate social affection, to promote humanity, sympathy, and kindness, and to unite and harmonize society, than a volume would be sufficient to display. But that passion which, when held in subjection to the law of God, is productive of such benign effects, is no sooner given up to the depraved and capricious will of man, than it pours on society evils countless in number, and immeasurable in extent. However lightly the indulgence of criminal love may be regarded by the gay, the inconsiderate, and the licentious, there is scarcely any species of sin which more certainly and unavoidably gives rise to an enormous mass of depravity and misery. It corrupts the whole moral character; it pollutes the imagination; it hardens the heart; it cherishes duplicity, selfishness, falsehood, meanness, and the tyranny of appetite; it perpetuates disease; destroys the peace of families; vitiates and convulses the social system; degrades the reputation, and embarrasses the worldly circumstances of its votaries; entails infamy and misery on posterity; and brings multitudes to untimely graves. By the indulgence of criminal love, who can tell how many parental and conjugal feelings have been violated; how many fair prospects have been blasted; how many confident and endearing hopes have been withered; how many consciences have been wrecked; how many bosoms, once the seats of virtue and peace, have been converted into the residence of shame, remorse, and despair? Great Searcher of hearts! thou knowest. These mischiefs fall with peculiar weight on the tender sex. It is true, the vile seducer himself is often brought into disgrace and suffering by his sin, and sometimes sunk into the deepest infamy and woe. But this is more frequently the portion of her who criminally yields to his arts. Could we trace the history of those wretched females who become the prey of ungoverned passion, what a series of melancholy pictures would be presented to our view! We should behold some anticipating the approach of disgrace and, in the tumult of grief and despondency, destroying their own lives. We should see others passing through successive scenes of prostitution, disease, poverty, abandonment, and complicated misery, to an end more degrading, and more dreadful than language can describe. We should contemplate a third class living only to deceive and corrupt the innocent, and dragging many an unsuspecting victim into the same gulf of vice and perdition. Do you see a man, then, who gives himself up to the government of this criminal passion? He has no security that another week may not rank him with those wretched mortals who have been prompted, by remorse and self-execration, to fly from life. Do you see a female who listens to the persuasions of a seducer, who parleys with temptation, or who yields to an artful deceiver? Wonder not if she should be hurried onward, contrary to all her resolutions, in the path of sin, until the extremes of unblushing lewdness, and the horrors of self-murder close her career. 6. Men are frequently driven to weariness of life, and suicide, by HABITS OF IDLENESS. The structure of the body and the mind of man requires habitual action to maintain their vigor and comfort unimpaired. Activity is the parent of health, vivacity, and enjoyment. That uniform industry which employs all our faculties without oppressing them, spreads a benign influence over the whole man. It tends to keep the mind awake, serene, and cheerful; it confers on the animal feelings all the luxury of vigorous and healthful sensation; it guards the affections from a thousand vain and irregular wanderings; and contributes, at once, to our physical, intellectual, and moral welfare. On the other hand, idleness is the parent of many vices. It has been properly styled the rust and canker of the mind. To say nothing of the embarrassments and poverty which are its natural and general result, and which frequently produce the most melancholy effects, it gives rise to a host of more radical and alarming evils. Like a slow and deadly poison, it preys upon all the faculties of man. It enfeebles and paralyzes the understanding; it weakens the memory; it clouds and darkens the imagination; it lays open the mind to the incursions of criminal desire; it invites the inroads of temptation; it diminishes, and gradually destroys, that state of healthful and pleasurable sensation in which so much of our enjoyment consists; it brings on languid feelings, low spirits, hypochondriacal affections, and a complication of bodily and mental tortures which frequently render their subjects more miserable than the slave who labors in chains. To the idle man nothing has its true relish. His time hangs heavy on his hands. He knows not how to dispose of himself. Everything appears dull and uninteresting. The most trivial difficulties discourage him; the smallest appearance of danger alarms and disheartens him; gloom and melancholy succeed. He betakes himself to the intoxicating draught for relief; but this, instead of bringing the expected relief, eventually adds new force to every torture; and increases the weight of his miseries. Is it wonderful that, in this situation, thousands have considered existence as a curse; and that some, impatient of the load of wretchedness, have put an end to their lives? No, it is rather to be wondered that such is not more frequently the termination of their ignoble course. Let it be remembered, then, that the habitually idle are always more or less in danger of falling into the sin under consideration. The habits are precisely those which are calculated to nourish discontent, to make them the prey of every mental corrosion, and to render life a wearisome course. On the other hand, the constant employment of our time in some useful and interesting pursuit is not only one of the best guards of virtue, but also, next to religion, the surest source of happiness, the best defense of health and life. "Were I asked," says an elegant writer, "upon what circumstances the prevention of spleen and low spirits chiefly depends, I would borrow the ancient orator’s mode of enforcing the leading principles of his art, and would reply, employment, employment, employment. This is the grand panacea for weariness of life, and all the train of fancied evils which prove more insupportable than real ones."[18] 7. Another source of discontent, and of those violent passions which frequently terminate in suicide, is CHERISHING IMMODERATE DESIRES AND AIMS WITH REGARD TO THIS WORLD. An inordinate love of the world is productive of evils unnumbered and boundless. It has been justly observed, that other sins are the body and the members, but that this may be considered as the life and the soul of all irreligion. This criminal attachment, this ignoble idolatry, is at war with every duty, and is the fruitful source of almost every species of mischief. It not only alienates the affections from God and from heavenly treasures, but it pollutes the heart with sordid desires; fills the mind with discontent, anxiety, and perplexing fears; prompts all the arts of dishonorable gain; and, when loss and disappointment ensue, which in this world of sorrow may be regarded as events of course, leaves the miserable dupe of its promises to that hopeless sorrow which "worketh death" (2 Corinthians 7:10). Yes, brethren, that spirit of bold and extravagant speculation, that impatience of the progress of gain in its ordinary course, that making haste to be rich, that inordinate fondness for parade and expensive living, that disposition for rash and unwarranted adventure in trade, that criminal and contemptible affectation of those who are beginning [in] the world, to vie with the most wealthy and established ­ in a word, that insatiable thirst after the possessions and the splendors of life, which so remarkably characterize our country and our times, combined with a disregard of all the simple, steady, and prudent maxims of business, are evils over which every benevolent man sighs and mourns; evils in which it requires little discernment to see involved the ruin of many a fortune, the wreck of many a conscience, the destruction of individual and family peace, and all those miseries which so frequently plunge men into despair, and tempt them to become their own executioners. "The love of money," says an inspired apostle, "is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" (1 Timothy 6:10). For "they that will be rich, fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition" (1 Timothy 6:9). It was "the love of money" that prompted Judas to that act of complicated baseness which afterwards filled him with remorse, and impelled him to become the destroyer of his own life. It is the same sordid spirit which, in every age, causes multitudes to sink under bereavement and bankruptcy; and, when the natural reward of their avarice overtakes them, to cry out, "There is no hope" (Isaiah 57:10; Jeremiah 2:25). Mark that child of misfortune ­ how disappointments afflict him; how losses overwhelm him; how ready he is, when his circumstances look gloomy, to sink in despair! Alas! unhappy man! he has loved the world too much, or he would not be so deeply affected with the flight of its possessions. His heart has been too much bound up in early treasures, or their temporary failure would not thus agitate and depress him. Riches were his idol, or he would not be ready to say, when they are snatched from him, "Ye have taken away my gods, and what have I more?" But if immoderate desires after worldly possessions are so replete with danger, that irregular and extravagant ambition which worships fame, which is ever panting after distinction and power, is equally dangerous to human happiness and life. When this ambition fills and governs the mind of any man, misfortunes may be expected to drive him to despair, and the failure of his plans to prove insupportable. To such an one obscurity is torture, and defeat is death. He who imagines that high station, conquest and glory are the only attainments which render life desirable, is in a fair way to become the victim of disappointment and shame. It was this mistake that gave adversity so great a power over the mind of Saul, the king of Israel, and that led him, when defeat and dishonor stared him in the face, to choose death rather than life. It was because the treacherous Ahithophel was a slave to the same species of idolatry that, when he saw his influence and importance declining, he determined no longer to live. Such also was the error, and such the degrading end, of some personages distinguished in profane history, and too often regarded with blind admiration, especially by the young and unthinking. Was it heroism which prompted Cato, Brutus, Cassius, and Hannibal to become the destroyers of their own lives? No! it was the madness of ambition; it was the littleness of pride. Genuine heroism would have taught them to act more nobly. "Had Cato’s pride permitted him to yield himself to the generosity of Cæsar, his character and influence might have contributed to retard the slavery of his country, which his death tended to hasten. Had Brutus and Cassius not executed the fatal resolution which they had formed, of dying by their own hands in case of misfortune, the battle of Phillipi might have had a very different issue. Had Hannibal surrendered himself to the Romans, instead of swallowing poison, he would have gained more glory in braving their tortures, than he won in the battle of Cannæ." 8. The last source of this crime which I shall mention is THE WANT OF SINCERE AND VITAL PIETY. The danger resulting from false principles in morals and religion was before stated. This, however, is not the only danger. To entertain correct opinions is useful and important; but there are thousands who "hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18). Where the life and the power of Christianity are wanting; where its doctrines are studied only as beautiful speculations, and its consolations regarded only as pleasing theories, who can rationally look for that divine efficacy, which strengthens, consoles, and animates under the trials of life? It cannot be found. No, the mere nominal votary of religion, for aught that he possesses, may be left to live comfortless, and die in despair. A theoretical religion ­ hear it formalists! ­ a theoretical religion may enable you to converse plausibly on the subject of your faith, or to appear with credit in a circle of polemics; but what will it avail in the day of adversity and sorrow, when earthly comforts forsake you, and when the demon of despondency assails and darkens the mind? In that day, the man who has nothing more than orthodox opinions to arm him against temptation, may be expected ignobly to sink under its power. The greatest security, therefore, against the crime under consideration, is "the power of godliness" (cf. 2 Timothy 3:5) living and reigning in the heart. This holy spirit not only tends to inspire that fortitude which triumphs over the afflictions of life, and to cherish that submission which cheerfully acquiesces in the divine will; but it is also that spirit which unites those who possess it with the Saviour, constitutes them members of his body, the church, and gives them the firmest pledge that they shall be "kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation" (1 Peter 1:5). It was not "the form of godliness," but "the power thereof," that supported Job in his affliction, and enabled him to repel with abhorrence the proposal of suicide. It was not "the form of godliness," but "the power thereof" (2 Timothy 3:5), that raised the martyrs of old above the fear of man, that strengthened them to bear every torture rather than sin against God, and that enabled them to sing with joy in the midst of the flames. Closing Reflections I have thus endeavored to show the guilt and folly of suicide; and by tracing the evil of its principal sources, to point out some of those sentiments and habits which may lead to danger. It only remains that I commend what has been said to the consideration of every hearer, and especially of those whom it more immediately concerns. Parents! this subject demands your solemn attention! You see the numerous dangers to which the traveller through this vale of tears is exposed. How should your solicitude be excited, your zeal be roused, and all the tender anxieties of parental affection be called into exercise, in behalf of your offspring, who are entering on the journey of life, and about to encounter all its perils! You are the guardians of their health and lives; you form their morals; you direct their pursuits; you are the depositories of their happiness in this world, and, in a degree, in that which is to come. With what unceasing care, then, should you imbue their minds with correct principles! With what sacred fidelity should you put them on their guard against the licentious opinions of the age, against the contagion of evil company, and against the destructive habits of intemperance and sloth! With what devout tenderness should you exhort them, warn them, pray over them, and endeavor to win them, both by precept and example, to the love and fear, as well as to the knowledge of God! O parents! were these things duly considered, what a revolution should we witness in your mode of treating your children! We should see you more attentive to domestic instruction and discipline than to the frivolities of a fashionable education. We should see you embracing every opportunity to inculcate on their minds, that virtue is superior to wealth, that holiness is a distinction infinitely more valuable than the magnificence and honors of this world. We should see you, in a word, making their moral and religious culture your chief concern, and studying daily to impress upon their hearts the conviction that, to "fear God and keep his commandments, is the whole duty" and happiness "of man" (cf. Ecclesiastes 12:13). Magistrates! Jurors! there is a solemn duty incumbent on you in relation to this subject. Can you reconcile, either with your obligations as men, or with the official oath which binds you as public functionaries, the manner in which you are accustomed to treat suicide when you consider cases of this melancholy crime? Believe me, when you attempt to cover, by a verdict of lunacy, the odium which ought ever to rest upon the memory of the deliberate self-murder, or when you give countenance to such verdicts, you not only wrong your own souls, but you also inflict an injury on society. Say not that, by proclaiming the truth, you would punish not the criminal, but his innocent surviving relatives. Do you forget that this consideration forms one of the moral ties by which most men are, and all men ought to be, bound to the discharge of duty? Execute the law without favor or affection.[19] Let every member of the community be forewarned by your fidelity, that if he falls into this crime, he will inflict a serious injury on his family and friends, as well as bring ignominy on his own memory; and you will lay another restraint on human wickedness ­ a restraint which even afflicted relatives must approve ­ and perhaps save from destruction many an important life.[20] My young friends! this subject is entitled to your particular regard. It has been said, and probably with justice, that the young are more apt to fall into the crime of suicide, than those in more advanced age. This consideration should affect and alarm you, and awaken all your vigilance in guarding against every source of danger. The river of life flows troubled and foaming before you; but, inexperienced and sanguine, you cast an eye down the current, overlook its agitations, and fondly hope for a passage uninterrupted smooth and joyful. Disappointments will occur; vexations will arise; bereavements will cover you with mourning; and various forms of affliction will teach you that this world is, to every child of apostate Adam, a vale of tears. Let me exhort you, then, "to be sober minded;" and to "put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand" (Titus 2:6; cf. Ephesians 6:13). In the day of trial, religion will form your best defense, your firmest support, your richest consolation. From sincere, enlightened, and uniform piety, will flow those inward comforts and joys which are more precious than rubies; as well as that probity, that industry, that temperance, that moderation in worldly aims and pursuits, and that general holiness of life, which form the best guarantee of earthly enjoyment. With this treasure you will be safe, whatever may occur; without it, nothing can render you either safe or happy. "Seek," therefore, "first the kingdom of God and his righteousness" (Matthew 6:33). "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10). "Godliness is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come" (1 Timothy 4:8). Sons and daughters of affliction! in this discussion you have an immediate and peculiar interest. It points out to you your enemies and your defense, your danger and your refuge. To the sanctuary of religion let me cordially and affectionately invite you. Nothing human can afford you adequate relief; nothing earthly can give you effectual and permanent consolation. Friends may soothe and smile; but they cannot "pour the oil of gladness" (Psalms 45:7; Hebrews 1:9) into the troubled breast. Property may glitter and decorate; but it cannot cure the wounds of the heart. Honors may dazzle and inflate, but they cannot nourish the hungry soul; they cannot dissipate the clouds of melancholy and despair. Philosophy, falsely so-called, may flatter your pride, and allure you by her promises; but her professions are hollow, her promises are vain. The intoxicating draught may give a semblance of relief for a time; but it can only stupefy and benumb, and "at the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder" (Proverbs 23:32). The proud teachers who would persuade you to "curse God and die" (Job 2:9), cannot redeem your soul from the abyss of despair, nor give you a drop of water to cool your tongue, in the flames of interminable woe. No, "miserable comforters are they all!" (cf. Job 16:2). Take refuge, then, in the grace of the gospel. Come, children of discontent and sorrow! ye who "labor and are heavy laden," come to the Saviour, and "he will give you rest" (cf. Matthew 11:28). Embrace "the truth as it is in Jesus," and live under its sanctifying power. Then, instead of flying to the hateful instruments of death, on the approach of calamity, you will have a covenant God and Father, to whose gracious throne you may repair with boldness and affectionate confidence. Then you will possess the privilege, which is the prerogative of the Christian, to "rejoice in tribulation, knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope: and hope maketh not ashamed" (cf. Romans 5:3 - Romans 5:5). And when death arrives, whether he comes in the form of sudden violence, or wasting disease, he will be a messenger of peace, and introduce you to a kingdom where there is no more sin, "neither sorrow, nor crying, nor pain;" but where all the "former things are passed away" (cf. Revelation 21:4). "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." (Jude 1:24-25). Footnotes 1. The word here translated curse, literally signifies to bless: but it is evidently one of those cases in which, by a strong figure, the direct contrary of the literal meaning is intended. The same figure is frequently employed, in ironical conversation, to the present day. "He blessed me," or "he poured blessings upon me," is a mode of expression often used to signify the bitterest imprecations. "Sometimes this word," says the learned Taylor, "means to blaspheme, to curse; not from its natural force, but because pious persons of old accounted blasphemy so abominable, that they abhorred to express it by its proper name; and, therefore, by euphemismus, or decent manner of speaking, instead of curse God, said, bless God." Schultens observes, that to bless is sometimes the same as bid farewell; and, therefore, as ’tis usual to bid farewell to what we reject, disregard, or have done with, to bless may signify to disregard, to take no notice of." See Taylor’s Hebrew Concordance. The same word is used in 1 Kings 21:10, and also in Job 1:11, and Job 2:5; in all which passages it signifies, beyond controversy, to curse. Our translators have, therefore, with great judgment, given the precise meaning of the sacred text. 2. It has been doubted by many judicious expositors, whether this proposal was really to commit suicide. Some have rather supposed the meaning of the suggestion to be that, by a blasphemous renunciation of God, and his service, he should provoke God to take away his life. The author, though rather inclined to prefer that interpretation of the passage which he has given above, yet considers this as equally adapted to his design. It even fortifies his argument. For if Job abhorred the thought of provoking God to destroy his life, much more would he have abhorred the thought of becoming his own executioner. 3. It is believed that within the three months immediately preceding the delivery of these discourses, at least nine cases of suicide occurred in the city of New York. This number, in a city, the population of which does not exceed 70,000, must be considered as enormous and alarming. 4. It will, perhaps, be said that this reasoning, if admitted, would prove too much; for if no man has a right to dispose of his own life, and if all the legitimate authority of the civil government over individuals is founded in compact, then no government can have a right to take away life, even for the most atrocious crimes; because no individual can, by any act of his own, either express or implied, convey to a community the right which he does not himself possess. But this objection proceeds upon an erroneous principle. The right of civil government to take away life, in certain cases, arises not from compact, but from the will of God, explicitly revealed in his word. We may go even further. Man would have no right to take away the lives of inferior animals, had there not been an express grant of the Creator for this purpose. 5. Platonis Phaedon. 6. Socrates by no means stood alone among the ancient moralists, in condemning suicide. It was forbidden, on various grounds, by Pythagoras, by Aristotle, and by the laws of Thebes and Athens. 7. This is related of Dr. Erasmus Darwin, on occasion of the death of his son, of the same name, who drowned himself in the Derwent. See Miss Seward’s Life of that distinguished physician, pp. 295-97. The truth of the account has been, indeed, drawn into question by a subsequent writer; but there seems no good reason to doubt the correctness of a relation given by a friend so intimate with Dr. Darwin, and so much disposed to do honor to his memory, as Miss Seward. The anecdote, if true, is instructive. It shows that, while the philosophy of Dr. Darwin, and, probably, the principles which he instilled into the minds of his children, were directly calculated to wrest from the mind its best consolations, and, of course, to promote despair and suicide; yet that, with all his atheism, he disapproved of self-murder, and considered it as a cowardly and degrading act. 8. "The supposition that man is a moral and accountable being, destined to survive the stroke of death, and to live in a future world, in a never ending state of happiness or misery, makes him a creature of incomparably more consequence that the opposite supposition. When we consider him as placed here by an almighty Ruler, and that the present life is his period of trial, the first link in a vast and interminable chain which stretches into eternity, he assumes a dignified character in our eyes. Everything which relates to him becomes interesting; and to trifle with his happiness is felt to be the most unpardonable levity. If such be the destination of man, it is evident, that in the qualities which fit him for it, his principal dignity consists: his moral greatness is his true greatness. Let the skeptical principles be admitted which represent him, on the contrary, as the offspring of chance, connected with no superior power, and sinking into annihilation at death, and he is a contemptible creature, whose existence and happiness are insignificant. The characteristic difference is lost betwixt him and the brute creation, from which he is no longer distinguished, except by the vividness and multiplicity of his perceptions." Hall’s Sermon on Modern Infidelity, p. 43. 9. The Shaster is said to forbid suicide, under severe penalties; yet we are told that the Gentoos [Hindus], taught by the Brahmins to despise death, and to consider this mode of terminating life as honorable, frequently destroy themselves, especially when they become aged and infirm. 10. It would be easy to give many examples in support of these remarks. Even the tragedy of Cato, though the production of a decided friend to virtue and religion, has been pronounced, by the best judges, to have a tendency favorable to suicide. Indeed, some accurate observers have asserted, that the exhibition of this celebrated tragedy on the stage has seldom failed to be followed by instances of self-murder, which there was good reason to believe were connected with these exhibitions. The moral of that detestable novel, the Nouvelle Eloise, by Rousseau, is, on this subject, extremely questionable. For, though the author argues eloquently on both sides of the question, concerning the lawfulness of suicide, yet some have supposed that his arguments in favor of that crime are calculated, and were intended by him, to make a deeper impression than those offered against it. 11. See Darwin’s Zoonomia, Vol. 2, class. 3:1-2 where the reader will find remarkable instances of suicide recorded. 12. "Sir Philip Mordaunt was young, sincere, brave, an Englishman. He had a complete fortune of his own, and the love of the king his master, which was equivalent to riches. Life opened all her treasure before him, and promised a long succession of future happiness. He came; tasted of the entertainment; but was disgusted, even in the beginning. He professed an aversion to living; was tired of walking round the same circle; had tried every enjoyment, and found them all grow weaker at every repetition. ’If life be in youth so displeasing (cried he to himself), what will it appear when old age comes on? If it be at present indifferent, sure it will then be execrable.’ This thought embittered every reflection; till, at last, with all the serenity of perverted reason, he ended the debate with a pistol." Goldsmith’s Citizen of the World,, Letter 73. 13. Professor Rush calculates that not less than four thousand persons die annually, from the abuse of ardent spirits, in the United States. See his interesting and instructive Inquiry into the Effects of Ardent Spirits upon the Human Body and Mind, p. 38, fourth edition. 14. "The late Dr. Waters," says Dr. Rush, "while he acted as house pupil and apothecary of the Pennsylvania Hospital, assured me, that in one-third of the patients confined by this terrible disease (madness) it had been induced by ardent spirits." Inquiry, p. 12. 15. The following anecdote is extracted from a work published a few years ago. "In ­­­­­­ lived a gentleman and his wife, blessed with a competent fortune, health, mutual love, and peace of mind. They had two children, amiable and promising, and appeared to enjoy, in a very high degree, the numerous comforts with which they were surrounded. Toward the close of the summer of 1765, the gentleman happening to fall in company with some neighboring friends, who proposed to waste an hour at cards, he consented, more out of complaisance than love of the game, to join them. Like other gamesters, he met with a variety of fortune, and being warm with liquor, he was inconsiderately drawn in before the company broke up, to involve himself more than his estate could bear. The next day, on sober reflection, he could not bear the thought of that distress which his folly had brought upon his beloved wife and children, and therefore had not the courage to acquaint her with what had happened. In the midst of pangs to which he had been hitherto a stranger, he was visited, and again tempted, by one of the preceding night’s company, to try his fortune once more. To drown reflection, and in the hope of recovering his loss, he flew to the fatal place; nor did he leave it till he had lost his all. The consequence of which was, that the next day, in indescribable despair, after writing to acquaint his wife with what had happened, he shot himself. The news of this deprived the lady of her senses. She is (or at least lately was) confined to a mad-house; and her two children are thrown, beggared and friendless, on the world." 16. M. Mercier, who wrote in 1782, says (Tableau de Paris), that the annual number of suicides in Paris was then about one hundred and fifty. There is reason to believe that the number, since that time, has been considerably greater. In London the average number of suicides per annum was said, in 1787, to be about thirty-two; though this probably falls at present much short of the truth. In Edinburgh (which contains about 80,000 inhabitants), the average number is said to be four. In Geneva (which contains about 25,000 inhabitants) about eight. See Encyclopedia, article "Suicide." The writer of this article observes, "Our accounts respecting the city of London are very imperfect; but we think ourselves entitled to conclude, that suicide is more common among the great and wealthy than among the lower ranks; and that it is usually the effect of gaming and dissipation." Mr. Colquhoun, the celebrated writer on the police of the city of London, in conversation, a few years ago, with a friend of the author, then resident in that city, speaking of a certain gaming house, which had a short time before become known to him, said, "That house may be expected to produce at least four or five suicides annually, as long as it is supported." 17. The increase of gaming in the city of New York is unquestionably great, and calls aloud for every remonstrance of the moralist and the Christian, as well as for every exertion of the civil magistrate. It is said, that in addition to all the public gaming tables with which the city is filled, and which are crowded day and night with customers, the number of private parties for gaming (at which some of those who ought to be "mothers in Israel" [cf. Judges 5:7] make a conspicuous figure), have been so numerous for a considerable time past, as to withdraw from the theater that encouragement which was necessary for its support. "If Satan cast out Satan, how shall his kingdom stand?" (cf. Matthew 12:26). Would to God that the conflict between these two enormous nuisances in society might be destructive to both! 18. Letters to a Son, by J. Aikin, M.D. Vol. 1, Letter 18. 19. The punishment of suicide prescribed by the common law of England is two-fold: ignominious burial in the highway, with a stake driven through the body, and forfeiture of all the criminal’s goods and chattels to the king. The former part of this law continues in force in this state, but is never executed. The latter has been abolished by a particular statute. 20. That much may be done to prevent this crime by heaping ignominy upon every felo-de-se [felon of himself], history abundantly testifies. Plutarch tells us that an unaccountable passion for suicide seized the young women of Miletus, from which they could not be deterred by all the tears and entreaties of their friends. But what persuasion and entreaty could not effect, was accomplished by very different means. A decree was issued, "That the body of every young woman who hanged herself should be dragged naked through the streets, by the same rope with which she had committed the deed." This edict put a complete stop to the extraordinary frenzy. It is also recorded that, in the reign of Tarquinius Priscus, some Roman soldiers who were appointed to make drains and common sewers, thinking themselves disgraced by such servile offices, put themselves to death in great numbers. The king ordered the bodies of all self-murderers to be exposed on crosses, and this put an effectual stop to the practice. Encyclopedia article, "Suicide." ======================================================================== Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-of-samuel-miller/ ========================================================================