settling the radical and scriptural principles of Presbyterial government. The beginning of an encroachment upon these, will be like letting out water. There is no danger so great to any good government as to unsettle its constitutional principles. Better far for our civil government, that armed legions should encamp against us, than that our legislators should lay hands on the radical principles of our constitution. Secondary provisions, by-laws and temporary regulations, may be changed, as circumstances require, but touch those principles, on which the government is built-and it is like removing the corner stone, on which the building rests. So as a church, we had better breast an external foe, than change one radical principle of our government. But it is difficult to legislate when there is a clamorous opposition to principle, without yielding something of the point, or in opposite measures going beyond the legitimate influence of the principle. In either case the evil is in

creased.

I wish you to look seriously at this point of danger. Take the spirit of the times, and examine, with it in view, the interesting, enterprising spirit of improvement, which hesitates at no obstacle, and stops in its aim at no result, short of the illumination and happiness of an entire world. It is a daring, glorious spirit. I love to feel its impulse and see its triumphs, in the cause of human happiness, truth, and righteousness. The objects are so grand, and the measures so identified with the objects, that none can oppose the impulse without contending against the cause of God. It is an impulse of charity which is beginning to assume its wonted, primitive plan, in warming the human affections-stimulating the human intellect and taking the lead of all human enterprise. By it, the icy barriers of prejudice are dissolved-the good, the wise,

and the great of every name, are all united, not only in object but in measures-not only in one army but in one corps, and under one banner. Now I like all this, in its proper character and place. So long as the impulse acts upon the sphere of human wisdom, I am charmed with it; but when the influence is misdirected, in an unhallowed attempt to improve the revelation of God, or to remodify the order of Christ's house, I must stand against it. Be it even so, that revelation and church order are widely different-and I am no very great stickler for the unqualified divine right of Presbyterianism-but so long as I think the radical principles of Presbyterial government are clearly discoverable in the New Testament and primitive church, I must consider it dangerous to the peace and prosperity of the church to invade those established principles.

But there is a tendency in the spirit of the age-not necessarily resulting from its enterprise, but shrewdly interwoven along with it

to remodel every thing in church and state-in the laws of God and man. Of this tendency we ought to be aware. It should be firmly and perseveringly resisted, in its application to God's revealed truth, and to the wholesome scriptural regulations of the church. I would have the General Assembly avoid two extremes in this case-neither oppose the spirit of united charitable enterprise-nor under the specious name of reform, submit her constitutional principles to the sweeping influence of expediency. Far from opposing, I would have that judicatory cherish the spirit of enterprise and improvement, but never unsettle radical principles of truth and order.

In the next place, take the influence of such evils as necessarily grow out of the unwieldly number and the character of the Assembly, and examine the danger in view of

them. Under the guidance of such an improving age and spirit, every meeting will furnish new matter of discontent, and awaken an increasing desire to cure the evils-some at the expense of one principle and some of another, until the whole basis of the Assembly will be gone. But the reforming operation will not stop when the Assembly is gone-Synods, Presbyteries, and Sessions must be remodelled, until confusion and deformity will be the result.

I confess that I was seriously alarmed when I saw the proposition, mentioned in my former letter, sent down for the concurrence of Presbyteries, to set aside a radical principle of the Assembly's constitution. It told home upon my feelings the startling fact, that a majority-and I had reason to fear nearly the whole--of that court, were willing, and even desirous, to abolish one of its vital functions, and sacrifice one of its most important principles. But on this, and the result of some remedies tried, I propose to make some remarks in my next letter. Yours truly,

January, 1828.

Editorial Remarks.

.

We solicit from all our readers, especially from those who are members of the Presbyterian church, a particular attention to the latter part of this letter. We yield to none in our attachment to the missionary cause, and a desire to promote it. We yield to none in the joy which we experience, when we hear that this precious cause is prospered and blessed-whether it be among the heathen, or among the destitute population of our own country. But we earnestly wish that in doing good we may not, as has too often been seen, do something that is not good. We think there is imminent danger of this at the present time, especially in the Presbyterian church-imminent

danger that her form of government, and her institutions also, may eventually be subverted and swept away, by putting the management of missions and education out of her own hands, into the hands of those over whom she has not, and cannot have, any control. Missions and education are, most deservedly, very popular objects at present; and there are many who care little, if these objects be promoted, whether it be done in a manner favourable, or unfavourable, to the order and stability of the Presbyterian church. It is to this that we beg the attention of our readers. These objects may be as well, and even much better promoted, by the church, as a church, taking them into her own hands, and keeping them under her own direction, than in any other way

by applying the pecuniary contributions of her own members chiefly -we say not exclusively-to the support of such missions and education as are superintended by herself. Is this bigotry? Then we avow our selves to be bigots. But it is not bigotry. It is no more than is done by all other churches in our country and in Christendom; and if the Presbyterian church refuse to do it, she will, before many years, not be a church at all--or one only in name. The Episcopal church, the Lutheran church, the Baptist church, the Methodist church, the Moravian church, all manage these concerns as churches-And they act rationally, so long as they believe their church order to be worth preserving. And so must the Presbyterian church act, if she is not willing to sacrifice her existence to a mista ken liberality. We firmly believe that with proper zeal, mingled, as we wish it to be, with real liberality, more good might be done in this way than in any other; and that infinite evil, at a future, and not distant day, might be prevented. We would wish that neighbourly assistance should be afforded to all who are labouring in the same good

cause, and that kind and catholick feelings should be cherished toward all; but that the mass of contribution and effort in our own church, should be applied to promote missions and education under the direction and control of our own judicatures, and by no other associations whatsoever. This is an important subject, and we intend to resume its discussion, as soon as we can find leisure for the purpose.

THE PRESBYTERIAN.

No. III.

The maxim can hardly be too often repeated, that "the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants." Depart from this Depart from this ground-depart from it ever so little, and the danger becomes imminent. If the sacred oracles do not contain, in themselves, a sufficient and the only authoritative rule of faith and practice, in vain shall we seek elsewhere for such a rule. Let us not be misunderstood. We do not say that common sense, reason and experience, are never to be called into exercise in matters of religion; but we do say, that they are never to be pleaded in opposition to plain revealed truth. We do not say that creeds, articles, and confessions of faith, are of no use; but we do say, that they are not by themselves authoritative; nay, that they are worse than useless, when every sentence of them cannot be sustained by a clear scriptural warrant. We do not say that the Fathers cannot be read with considerable benefit; for we freely admit that a knowledge of the true state of the church in their day, can best be gathered from their writings; and that in regard to facts and circumstances which fell under their personal observation severally, and of which they could therefore speak as matters of their own knowledge, their testimony is of the highest value. But

we do say, that what they give as only the report of others, ought to be regarded as mere hearsay evidence, by which nothing of importance can, with any propriety, be considered as established or verified: and we farther say, that the opinions they delivered and the doctrines they taught, are of no higher authority than those of many other good and honest men, in every age of the church-We may well say this, because in several points the Fathers contradict each other, and in some are inconsistent with themselves; and because their interpretations of Scripture are, in a number of instances, exceedingly crude, and in a few manifestly er

roneous.

Having made these remarks, that our views may not be misapprehended in relation to this subject, we declare it to be our firm conviction that the apostles of Christ, as a pre-eminent order of men in his church, were to have no successors; but that all their peculiar powers and endowments were forever to terminate with their lives. We also believe that it may be clearly and conclusively shown from the New Testament, that an entire parity or equality of rank and office, among those who are permanently to preach the gospel and dispense all its ordinances, is a divine appointment; and in reference to the gospel ministry, the only divine appointment, which is apparent in the sacred records. If we succeed in showing this, as we trust we shall, then it will appear that the Presbyterian church, in which parity or equality of rank in all its ministers is held as a fundamental principle, is not only a true church of Christ, but in this particular, nearer to the apostolick model, than any church in which the parity in question is denied and disregarded. It will likewise appear, that the members of the Presbyterian church, so far from being left to the uncovenanted mercies of God, may not only be

truly in covenant with the Father of mercies, but have the seals of his gracious covenant dispensed to them, in the manner and form most accordant with his own institution. In the Encyclopædia Brittanica, under the article Presbyterians, we have found about as good a summary -yet let it be remembered that it is only a summary of the arguments in favour of the sentiments we have just expressed, as we think could easily be made. Agreeably therefore to our purpose, as heretofore announced, of making quotations, as often as we shall find such as we deem pertinent and satisfactory, we now give the following-only requesting our readers to turn to the passages of the New Testament referred to, and read them carefully; and if read in the original, so much the better.

"The Presbyterians believe, that the authority of their ministers to preach the Gospel, to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, and to feed the flock of Christ, is derived from the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery; and they oppose the independent scheme of the common rights of Christians, by the same arguments which are used for that purpose by the Episcopalians. They airm, however, that there is no order in the church, as established by Christ and his apostles, superior to that of presbyters; that all ministers being ambassadors of Christ, are equal by their commission; that presbyter and bishop, though different words, are of the same import; and that prelacy was gradually established, upon the primitive practice of making the moderator or speaker of the presbytery a permanent officer.

These positions they maintain against the Episcopalians by the following scriptural arguments.They observe, "That the apostles planted churches by ordaining bishops and deacons in every city; that the ministers which in one

verse are called bishops, are in the next perhaps, denominated presbyters; that we no where read in the New Testament of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, in any one church; and that, therefore, we e under the necessity of concluding bishop and presbyter to be two names for the same church officer. This is apparent from Peter's exhortation to the elders or presbyters who were among the Jewish Christians. The elders (presbyters) 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 which is among you, taking the oversight thereof (επισκοπούντες acting as bio shops 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,' 1st Pet. v. 2, 9. From this passage it is evident that the presbyters not only fed the flock of God, but also governed that flock with episcopal powers; and that the apostle himself, as a church officer, was nothing more than a presbyter or elder. The identity of the office of bishop and presbyter is still more apparent from Heb. xiii. 7, 17, and 1st Thess. v. 12; for the bishops are there represented as governing the flock, speaking to them the word of God, watching for their souls, and discharging various offices, which it is impossible for any man to perform to more than one congregation.

"From the last cited text it is evident that the bishops (goolamevous) of the Thessalonian churches had the pastoral care of no more souls than they could hold personal communion with in God's worship; for they were such as all the people were to know, esteem, and love, as those that not only were over them, but also closely laboured among them, and admonished them.' But diocesan bishops, whom ordinarily the hundredth part of their flock

never hear nor see, cannot be those bishops by whom that fleck is admonished; nor can they be what Peter requires the bishops of the Jewish converts to be, ensamples to the flock. It is the opinion of Dr. Hammond, who was a very learned divine, and a zealot for episcopacy, that the elders whom the apostle James desires (Jas. v. 14) the sick to call for, were of the highest permanent order of ecclesiastical officers; but it is self-evident that those elders cannot have been diocesan bishops, otherwise the sick must have been often without the reach of the remedy proposed to them.

"There is nothing in scripture upon which the Episcopalian is more ready to rest his cause, than the alleged episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, of whom the former is said to have been bishop of Ephesus, and the latter bishop of Crete; yet the Presbyterian thinks it as clear as the noon-day sun, that the presbyters of Ephesus were supreme governors, under Christ, of the Ephesian churches, at the very time that Timothy is pretended to have been their proper diocesan.

"In Acts xx. 17, &c., we read, that from Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the elders (presbyters) of the church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons. And now, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (EIXOTOVG bishops), to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter VOL. VI.-Ch. Adv.

in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember that, by the space of three years, I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace,' &c.

"From this passage it is evident, that there was in the city of Ephesus a plurality of pastors of equal authority, without any superior pastor or bishop over them; for the apostle directs his discourse to them all in common, and gives them equal power over the whole flock. Dr. Hammond, indeed, imagines, that the elders whom Paul called to Miletus were the bishops of Asia, and that he sent for them to Ephesus, because that city was the metropolis of the province. But, were this opinion well founded, it is not conceivable that the sacred writer would have called them the elders of the church of Ephesus, but the elders of the church in general, or the elders of the churches in Asia. Besides, it is to be remembered, that the apostle was in such haste to be at Jerusalem, that the sacred historian measures his time by days; whereas it must have required several months, to call together the bishops or elders of all the cities of Asia; and he might certainly have gone to meet them at Ephesus in less time than would be requisite for their meeting in that city, and proceeding thence to him at Miletus. They must therefore have been either the joint pastors of one congregation, or the pastors of different congregations in one city; and as it was thus in Ephesus, so it was in Philippi; for we find the apostle addressing his epistle to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." From the passage before us, it is likewise plain that the presbyters of Ephesus had not only the name Q