LIBRARY OF PRINCETON 
 
 MAR I 2005 
 
 j 
 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
U^ £ y/ 
 
MANUAL OF PRESBYTERY: 
 
 COMPRISING, 
 I. 
 
 PRESRYTERIANISiT THE TRULY PRIiLTTIYE AND APOSTOLIC 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST; 
 
 OR, A VIEW OF THE HISTORY, DOCTRINE, GOVERNMENT, AND 
 WORSHIP OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 BY SAMUEL MILLER, D.D., 
 
 FROFBSSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN TH PRESBY- 
 TERIAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY. 
 
 II. 
 
 THE CHARACTER AND ADVANTAGES OF PRESBYTERIANISM 
 [ASCERTAINED BY FACTS. 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX 
 
 ON THR TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS AND REFORMERS TO PRESBYTERY— 
 THE MORAL TENDENCY OF CALVINISM, ETC. 
 
 v 
 
 BY THE REV. JOHN G. LORIMER, 
 
 MINISTER OF FREE ST. DAVID'S CHURCH, GLASGOW. 
 
 SECOND EDITION, ENLARGED. 
 
 JOHN JOHNSTONE, 
 
 15, PRINCES STREET, E|D INBURGH; AND 
 26, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 MDCCCXLVIII. 
 
ENTERED IN STATIONERS HALL. 
 
 Printed by John Johnstone, 104, Eign Street, Edinburgh. 
 

 
 
 
 PEEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 While I rejoice in the increased interest which 
 questions of Church government are awakening, 
 and the demand for fresh publications on the sub- 
 ject which that interest is calling forth, I have 
 nothing to add to the statements of the former 
 Preface, except that in this New Edition I have 
 endeavoured to bring down the question of Pres- 
 bytery to the present day, by supplying a Chapter 
 on Presbytery as Favourable to Catholic Views 
 of the Church of Christ ; another on the Free 
 Church movement, as furnishing a favourable 
 illustration of the operation of Presbytery; and 
 by also giving the most recent information re- 
 specting the progress of this form of ecclesiastical 
 government in other Christian Churches. I trust 
 that, by these and kindred additions, the reader 
 will find the present Edition more worthy of his 
 
iv PREFACE. 
 
 attention. It is certain that within the last five 
 years questions of Church rule have acquired 
 a fresh importance in themselves, and in their 
 bearing at once upon the civil and religious pro- 
 spects of Christendom. 
 
 J. G. L. 
 Glasgow, August, 1847. 
 

 
 PKEFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION 
 
 The question has of late been not unfrequently put, 
 " What is the best book on the distinguishing charac- 
 teristics of the Presbyterian Church — free from personal 
 controversy — at once simple, short, and comprehensive, 
 and adapted to general use?" This inquiry is not pro- 
 posed by those members of the Church of Scotland — few 
 it is believed in number — who, from ignorance, prejudice, 
 or other causes, taking offence at her present struggle, 
 have passed into another communion. These persons do 
 not put themselves to the trouble of inquiry. They act 
 not from principle, but from feeling, and probably, there- 
 fore, would not be moved by any investigation which 
 they might institute. The inquiry originates with warmly 
 attached friends of the Church, who are quite satisfied 
 that her constitution is scriptural, and who are daily — 
 unlike to the carelessness of other times — taking a deeper 
 and deeper interest in her prospects, but who are anxious 
 to inform themselves, and the youth of their families, 
 more intelligently of the peculiar principles and institu- 
 tions of the Presbyterian Church, than they have hitherto 
 had a call for, or opportunity of doing. 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 It is probable that some may say, " The fewer such 
 books as those referred to on denominational distinctions 
 the better. In these days, when there is so much Infi- 
 delity, Popery, and Error in the world, and such vast 
 continents to be reclaimed from Heathenism, would it 
 not be well that all Christian Churches holding the 
 Head, were united in heart, and joined together in the 
 same labours V In answer to this, we have to say, that 
 controversy upon confessedly subordinate matters is to 
 be deprecated, especially if it interfere with Christian 
 union and co-operation; but we are not sure that in any 
 circumstances it is warrantable to sink the peculiarities 
 of Presbyterianism. Church government, discipline, and 
 worship, hold an important connection with doctrine. 
 They are in some respects the fences of its purity, and 
 though in themselves inferior to the weightier matters of 
 the Law and the Gospel, yet, as part of the revealed 
 will of God, are of higher value than the most esteemed 
 objects of earth. If men are to give an account of every 
 idle word which they speak, they will certainly be held 
 responsible before God for the care which they bestow 
 in ascertaining the scriptural constitution of the Chris- 
 tian Church, and the zeal or remissness which they 
 manifest in adhering to it after ascertained. Besides, 
 the more closely that any Church is conformed in con- 
 stitution to the will of its great Head, the richer blessing 
 may be expected to rest on its ministrations. 
 
 Whatever may be the particular circumstances of the 
 Church or of the world, requiring Christians, it may be 
 for a time, to subordinate questions of ecclesiastical 
 polity to more important and immediate duty, no one 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 who is alive to the present state of the Christian world, 
 and much more, to the existing religious condition of 
 British society, can question that this is not one of the 
 seasons when Presbyterians should be silent upon the 
 peculiarities of their faith. Unhappily, it is too well known 
 that a large, influential, and rapidly increasing party have 
 of lateyears appeared in the Episcopal, or, more correctly 
 speaking, the Prelatical Churches, both of Britain and 
 America, whose proclaimed doctrine it is, that the Pres- 
 byterian Church, and all Churches not Episcopal, have 
 no authorized ministry or valid ordinances; in short, are 
 no Churches of Christ at all, but mere religious com- 
 munities, dealing in pretended services. In such cir- 
 cumstances, it is high time at least to stand on the defensive, 
 and to vindicate the claims of the Presbyterian Church. 
 Silence were not only treachery to the cause of truth 
 where assailed, it would be equivalent to a cowardly ac- 
 quiescence in insolent presumption. It were well that 
 there were no need for controversy, or that less impor- 
 tant controversies were occasionally absorbed in the 
 common pursuit of higher objects; but when not merely 
 the honour, but the very existence, of the Presbyterian 
 Church as a Church of Christ is denied, and millions of 
 the most intelligent and w r ell-conducted professors of 
 Christianity, not a whit inferior to their brethren in 
 character, are summarily unchurched, it is a sacred duty, 
 if not to expose the pretensions of assailants, at least 
 calmly to state the claims of the Presbyterian Church, 
 and to circulate the knowledge of these claims as exten- 
 sively as possible among the members. It is only in this 
 way, with God's blessing, that painful apprehensions 
 
viii PREFACE. 
 
 as to the validity of the ordinances of which they partake 
 can be allayed, supposing them to be once excited. No 
 candid Episcopalian can wonder, and much less be offend- 
 ed, at the members of other Churches standing forward 
 in behalf of their denominational peculiarities. When 
 so many of his brethren call in question all that is dear 
 to them, it would be strange to find fault with their de- 
 fending themselves : the efforts, too, which some Episco- 
 palians arennaking to avail themselves of the trials of the 
 Church of Scotland, to add to their numbers, is a call 
 for such work as the present. 
 
 There is a further reason for Presbyterians being fur- 
 nished with the knowledge of their peculiarities as a 
 Church, and that is — the wide dispersion of not a few 
 of them over the world. The migratory spirit of Scot- 
 land is proverbial. England, Ireland, and all the colonies 
 of Great Britain, particularly the East and West Indies, 
 Canada, and Australia, can bear witness to its strength. 
 Removed from their mother Church, and often scattered 
 in such small groups among the professors of other 
 Churches, as not to have any opportunity for worshipping 
 together, they are in considerable danger of losing sight 
 of the peculiarities of the parent Church, and of either 
 recruiting the ranks of other communions, or, in dislike 
 of their forms and discipline, sinking into spiritual care- 
 lessness and neglect. In the midst of these disadvantages 
 and perils, how important is it that they be well instructed 
 in the divine claims of the Church in which they were 
 born, and baptized, and educated ; that they be able to 
 carry the means of this knowledge along with them, so 
 that greater efforts maybe employed to furnish them with 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 divine ordinances, in the mode which to them is most in- 
 teresting and effective; and that, instead of being hope- 
 lessly lost to the mother Church on leaving the Scottish 
 shores, they may, as soon as opportunity offers, return 
 from the communions in which, for a season, they may 
 have been constrained by circumstances to worship. 
 There can be little question, that a more familiar and 
 intelligent acquaintance with the divine warrant for 
 Presbyterianism, in its principles and institutions, would 
 not only save the loss of many members on going abroad, 
 but would lead to more vigorous exertions to provide 
 them with the means of grace and salvation, and so con- 
 duce to the extension of the Redeemer's kingdom in 
 foreign lands. 
 
 Though Presbyterians have frequently been accused 
 of party spirit, perhaps there never was a religious body 
 which, upon the whole, has been so free from it; one 
 remarkable proof of this is, that, compared with other 
 religious parties, they have done so little to record and 
 spread the knowledge of their peculiarities. The history 
 of Presbyterianism has long been imperfectly related, 
 and is only now beginning to be, in some measure, 
 adequately attended to. Its ecclesiastical polity has, if 
 possible, been still less cared for. Presbyterians seem, 
 in almost all ages, to have taken for granted that their 
 principles and usages are so obviously accordant with 
 Scripture and common sense, that they may be left to 
 find their way unaided among professed Christians. 
 Unless where specially provoked, they have done little 
 by books to recommend the religious system to which 
 they are attached. In this respect, there is a decided 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 contrast between them and the adherents of Episcopal 
 and Congregational Churches. Where they have stood 
 forward, it has almost always been, not as aggressors, but 
 simply in self-defence; and hence the controversial air of 
 their works, which, in its turn, has been injurious. Even 
 the young men intended for the ministry of the Presby- 
 terian Church have not (I allude here particularly to the 
 Established Church of Scotland) been instructed at the 
 universities in the principles of Presbytery. Though a 
 distinct branch of study, it has been greatly neglected. 
 Any improvement in this respect is of very recent origin. 
 But though, in a catholic spirit, almost carried to 
 excess, Presbyterians have done little as they ought to 
 have done to spread their peculiarities, it must not be 
 imagined, that where they have entered the field, their 
 success has been indifferent. Far from it. As often as 
 their principles have been seriously assailed, whether by 
 Episcopalians on the one hand, or Congregationalists 
 on the other, they have given forth able and triumphant 
 defences to the world. Not to refer to foreign Pres- 
 byterians of pre-eminent talent and learning — Beza in 
 Switzerland, Blondel in France, Voetius in Holland, 
 and many others — there never was a period in the his- 
 tory of the Church of Scotland, when Presbytery was 
 assailed, in which, with God's blessing, there was not 
 an ample and adequate defence. In early days, when 
 Episcopacy, in an insidious form, was introduced by an 
 unprincipled monarch, Calderwood,in his "Altare Dama- 
 scenum," was found more than a match for all that could 
 be alleged in its behalf. At a later day, in the middle of 
 the seventeenth century, Gillespie, Rutherford, Baillie, 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Fergusson, and Wood, most ably defended Presbytery 
 against both Episcopacy and the Sectaries, or Indepen- 
 dents of these days. The Presbyterian ministers of 
 London, at the same period, waged a successful war in 
 the south, and with the Independents of New England. 
 After the Revolution of 1688, when the Prelatists, who 
 had persecuted for thirty years, were overthrown, and, 
 stung with defeat, assailed the Church of Scotland in 
 all its aspects with a virulence of calumny almost un- 
 known in the history of the Christian Church, her cause 
 was nobly maintained, with blended piety, talent, and 
 learning, by Rule and Forrester, Jameson and Lauder. 
 Shortly after, Anderson, in answer to a new assailant, 
 an apostate Presbyterian, published his able " Defence." 
 When Independency, which had long slumbered, reared 
 its head anew in the writings of Glass, it was imme- 
 diately and powerfully met by Ayton of Alyth, in a 
 publication which, if I have not been misinformed, was 
 considered by the late Dr. M'Crie as the most complete 
 work on Church government. In this connection, the 
 honoured name of Willison of Dundee, who wrote both 
 against Prelacy and Independency, might be introduced. 
 For sixty years no book of any consequence was pub- 
 lished in behalf of Presbytery in Scotland — a pretty plain 
 proof of its non-sectarian character. At the beginning of 
 the nineteenth century, when Congregationalism anew 
 appeared, associated with the secession of one or two 
 ministers from the Church of Scotland, Dr. Brown, 
 now of Langton, published a full and learned " Vindi- 
 cation." Since then there has been no publication in 
 Scotland of any moment, till the other day, when four 
 
Xll PREFACE. 
 
 ministers of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland stepped 
 forth with two able defences of Presbytery, against the 
 assaults of modern Episcopacy. In their own land, with 
 the exception of Boyse of Dublin in the last century, 
 there has been as little written in behalf of Presbytery 
 as in this country. Nor is the Presbyterian Church of 
 America an exception to the rule, if such it may be 
 called. Dr. M'Leod, Dr. Mason, Dr. Miller, belonging 
 to different branches of the Presbyterian body, have 
 almost alone maintained the cause of Presbytery in the 
 New World in modern times. Of late, something has 
 been done at home to diffuse its principles, by the pub- 
 lication of Dr. M'Leod's " Ecclesiastical Catechism," and 
 another still smaller, which, I rejoice to find, has, in the 
 course of a few years, passed through eight editions, 
 and obtained a circulation of 40,000 copies. 
 
 Still there is much need for a work to meet the wants 
 of the Presbyterian Church, and of the age. Most of 
 the larger works are scarce and inaccessible, perhaps re- 
 pulsive, to the general reader; and of late years, with the 
 awakened interest in behalf of religion, and of inquiry 
 in connection with the constitution of Christian Churches, 
 have become very expensive. Moreover, they are all 
 mixed up with personal controversy, which prejudices 
 many minds. Very small works, again, such as cate- 
 chisms, though most useful in their own place, particu- 
 larly after reading a larger work, have too much the 
 air of a table of contents, and, from not detaining the 
 mind sufficiently long upon the subject, do not give 
 it such a firm hold of principles as is desirable to pos- 
 sess. Besides these disadvantages, none of the works, 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 whether larger or smaller, give a comprehensive view of 
 the leading points involved in Presbyterianism; they are 
 chiefly occupied with the article of Church government. 
 I have long wished for something in a brief, but not too 
 brief a form, which should comprehend some view of 
 the history and doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, as 
 well as of its government and worship, and that in an 
 attractive and readable style. In the little work of the 
 able and accomplished Professor of Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory in the Presbyterian College of Princeton, New 
 Jersey, I think I have met with the desideratum. So 
 far as it goes it is admirable, and only needs to be 
 adapted, by means of additional information, to the state 
 and prospects of the question in this country, to prove a 
 most useful digest for every Presbyterian family. In the 
 large additions which are given in notes, and a Second 
 Part, and Appendix, as large as the original work, I 
 humbly hope that some important and useful informa- 
 tion has been supplied which may not only add to the 
 value of Dr. Miller's publication, but, in some measure, 
 direct the reader who wishes to pursue the subject farther 
 for himself, to appropriate sources. A list of works is 
 given in the Appendix. 
 
 The recommendations of the following treatise are 
 peculiar. Besides its own merits, its accuracy, simplicity, 
 brevity, comprehensiveness — embracing a sketch of the 
 history, doctrine, government, and worship of the Pres- 
 byterian Church — and freedom from controversy, it is the 
 work of one who occupies a leading place in one of the 
 most important Presbyterian Churches of the world, who 
 has devoted many years to the study of Church history, 
 
XIV PREFACE. 
 
 and who has written largely and well on the subject of 
 Church government. The treatise, too, was written at 
 the request of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
 Church of America, and has for years been adopted as 
 one of the many useful little works to which that body 
 gives currency by the sanction of its official approbation. 
 In the United States it has had a circulation of many 
 thousands, and continues in high estimation. In these 
 circumstances, I have thought that a republication, with 
 additional original matter, suited to this side of the 
 Atlantic, would be a service to the cause of Presbyte- 
 rianism, which has suffered from the want of such a 
 work — a cause which I believe to be the cause of know- 
 ledge and truth, freedom, order, social happiness, virtue, 
 religion, because founded on the Word of God. 
 
 Of course, in writing on such a subject, however 
 shortly, it is impossible, let one's spirit be as catholic as 
 it may, to avoid the appearance of assailing other deno- 
 minations of Christians. One cannot state the case of 
 Presbytery without seeming to reflect on its rival sys- 
 tems of government — Prelacy and Congregationalism — 
 any more than the advocates of these forms can state 
 theirs without seeming to disparage Presbytery and 
 Presbyterians. Once for all, I beg to disclaim all rivalry 
 and uncharitableness. The object of the following pages 
 is to state and recommend the claims of Presbytery — 
 not to run down other kinds of ecclesiastical govern- 
 ment, and far less to provoke their adherents. Any 
 reference to them is no more than what is essential, and 
 is, I trust, conducted in a Christian and charitable spirit. 
 I rejoice to think that there are multitudes of excellent 
 
PREFACE. XT 
 
 men in all Evangelical Churches; but when it is re- 
 membered how Presbytery has been, and continues to 
 be, spoken of by many — that no system has in all ages 
 been more calumniated and misrepresented (taken with 
 other circumstances, no mean intimation of its divine 
 origin) ; and, above all, that at the present moment an 
 immense and growing party in the Church of England, 
 throughout the three kingdoms, is denying that Presby- 
 terians have a Church at all, and consequently can be 
 saved, unless as the heathen are saved — it would not 
 have been wonderful, nor perhaps very unwarrantable, 
 that ministers whose ordination, office, and ordinances, 
 have all been denounced as pretended, should feel and 
 write strongly. This certainly would have been the 
 case had Presbyterians treated Episcopalians or Con- 
 gregationalists in the same way; but, as I have already 
 said, every thing which savours of party spirit and un- 
 charitableness is anxiously disclaimed. I am not con- 
 scious of such feelings; and as Presbyterians have all 
 along been, as a whole, distinguished for their catholic 
 spirit, I should be sorry that any work I republish, or 
 any comments with which it is accompanied, should 
 even seem to offend against the law of charity. 
 
 For the notes, except in the few cases where Dr. 
 Miller's name is appended, I am solely responsible. To 
 prevent misapprehension, however, I add the letter L. 
 
 May the great Head of the Church bless this humble 
 effort to vindicate and diffuse important doctrines and 
 ecclesiastical principles — which were held and exem- 
 plified in apostolic and primitive times — have been re- 
 cognised more or less fully in all subsequent ages — which 
 
XVI PREFACE. 
 
 the writer has no doubt will be triumphant in millennial 
 days, and which, in a variety of ways, conduce to the 
 divine glory. 
 
 J. G. L. 
 
 Glasgow, January, 1842. 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 The Church of God, in the days of the apostles, as is 
 well known, was not divided into different denominations. 
 Even then, indeed, there were parties in the Church. 
 The restless and selfish spirit of depraved human nature 
 soon began, in different places, to display its unhallowed 
 influence, either in the form of Judaizing claims, philo- 
 sophical speculations, or turbulent opposition to regular 
 ecclesiastical authority. In the Church of Corinth, 
 though planted and nurtured by " the chiefest of the 
 apostles," there were factious and troublesome members, 
 who contended among themselves, and said, one to an- 
 other, " I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, 
 and I of Christ." Still the Church was one. The names, 
 " Presbyterian," " Episcopalian," " Congregationalist," 
 &c, &c, were unknown. All professing Christians, 
 " though many, were considered as one body in Christ, 
 and every one members one of another." The only 
 popular distinction then recognised, as far as the pro- 
 fessed followers of Christ were concerned, was between 
 the Church and the heretics. 
 
 Not long after the apostolic age, when heresies had 
 become numerous, when each of them claimed to belong 
 to the Church, and when convenience demanded the 
 
18 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 adoption of some term which might distinguish between 
 the true or orthodox Church, and the various sects of 
 errorists — the title of catholic (or general, as the term 
 catholic signifies) was applied to the former; while the 
 latter were distinguished by various names, derived either 
 from the nature of their distinguishing opinions, or from 
 the original authors or promoters of those opinions. It 
 is well known, indeed, that the blinded and supersti- 
 tious followers of the Bishop of Rome claim the title of 
 catholic, as exclusively applicable to themselves. In 
 their own estimation, they are the Church, the only true 
 Church, the catholic or universal Church; and all the 
 ol her classes of nominal Christians throughout the world 
 are heretics, out of the way of salvation. This claim, 
 however, in the estimation of all enlightened Christians, 
 is as presumptuous as it is vain. That department of 
 nominal Christendom, instead of being the only true 
 Church, is considered by many as too far gone in cor- 
 ruption to be comprehended under the Christian name 
 at all; and instead of there being no salvation out of her 
 communion, the danger of eternal perdition is rather to 
 those who are found within her pale. It is not doubted, 
 indeed, that there are many pious individuals within 
 that pale; but it is believed that they are placed in cir- 
 cumstances deplorably unfavourable to their growth in 
 grace; and that the multitudes around them in the 
 same communion, are immersed in darkness, supersti- 
 tion, and dreadful error, which place them in the utmost 
 jeopardy of eternal perdition. This is that " Antichrist," 
 that " Man of Sin and Son of Perdition," who exalteth 
 himself above all that is called God, and who is yet to 
 be " destroyed with the breath of Jehovah's mouth, and 
 with the brightness of his coming."* 
 
 * There is no doubt that persons in the outward comTmmion of 
 the Church of Rome are saved. God's people are expressly required 
 " to come out of her," which implies that some of them are in her. 
 But they are saved, not as believing the doctrine and practising the 
 unscriptural requirements of the Church of Rome — that were de- 
 structive; but as holding Protestant truth, and exemplifying its 
 power — it may be, unknown to themselves— and in these circum- 
 stances remaining within her external pale. It is more than ques- 
 tionable whether the Church of Rome should be regarded or called 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 19 
 
 No particular denomination of Christians is now en- 
 titled to be called, by way of eminence, the catholic or uni- 
 versal Church. There are Churches, indeed, which bear 
 a nearer resemblance to the apostolical model than 
 others, and which deserve to be favourably distinguished 
 in the list of Christian communities ; but the visible 
 catholic Church is made up of all those throughout the 
 world who profess the true religion, together with their 
 children. The Presbyterian, the Congregationalist, the 
 Methodist, the Baptist, the Episcopalian, the Indepen- 
 dent, who hold the fundamentals of our holy religion, 
 in whatever part of the globe they may reside, are all 
 members of the same visible community; and, if they 
 be sincere believers, 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. A physical impossibility forbids it; 
 and, in many cases, prejudice and folly widely separate 
 those who ought to be entirely united. Still, in spite of 
 all the sects and names by which professing Christians 
 are divided, there is a visible Church catholic. There 
 is a precious sense in which the whole visible Church on 
 earth is one. All who " hold the Head," of course, be- 
 long to the body of Christ. Those who are united by a 
 sound profession to the same divine Saviour; who em- 
 brace 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 
 
 a Church at all. The Reformers, who had grown up in her com- 
 munion, certainly admitted the claim; but there is not only no 
 authority for this from Scripture, but so far as its light goes, there 
 seems to be an intimation that she is no Church. Rome i3 repre- 
 sented as occupying the outer court of the temple, left out of the 
 measurement. She is spoken of not as Zion, but Babylon — not the 
 Lamb's wife, but the mother of harlots. She is not to be reformed, 
 but destroyed. If, as is well asked by Fuller, she be a true Church 
 of Christ, what is that Church which fled from her persecution into 
 the wilderness ? Her proper name is Antichrist- -the Roman apos- 
 tasy; and yet some professing a purer faith glory in drawing their 
 supposed title and pedigree from her ! What can be more ludicrous 
 than for parties to be drawing an " apostolic succession ■ ,1 from those 
 who form no part of the Church of Christ at all ? What advantage 
 can be expected from such a genealogy ? — L. 
 
20 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 in the same promises; and who are travelling to the 
 same eternal rest— are surely one body— one in a sense 
 more richly significant and valuable than can be ascribed 
 to millions who sustain and boast a mere nominal rela- 
 tion.* 
 
 But while we thus maintain the doctrine of the unity 
 of the visible Church catholic; and while we rejoice in 
 the assured belief that sectarian names, as they were 
 unknown in the apostolic age, so they will be unknown 
 among the members of the Redeemer's glorified body; 
 still, in this militant state, there is a separation, not 
 merely nominal, but real and deplorable; a separation 
 which interferes most deeply with the communion of 
 saints, and which lamentably mars those precious oppor- 
 tunities of proximity and intercourse which too often, 
 alas! become incentives to contention and strife, rather 
 than to Christian love. 
 
 Amidst this diversity of sects and names, it becomes, 
 to every intelligent and conscientious Christian, a most 
 interesting question, Which of the various denomina- 
 tions, which bear the name of Christian Churches, may 
 be considered as approaching nearest to the New Testa- 
 ment model? We freely acknowledge, indeed, as 
 Churches of Christ, all who hold the fundamentals of our 
 holy religion, and consider it as our duty to love and 
 honour them as such; carefully avoiding all treatment of 
 them that tends to the increase of strife and division, and 
 that is contrary to " godly edifying." Still it cannot be 
 doubted by any rational man, that some one of these 
 denominations is nearer to the apostolic model, as a 
 Church of Christ, than any of the rest. Which of the 
 whole number this is, is a most serious question in the 
 
 * Among Evangelical Christians, the points of agreement are far 
 more numerous and important than those of 'diversity. There is 
 much more rad harmony between Protestant Churches, manifold as 
 may be their outward forms and aspects, than there is m the Church 
 of Rome, where there is a great air of unity or rather of external 
 uniformity. This holds out the prospect one day of a much larger 
 amount of visible union among Evangelical Christians than at present 
 exists. In the meantime, the Church of Rome gams by the mere 
 picture and pretence of unity, as in other cases she gams by deceiv- 
 ing men with the outward, as a substitute for the inward.— L. 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 21 
 
 view of every one who wishes to know the will of Chris\ 
 and who is desirous to be found walking in that way 
 which was trod by inspired apostles, and in which they 
 left the Church harmoniously walking, when they ceased 
 from their labours. 
 
 It is the sincere belief of the writer of these pages, 
 that the Presbyterian Church, taking the Word of God 
 as its " only infallible rule of faith and practice," is more 
 truly primitive and apostolical in its Avhole constitution, 
 of doctrine, worship, and order, than any other Church 
 now on earth. An humble attempt to evince the truth 
 of this position will occupy the following pnges. 
 
 For the fulfilment of the purpose in view, I shall 
 endeavour, very briefly, to consider the history of Pres- 
 byterianism ; its doctrine, its order or form of govern- 
 ment, its worship, and its comparative advantages. 
 In each of these respects, unless I am deceived, it will be 
 easy to show that it approaches nearer than any other 
 Christian denomination to the apostolical model.* 
 
 To prepare the way more fully for the ensuing dis- 
 cussion, it may be proper to state, that there are four 
 distinct forms of Church order, each of which claims a 
 scriptural warrant: — the Papal, or spiritual monarchy ; 
 the Episcopal, or spiritual prelacy; Independency, 
 or spiritual democracy ; and Presbyterianism, or spiri- 
 tual republicanism. The first maintaining the necessity 
 of one supreme, universal, infallible head of the whole 
 Christian body throughout the world, as the authorized 
 vicar of Christ. The second, contending for an order 
 of clerical prelates, above the rank of ordinary ministers 
 of the Gospel, who are alone, in their view, empowered 
 to ordain, and without whose presiding agency there 
 can be no regular Church. The third, holding that all 
 
 * There are some persons who are continually styling their 
 Churches " apostolic, " " primitive," &c, as if they were to become 
 so by mere asseveration. It should be remembered, that every in- 
 telligent Christian believes the Church to which he belongs to be 
 apostolic and primitive, and that he is as well entitled to claim these 
 titles as others. Shrewd men will generally remark, that the 
 Churches which claim these words most in speech, have the least 
 title to them in reality. — L. 
 
 C 
 
22 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 ecclesiastical power resides in the mass of the Church 
 members, and that all acts of ecclesiastical authority are 
 to be performed immediately by them. While, in the 
 fourth and last place, Presbyterians believe that Christ 
 has made all ministers, who are authorized to dispense 
 the word and sacraments, perfectly equal in official rank 
 and power; that in every Church the immediate exer- 
 cise of ecclesiastical power is deposited, not w T ith the 
 whole mass of the people, but with a body of their re- 
 presentatives, styled elders; and that the whole visible 
 Church catholic, so far as their denomination is con- 
 cerned, is not only one in name, but so united by a series 
 of assemblies of these representatives, acting in the name 
 and by the authority of the w T hole, as to bind the whole 
 body together as one Church, walking by the same 
 principles of faith and order, and voluntarily, yet autho- 
 ritatively, governed by the same system of rule and 
 regulation. 
 
 Presbyterianism, then, is a term which primarily 
 refers to the form of Church government. That is a 
 Presbyterian Church in which the presbytery is the 
 radical and leading judicatory; in which teaching and 
 ruling presbyters, or elders, have committed to them 
 the watch and care of the whole flock; in which all 
 ministers of the word and sacraments are equal; in 
 which ruling elders, as the representatives of the people, 
 form a part of all ecclesiastical assemblies, and partake, 
 in all authoritative acts, equally with the teaching elders; 
 and in which, by a series of judicatories, rising one above 
 another, each individual Church is under the watch and 
 care of its appropriate judicatory, and the whole body, 
 by a system of review and control, is bound together as 
 one homogeneous community. Wherever this system 
 is found in operation in the Church of God, there is 
 Presbyterianism. Though there may be much diversity 
 in the names of the several judicatories; and though, in 
 the minuter details of arrangement, some variety may 
 exist, still it is essentially the same. Thus the Reformed 
 Churches in France, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, 
 Scotland, and Geneva, are all Presbyterian, notwith- 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 23 
 
 standing some minor varieties in the names and regula- 
 tions of their judicatories. Wherever ministerial parity, 
 the government of the Church by elders, instead of the 
 mass of the communicants, and the authoritative union 
 of Churches under courts of review and control, are 
 found, there we have that ecclesiastical system which it 
 is the object of the following pages to explain and re- 
 commend. 
 
 But although the term Presbyterian has a primary 
 reference to the form of Church government, yet Pres- 
 byterian Churches were originally agreed, and have been 
 commonly in all ages agreed, in a variety of other mat- 
 ters, which, we believe, are all warranted by the Holy 
 Scriptures. It is to the whole system, then, of doctrine, 
 government, and mode of worship, which now distin- 
 guishes the Presbyterian Church in the United States, 
 that the attention of the readers of these pages is re- 
 quested ; and which, it shall be my aim to show, is set 
 forth in the Word of God, " the only infallible rule of 
 faith and practice." 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 The essential principles of Presbyterian Church order 
 -were of very early origin. Those principles are the 
 authoritative binding of the whole Church together as 
 one body ; and conducting this government, not by the 
 entire ecclesiastical population, but by representatives, 
 elected by, and acting on behalf of, the whole. That 
 this mode of administering the affairs of the visible 
 Church was adopted long before the coming of Christ, 
 is certain, and can be doubted by none who intelligently 
 and impartially read the Old Testament Scriptures. 
 Even before the institution of the ceremonial economy, 
 while the covenanted people of God were yet in bond- 
 age in Egypt, we find that they had their elders ; that is, 
 their men of gravity, experience, and wisdom, who were 
 obeyed as heads of tribes, and rulers among the people. 
 (Exod. iii. 16.) The pow T ers committed to them, and 
 exercised by them, are not particularly specified ; but 
 we may take for granted, with confidence, that their 
 office was to inspect and govern the people, and to ad- 
 just all disputes both of a civil and ecclesiastical nature. 
 Before the publication of the law from Blount Sinai, 
 and anterior to the establishment of the ceremonial eco- 
 nomy, Moses chose wise and able men out of the tribes 
 of Israel, made them rulers over thousands, over hun- 
 dreds, over fifties, and over tens. (Exod. xviii.) These 
 rulers are elsewhere, in almost every part of the Old 
 Testament, styled elders. To them, as we are expressly 
 
HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 25 
 
 informed, all the ordinary cases of government and dis- 
 cipline were committed. The same mode of dispensing 
 justice and order among the people seems to have been 
 employed after the institution of the Aaronic priesthood ; 
 during the time of the judges and of the kings; dur- 
 ing the Babylonish captivity; and after the return of 
 the captives from Babylon. At whatever time the syna- 
 gogue system was adopted, it is evident that the plan of 
 conducting government by means of a body of elders 
 was universal through all the land of Judea, up to the 
 time of the Saviour's advent. The synagogues were the 
 parish churches of the Jews. There the ordinary wor- 
 ship and instruction of the Sabbath were conducted; 
 and the excommunication of an individual from the 
 body of the professing people of God was expressed by 
 "putting him out of the synagogue." In these syna- 
 gogues, the essential principles of Presbyterianism were 
 universally established. The similarity, as to every im- 
 portant point, was exact. In short, during the whole 
 tract of time embraced in the history of the Mosaic 
 economy, we have complete evidence that the ecclesias- 
 tical government, as well as the civil, was conducted, 
 under God, the supreme ruler, by boards of elders,; 
 acting as the authorized representatives of the people. \ 
 To this mode of government, as is notorious, every city \ 
 and every synagogue was accustomed. In no instance, / 
 in either Church or State, is a case recollected in which 1 
 the population was called together to settle a dispute, or • 
 dispense justice between persons at variance. The re- 
 presentative system was universally in use. The work 
 of administering justice was always done by a body of 
 rulers or officers, commonly styled, amidst all the changes 
 of dispensation, " elders of the people."* 
 
 Nor was this all. As each particular synagogue was 
 
 * The truth is, the representative system of government, whether 
 on Church or in State, is founded on reason and necessity, as well a3 
 on Scripture. There is no other way of governing a large body of 
 intelligent men. All cannot govern. Hence, with the progress^ of 
 representative principles of government— from the progress of civi- 
 lization—provision is made for the spread of Presbyterianism in the 
 Christian Church. This holds out good prospects for the future.— L. 
 
26 HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 governed by a bench of elders, of which the bishop or 
 " angel of the Church" was the presiding officer ; so also, 
 as the whole Jewish body was one — one catholic Church 
 — there were always appeals admitted, in cases of alleged 
 incorrectness of judgment, to the " great synagogue" 
 at Jerusalem, where an opportunity was given for 
 redressing what was done amiss. Nothing like the 
 independency of particular synagogues was admitted or 
 thought of. A system which bound the whole com- 
 munity together as one visible professing body was uni- 
 formly in operation. 
 
 The first converts to Christianity being all native Jews, 
 who had been always accustomed to the exercise of 
 government by benches of "elders," in the manner just 
 specified; and this representative plan being so equitable, 
 so wise, and so convenient in itself, no wonder that the 
 same plan was adopted by the apostles in organizing 
 the primitive Church. Accordingly, as in the account 
 which the inspired writers give of the Jewish constitu- 
 tion, we read continually of the " rulers of the syna- 
 gogue," and of the " elders of the people," as a body 
 distinguished from the priests ; so, when they proceed 
 to give us an account of the organization and proceed- 
 ings of the New Testament Church, we find the same 
 language used in cases almost innumerable. We read 
 of " elders being ordained in every Church ;" of an im- 
 portant question being referred to a synod, made up of 
 "apostles and elders;" of "elders who ruled well, but 
 did not labour in the word and doctrine;" of the " elders 
 of the Church being called together" to consider eccle- 
 siastical questions; of the " elders of the Church being 
 called for to visit and pray over the sick," &c* 
 
 The question, whether the exact mode of conducting 
 
 * The Hebrews, on becoming Christian, would naturally follow 
 the same forms of Church government to which they had been ac- 
 customed when Jews. Hence, if a change was intended by Christ, 
 it was essential that they should be apprized of it ; nay, the former 
 polity would need to have been repealed, and they cautioned against 
 recurring to it. Now, is there any repeal of, or caution against 
 adopting, the old Jewish form of government ? No : The inference 
 is plain. In principle it was contiuued.— L. 
 
HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 27 
 
 the government and discipline of the Church, which we 
 find delineated in the New Testament, is obligatory on 
 Christians now, is one concerning which there is no small 
 diversity of opinion. That an entire conformity to that 
 model, in every minute particular, is essential to the 
 existence of the Church, will be maintained by few, 
 and certainly by no Presbyterian. None can doubt, 
 however, that it is most expedient and safe to keep, as 
 near as may be, to that plan of Church order which in- 
 spired men approved and left in use, when they ceased 
 from their labours.* As to what that plan was, it 
 would really seem almost impossible that intelligent and 
 impartial readers of the New Testament should entertain 
 different opinions. The moment we open the inspired 
 history of the apostolic age, we find a style of speaking 
 concerning the officers of the Church, and a statement 
 of facts, which evince, beyond all controversy, that the 
 model of the synagogue was that which was then adopt- 
 ed, and which was left in universal use w r hen inspired 
 men surrendered the Church to their successors. We 
 find, preaching the Gospel. " feeding the sheep and the 
 lambs" of Christ, and administering the Christian sacra- 
 ments, the highest offices intrusted to the ministers of 
 Christ. We find a plurality of " elders," by divine 
 direction, ordained in every Church. In no instance, 
 in the whole New Testament, do we find an organized 
 congregation under the watch and care of a single officer. 
 Farther: we find "bishop" and " elder," titles given, 
 interchangeably, to the same persons ; plainly showing 
 that the term " bishop," in the apostolic age, was the 
 title which designated the pastor or "overseer" of a 
 single flock or Church. t We find in the New Testa- 
 
 * While God may, and doubtless does, acknowledge all forms 
 where Gospel truth is held and professed, yet it may be expected 
 that the blessing will always be richer, the nearer that any particu- 
 lar Church approaches to the standard of Scripture. We are not 
 allowed, when favoured with the means of knowledge, to despise 
 even the least of Christ's commandments with impunity. And 
 there is a reward, also, for being faithful in searching out God's 
 mind and will from his Word. — L. 
 
 f Episcopalians obtain an undue advantage over their brethren 
 in other communions, from the word " bishop" in the English Ian- 
 
28 
 
 HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 ment history no trace of Prelacy. All priority or pre- 
 eminence among the ministers of Christ is expressly 
 rebuked and forbidden.* There is evidently but one 
 commission given to the authorized ministers of the 
 word and sacraments. When the Saviour left the 
 world, he commissioned no higher officer in his Church, 
 speaks of no higher than he who was empowered to go 
 forth and " teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 The ordaining power is manifestly represented as pos- 
 sessed and exercised by ordinary pastors, and as per- 
 fumed by the " laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 
 There is not a solitary instance to be found in all the 
 Xew Testament, of an ordination being performed by a 
 single individual, whether an ordinary or an extraor- 
 dinary minister. In all the cases which we find record- 
 ed or hinted at, a plurality of ordainers officiated. When 
 Paul and Barnabas were designated to a special mission, 
 it was by a plurality of " prophets and teachers of the 
 Church in Antioch." (Acts xii.) When they went 
 forth to preach and organize Churches, we are informed 
 that they together " ordained elders in every Church." 
 Timothy was ordained by the " laving on of the hands 
 of the presbytery." t (1 Tim. iv. 14,.) And even when the 
 
 guage having come to describe the overseer, not of a congregation, 
 but of the clergy. This is not, however, its original meaning. It 
 simply signifies an " overseer." Presbyterians and Congregation- 
 alisms are equally entitled to use it as Episcopalians, and to apply it 
 to their ministers as " overseers" of the Christian people. Where 
 met with in Scripture, Christians should always remember that it 
 means nothing but the pastor and overseer of the congregation, and 
 that the same is its meaning in the earliest period of the primitive 
 Church. — L. 
 
 * Among the twelve apostles there was perfect parity; there wa3 
 no arch-apostle, like archbishop in modern times. — L. 
 
 f Paul, indeed, in 2 Tim. i. fi, says, " I put thee in remembrance 
 that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on 
 of my hands;'''' but the gift here spoken of is evidently not the gift 
 of ordination, but of miraculous powers conferred by the apostle. 
 A man could not well "stir up" his ordination ; and it is immediately 
 added, that God had not given the " spirit of fear," but of " power," 
 alluding to the gift of miraculous power. The apostle seems to have 
 bestowed miraculous gifts on Timothy, just as Ananias, who was no 
 bishop, laid his hands on Paul, and he received the Holy Ghost." 
 (Acts ix. 17.)— L. 
 
HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 29 
 
 deacons were set apart to their office, it is plain, from 
 the narrative (Acts vi. 1-6'), that a plurality laid hands 
 upon them, with prayer and fasting. It is plain, too, 
 that the whole visible Church, in the apostolic age, 
 Avhether in Jerusalem or in Antioch, in Philippi or in 
 Ephesus, was regarded as one body, all governed by the 
 same laws, subject to the same authority, and regulated 
 by the same judicial decisions. Thus, when a question 
 arose which interested and affected the whole Christian 
 community, it was decided by a synod of the M apostles 
 and elders at Jerusalem;"* and the "decrees" of that 
 synod were sent down to "all the Churches," to be 
 registered and obeyed. Here was evidently an assembly 
 of ministers and elders, acting as the representatives of 
 the whole Church, and pronouncing judicial decisions, 
 which were intended to bind the whole body. If this 
 be not Presbyterianism, then there is nothing of the 
 kind in Scotland, or in the United States. 
 
 When we pass from the New Testament to the earliest 
 records of uninspired antiquity, the same form of Church 
 order is everywhere apparent. The plan of ecclesiasti- 
 cal government disclosed by the Epistles of Ignatius, as 
 actually existing in his day, is manifestly Presbyterian. 
 He represents every particular Church of which he 
 speaks, as furnished with a bishop or pastor, a bench of 
 elders, and deacons; he continually employs language 
 which implies that these officers were present in every 
 worshipping assembly; and he most evidently gives us 
 to understand, that these elders, with the pastor or 
 bishop at their head, conducted the government and 
 discipline of each Church. Clemens Romanus, contem- 
 porary with Ignatius, speaks in language of similar 
 import. He represents bishops and presbyters — the 
 Episcopate and the Presbyterate — as the same; and 
 expressly states that the presbyters were " set over the 
 Church" by the choice of the Church; and that to rise 
 up in rebellion against them was considered as highly 
 criminal. The testimony of Irena?us, who lived in the 
 
 * Not by the apostles or bishops alone, but also by the ruling 
 elders. — L. 
 
30 HISTORY OF PRESBYTERTANISM. 
 
 second century, is no less decisive in favour of our 
 system. He continually applies the title of bishop and 
 presbyter to the same men ; speaks of " the succession of 
 the Episcopate," through the presbyters and through the 
 bishops, as the very same; nay, represents the Apostolical 
 succession, the Episcopal succession, and the Presbyterial 
 succession, as all identical. In short, he could scarcely 
 have kept a more scrupulous and exact balance than he 
 does between the dignities, powers, and duties connected 
 with each title, and ascribed interchangeably to all. I 
 might go on to quote Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus, and other early fathers, as speaking a language 
 of equivalent import. But there is no need of going 
 into further detail. The truth is, for the first two hun- 
 dred years after Christ, it is certain that neither Prelacy; 
 nor Independency was known in the Church of Christ. 
 There is not a single record within that period which! 
 either asserts or implies it; but everything of a contrary 
 aspect. Every flock of professing Christians had its pastor 
 or bishop, with its bench of elders, by whom the govern- 
 ment and discipline were conducted ; and its body of 
 deacons, by whom the funds collected for the relief of 
 the poor w r ere received and disbursed.* 
 
 In the third century after Christ, the aspect of things 
 began to change. Some seasons, in this century of ex- 
 emption from persecution, and of comparative outward 
 prosperity, w T ere marked by very sensible departure from 
 the simplicity and purity of the preceding times. Here- 
 sies and schisms began to distract the congregations of 
 God's professing people. The ministry and eldership of 
 the Church declined both in zeal and faithfulness. The 
 clergy became ambitious and voluptuous, and, as a natu- 
 ral consequence, full of intrigue and contention. The 
 pictures given of their cupidity, mutual encroachments, 
 and degrading strife, by Cvprian. by Origen, and by 
 Eusebius, as in full operation in the third century, are 
 truly of the most revolting character. Some have said, 
 indeed, that the Church, in the Cvprianic age, presented, 
 
 * Vide "The Testimony o r the Fathers and Reformers in behalf 
 of Presbytery," in the Appendix. — L. 
 
HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 31 
 
 on the whole, one of the most satisfactory models of 
 ecclesiastical perfection. Those who can entertain this 
 opinion must judge of what is desirable in a Church by 
 a very different criterion from that which the Bible fur- 
 nishes. Let them impartially read the statements given 
 \ by the writers just mentioned, and they will speedily 
 alter their opinion.* Among such a clergy, an undue 
 aspiring after preferment, titles, and places, might be 
 expected, as a matter of course. Indeed, in such cir- 
 cumstances, it would have required a constant succession 
 of miracles to prevent Prelacy from arising. Nor was 
 this all. As the Church declined from her primitive 
 simplicity and purity, some of her more serious ministers 
 thought themselves warranted in resorting to other forms 
 of attraction for drawing the populace into the Church. 
 For attracting the Jews, they began to adopt some of 
 the titles, ceremonies, and vestments of the temple ser- 
 vice. They began to call the Christian ministry the 
 "priesthood;" and, as a natural consequence, to speak 
 of u priests " and " high priests," and " altars," and 
 M sacrifices," &c, &c; for all which, in reference to the 
 Christian economy, there is not the smallest warrant in 
 the New Testament. Other ecclesiastical leaders, for 
 the purpose of conciliating and attracting the Pagans, 
 
 * We are indebted to recent controversies for more just views of 
 the character of the Christian Church in the first three centuries 
 than were formerly entertained. Even the great body of intelligent 
 men took it for granted that the primitive Church, with a few ex- 
 ceptions, was not only irreproachable, but highly estimable. Recent 
 investigators (and to no one is the Christian Church more obliged 
 than to Mr. Taylor, in his " Ancient Christianity," in answer to the 
 new Anglican school) have brought out a very different — most 'affect- 
 ing and appalling result. Nothing is more fitted to soften the hor- 
 rors of Popery, than, with Mr. Taylor's aid, to read the history of the 
 primitive Church which the new school extol. In doctrine, worship, 
 and practice, the picture is fearful. Well may any corruption in 
 Church government rise out of such previous corruption in faith and 
 manners. It were strange were it otherwise. Antichrist existed in 
 the days of the apostles, and was to rise to dominion gradually. 
 The history of the primitive Church is the picture of its progress, 
 and that a rapid one. In addition to Mr. Taylor's work, the reader 
 may consult with advantage the third chapter of Jameson's " Cyp- 
 rianus Isotimus." It gives a well accredited and melancholy ac- 
 count of Cyprian, as well as of his contemporaries. — L. 
 
32 HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 introduced a variety of rites from the ceremonial of the 
 heathen, intended to make the Christian ritual more 
 splendid, dazzling, and alluring to those who had been 
 the votaries of dumb idols, and whose chief objection to 
 the religion of Christ was, that its worship was too 
 simple and unadorned. The consequence was, that, 
 toward the close of the third century, Prelacy was gra- 
 dually and insidiously introduced. All orders of eccle- 
 siastical men partook of the spirit of ambitious encroach- 
 ment. The deacons, whom the apostles had appointed 
 to be guardians of the poor, and of the temporalities of 
 the Church, became too proud to discharge the appro- 
 priate duties of their office, employed " sub-deacons " to 
 perform their official work, and, after a while, claimed, 
 and had conceded to them, the power of preaching and 
 baptizing. The presbyters or elders partook of the same 
 spirit, and although the greater part of them had been 
 chosen and set apart for ruling only; yet, as the disci- 
 pline of the Church became relaxed and unpopular, and 
 finally in a great measure abandoned, they all aspired 
 to be public teachers, and turned away from their ori- 
 ginal work, to what they deemed a more honourable 
 employment. The bishops, who had been originally 
 overseers or pastors of single flocks, claimed authority 
 over the congregations in their neighbourhood, which 
 had branched out from their original charges; so that, 
 by little and little, they became prelates — a new office 
 covertly brought in under an old name. Nor did the 
 principle of ambitious encroachment stop here. Metro- 
 politans and patriarchs began to "lord it" over bishops. 
 And to crown the gradations of rank, the Bishop of 
 Rome, seduced by the imperial splendour which sur- 
 rounded him, and countenanced by imperial power and 
 munificence, came to be acknowledged as the supreme 
 head, under Christ, of the whole Church upon earth, 
 and the infallible interpreter of the Saviour's will. 
 
 This statement is confirmed by early Christian writers 
 of the highest character, and who were nearly contem- 
 porary with the criminal innovation of which they speak. 
 Thus Ambrose, who wrote about the year 376 after 
 
HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 33 
 
 Christ, in his Commentary on Eph. iv. 2, has the 
 following passage : — u After Churches were planted in 
 all places, and officers ordained, matters were settled 
 otherwise than they were in the beginning. And hence 
 it is that the apostles' writings do not, in all things, agree 
 y with the present constitution of the Church, because 
 they were written under the first rise of the Church; for 
 he calls Timothy, who was created a presbyter by him, 
 a bishop — for so, at first, the presbyters were called." 
 This passage is so plain, that it requires no comment. 
 Still more unequivocal and decisive is the language of 
 Jerome. " Among the ancients," says he. " presbyters 
 and bishops were the same. But by little and little, 
 that all the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the 
 whole care was devolved on one. As, therefore, the 
 presbyters know that, by the custom of the Church, they 
 are subject to him who is their president; so let bishops 
 know, that they are above presbyters more by the custom 
 of the Church, than by the true dispensation of Jesus 
 Christ !" And in order to establish his position, that, 
 in the apostolic age, bishop and presbyter were the same, 
 he quotes precisely those passages from Scripture which 
 Presbyterians have been accustomed, for three hundred 
 years, to adduce in attestation of the same fact. The 
 testimony of Augustine, bishop of Hippo, is to the same 
 amount. In writing to his contemporary, Jerome, who 
 was a presbyter, he expresses himself in the following 
 language : — " I entreat you to correct me faithfully when 
 you see I need it; for although, according to the names 
 of honour which the custom of the Church has now 
 brought into use, the office of bishop is greater than that 
 of presbyter; nevertheless, in many respects Augustine 
 is inferior to Jerome." (Ope?\, torn, ii., epist. 19, ad 
 Hieron.) It is worthy of notice, that Bishop Jewel, in 
 his " Defence of his Apology for the Church of Eng- 
 land," produces this passage from Augustine, for the 
 express purpose of showing the original identity of 
 bishop and presbyter, and translates it thus : — " The 
 office of bishop is above the office of priest, not by autho- 
 rity of Scripture, but after the names of honour which 
 
34 HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 the custom of the Church hath now obtained." {Defence, 
 122, 123.) And, finally, to the same effect is the testi- 
 mony of Chrysostom, who wrote toward the close of the 
 fourth century. In his eleventh Homily on the Epistles 
 to Timothy, he speaks thus : — " Having spoken of 
 bishops, and described them, Paul passes on to the dea- 
 cons. But why is this ? Because between bishop and 
 presbyter there is not much diffeience; for these also, 
 in like manner, have committed to them both the in- 
 struction and the government of the Church; and what 
 things he has said concerning bishops, the same also 
 he intended for presbyters; for they have gained the 
 ascendency only in respect to ordination; and of this 
 they seem to have defrauded the presbyters." This pas- 
 sage of the eloquent father needs no comment. If there 
 be meaning in words, Chrysostom distinctly conveys the 
 idea, not only that ordination was the only point in re- 
 spect to which bishops, in his day, had gained prece- 
 dence over presbyters, but that they had gained even 
 this by fraudulent means. This is the undoubted im- 
 port of the word which he employs, and which we trans- 
 late defraud. The same word is employed in 1 Thess. 
 iv. 5 : " That no man go beyond and defraud his brother 
 in any matter," &c. And again, 2 Cor. vii. 2 : " We 
 have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we 
 have defrauded no man." And, be it remembered, no 
 individual in the fourth century was more competent, in 
 every respect, than Chrysostom, to say whether the pre- 
 eminence which had been gained by bishops in his day 
 rested on a divine warrant, or had been fraudulently 
 obtained. 
 
 Thus it is evident — the ancients themselves being our 
 witnesses — that, in the apostolic age, bishop and presby- 
 ter were the same; that the bishops were parish minis- 
 ters; that, in every parish, a body of elders, with their 
 pastor alt their head, conducted the government and dis- 
 cipline ; that, of course, Presbyterian parity in the Gospel 
 ministry universally prevailed; that the rite of ordination 
 was equally the prerogative of all who were empowered 
 to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments; 
 
HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIAMSM. 35 
 
 that it was habitually performed " by the laying on of 
 the hands of the presbytery:" that matters continued in 
 this situation for more than one hundred years after 
 the close of the apostolic age; that then clerical pride, 
 ambition, and cupidity, began, more sensibly than in 
 preceding times, to disclose their native effects; and that 
 the pastors of the more opulent towns claimed special 
 pre-eminence and powers, as peculiarly the successors 
 of the apostles, which, by little and little, were admitted, 
 and at length, permanently established. Thus were 
 parochial bishops, or the pastors of single congregations, 
 gradually transformed into diocesan or prelatical bishops, 
 and, under an old familiar title, a new office artfully in- 
 troduced; until, in the fourth century, when Christianity 
 became the established religion of the empire, when the 
 clergy were pampered by imperial bounty, defended by 
 imperial authority, and their honours arranged accord- 
 ing to the gradations of rank which were obtained in 
 the State, all traces of primitive simplicity and purity 
 were lost in the plans and splendour of worldly policy. 
 Bishops became " lords over God's heritage," rather than 
 u examples to their flocks." 
 
 We are not to suppose, however, that this departure 
 from the apostolic model of Church order was universal. 
 There were " witnesses of the truth," who, in humble 
 retirement, bore a faithful testimony to the original sys- 
 tem of discipline as well as doctrine. The simple- 
 hearted Paulicians, in the seventh century, testified 
 against the encroachments of Prelacy. They were suc- 
 ceeded, not long afterwards, by the Waldenses and 
 Albigenses, who still more distinctly and zealously pro- 
 tested against all encroachments on Presbyterian simpli- 
 city. This is frequently acknowledged by many of the 
 advocates of Prelacy, as well as others. 2Eneas Sylvius^ 
 afterwards Pope Pius II., declares, " They (the Wal- 
 denses) deny the hierarchy, maintaining that there is no 
 difference among the priests, by reason of dignity or 
 office." Medina, a learned Prelatist, in the Council of 
 IVent, asserted that the doctrine of ministerial parity had 
 been condemned in Aerius, and in the Waldenses, as 
 
36> HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 well as in others specified by him. Bellarmine acknow- 
 ledges that the Waldenses denied the divine right of 
 Prelacy. The Rev. Dr. Rainolds, an eminently learned 
 Episcopal divine, professor of divinity in the university 
 of Oxford, in the reign of Elizabeth, in writing on this 
 subject to Sir Francis Knollys, declares: " All those 
 who have, for five hundred years past, endeavoured the 
 reformation of the Church, have taught that all pastors, 
 whether they be called bishops or priests, are invested 
 with equal authority and power — as, first, the Waldenses ; 
 next, Marcilius Petavinus ; then Wickliffe, and his 
 disciples; afterwards Huss and the Hussites; and last 
 of all, Luther, Calvin* Bnllinger, Musculus" &c. Their 
 own historians, John Paul Perrin, and Sir Samuel 
 Moreland, make statements, and exhibit documents, 
 which fully confirm this representation. For although 
 in some of the records of the Waldenses, certain Seniors 
 are mentioned who performed particular duties for the 
 sake of order; yet we are explicitly informed that they 
 claimed no superiority by divine right. Accordingly, 
 Peter Heylin, a bigoted Episcopalian, speaking of the 
 Bohemian Brethren, a branch of the same people, and 
 who are known to have received ministers from them, 
 says, that " they had fallen upon a way of ordaining 
 ministers among themselves, without having recourse to 
 the bishop, or any such superior officer, as a super- 
 intendent." {History of Presbyterianism, pp. 409, 410.) 
 The Rev. John Scott, the pious Episcopal continuator 
 of " Milner'sjEcclesiastical History," in giving a particular 
 statement of the tenets and practices of the Waldenses, 
 addressed by George Mauzel, one of their most devoted 
 ministers, to CEcolampadius, the celebrated Reformer, in 
 1530, represents that minister as stating, in the most 
 unequivocal manner, that the different orders of bishops, 
 priests, and deacons, did not exist in their ministry. 
 (Vol. i., 139.) The Rev. Adam Blair, one of the latest 
 and most profound writers on the history of the Wal- 
 denses, asserts and shows, with the utmost confidence, 
 that their ecclesiastical government was not Episcopal. 
 (History of the Waldenses, in two volumes octavo, 
 
HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 37 
 
 1833.) " Like Presbyterians and Independents," says 
 this writer, «' they denied the establishment of the dif- 
 ferent orders of ministers then received in the Western 
 Church, such as bishops, archbishops," &c. (Vol. i., 
 176.) Again he says: " No form of ecclesiastical go- 
 vernment in Great Britain seems exactly the same with 
 the ancient Waldenses." Viewing them as having a 
 constant moderator, Episcopalians think him like a 
 bishop. But in regard to Episcopal consecration, Mr. 
 Acland, an Episcopalian, informs us, that " this orna- 
 ment of our Church establishment, as justly cherished 
 by us, is unquestionably no longer preserved among the 
 Vaudois." Viewing them as having a synod, and hav- 
 ing a consistory or session in each congregation, they 
 are Presbyterians; yet with this difference, that, in our 
 country, synods and presbyteries have a new moderator 
 every year, and the lay-elders are sent by the session in 
 each congregation; while the Waldensian congregations 
 meet and appoint the elder. The visits of the moderator 
 to the different congregations, as appointed by the court, 
 have nothing in them inconsistent with Presbytery. 
 Mr, Gilly (also an Episcopalian) admits that the pre- 
 sent Vaudois are nearer to Presbyterians than to any 
 other form of Church government, only not so rigid." 
 (Vol. i. 540, 541.) But the undoubted fact which places 
 this whole subject beyond all question is, that after the 
 commencement of the Reformation in Geneva, the 
 Waldenses not only held communion with that Church, 
 which we all know was strictly Presbyterian, but also 
 received ministers from her, and, of course, recognised 
 the validity of her ordinations in the strongest practical 
 manner. This they could never have done, had they 
 been in the habit of regarding the subject in the same 
 light with modern Prelatists. 
 
 But the Waldenses were not merely Presbyterian as 
 to the point of ministerial parity. According to their 
 own most authentic writers, as well as the acknowledg- 
 ment of their bitterest enemies, they resembled our 
 beloved Church in almost everything. They rejected 
 all human inventions in the worship of God — such as 
 
 D 
 
8S HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIAN ISM. 
 
 the sign of the cross in baptism; fast and festival days; 
 the confirmation of children and youth; the consecration 
 of edifices for public worship, &c. We are also told 
 that all their Churches were bound together by synods, 
 which assembled once a-year ; that these synods were 
 composed of ministers and ruling elders, as in the Pres- 
 byterian Church ; that their business was to examine 
 and ordain candidates for the ministry, and authorita- 
 tively to order everything respecting their own body. 
 We may say, then, with strict regard to historical verity, 
 that in the darkest and most corrupt periods of the 
 Church, Presbyterianism was kept alive in the purest, 
 and, indeed, in the only pure Churches now known to 
 have then existed.* 
 
 When the Reformation from Popery occurred, it is at 
 once wonderful and edifying to observe with what al- 
 most entire unanimity the leaders in that glorious enter- 
 prise concurred in proclaiming and sustaining Presby- 
 terian principles. Luther, Melancthon, and Bucer, in 
 Germany; Farel, Viret, and Calvin, in France and 
 Geneva; Zuingle and CEcolampadius, in Switzerland; 
 Peter Martyr, in Italy; A. Lasco, in Hungary; Junius 
 and others, in Holland ; Knox, in Scotland ; and a de- 
 cided majority of the most enlightened and pious friends 
 of the Reformation even in England — all, without con- 
 cert, concurred in maintaining, that in the apostolic age 
 there was no Prelacy (bishop and presbyter being the 
 same); that the government of the Church by ruling as 
 well as teaching elders was plainly warranted in Scrip- 
 ture; and that individual congregations were not to be 
 considered as independent communities, but as so many 
 members of the body to which they belonged, and to be 
 governed by representative assemblies, for the benefit of 
 the whole. It is true, these different leaders of the 
 
 * Even some intelligent Episcopalians, such as Fabe'r, believe 
 these Churches to be the Two Witnesses of the Book of Reve- 
 lation ; in other words, the only faithful witnessing Church for many 
 ages; and yet they lay no claim to unbroken Prelatical succession, 
 — yea, would have treated the fiction with contempt. What, then, 
 becomes of succession as essential to the being of a Church ? the 
 only Church which deserves the name for centuries, has it not. — L. 
 
HISTORY OP PRESBYTERIANISM. ,39 
 
 Reformed Churches did not, all of them, actually estab- 
 lish Presbyterian order in their respective ecclesiastical 
 bodies; but while all the Reformed Churches in France, 
 Germany, Holland, Hungary, Geneva, and Scotland, 
 were thorough Presbyterians, not only in principle, but 
 also in practice — even the Lutherans universally ac- 
 knowledged that ministerial parity was the order of the 
 apostolic Church, and also, that in the primitive times 
 ruling elders conducted the government and discipline 
 in all the Churches — still, many of them holding, as 
 they did, that the Church was not bound to adhere, in 
 every respect, to the apostolic model of government and 
 discipline, but was at liberty to modify it according to 
 exigencies, and as they might deem for edification, they 
 adopted forms of regulation and discipline differing 
 from each other, and differing, as they did not hesitate 
 to confess, from the plan actually in use in the days of 
 apostolic simplicity. The Church of England was the 
 only one, in all Protestant Christendom, which, at the 
 Reformation, adopted the system of Prelacy. This was 
 occasioned by the fact that, in that country, the bishops, 
 the court clergy, and the monarchs, took the lead in re- 
 forming the Church ; and, as might have been expected, 
 chose to retain the system of ecclesiastical pre-eminence 
 which had been so long established. It is notorious, how- 
 ever, that this was done originally without any claim of 
 divine right, with a spirit of affectionate intercourse and 
 communion with all the non-episcopal Churches on the 
 continent of Europe, and, after all, contrary to the judg- 
 ment of large numbers of the most eminently pious and 
 learned "friends of the Reformation in that kingdom.* 
 It is very common for the more uninformed op- 
 
 * Parallel to this it may be mentioned, that the office of ruling 
 elder, now peculiar to the Presbyterian Church. was, in the reign of 
 Elizabeth, kept out of the constitution of the Church of England, 
 into which there was every prospect of its beinir received — not on 
 the ground that it wanted divine authority; no, that authority was 
 conceded ; but expressly on the ground that it would interfere with 
 the queen's prerogative. In other words, the Reformation of the 
 Church was sacrificed to narrow views of supposed political con- 
 venience. ( Vide the Testimony of Bishop Burnet, quoted in the 
 Plea of Presbytery^ p. 3G2.) — L. 
 
40 HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 ponents of Presbyterianism to assert, that this form of 
 ecclesiastical order was invented by Calvin, and first set 
 in operation in the Church of Geneva. The ignorance 
 of those who can make this allegation is indeed surpris- 
 ing! Passing by all that has been said of the palpable 
 existence of Presbyterian order in the apostolic age; of 
 its plain delineation in the Epistles of Ignatius, and in 
 the writings of other fathers succeeding the pastor of 
 Antioch ; and waiving all remarks on its acknowledged 
 establishment, as we have seen, among the pious Wal- 
 denses; it was undoubtedly in use in Switzerland and in 
 Geneva long before Calvin had appeared as a Reformer, 
 or had set his foot in either of those countries. The 
 Rev. Mr. Scott, the Episcopal continuator of "Milner's 
 Ecclesiastical History," beforequoted, explicitly states, that 
 as early as 1528, when Calvin was but nineteen years of 
 age, and was wholly unknown in the ecclesiastical 
 world, " the Presbyterian form of Church government 
 was introduced into Switzerland;" and that the doctrine 
 of ministerial parity had been uniformly taught by 
 Zuingle, before the time of Calvin. In Geneva, like- 
 wise, before Calvin ever saw that city, his countrymen, 
 Farel and Viret, had gone thither and commenced the 
 Reformation upon Presbyterian principles. There, when 
 he consented to cast in his lot with them, he found a 
 " presbytery " established ; and all that he had to do 
 was to complete the system, by adding the bench of 
 ruling elders for conducting the discipline of the Church; 
 and even this he did not invent, but confessedly bor- 
 rowed from that branch of the Waldenses called the 
 Bohemian Brethren ; although he evidently considered 
 and represented it as distinctly warranted by Scripture.* 
 Presbyterianism, as it has long existed in Scotland, 
 Holland, France, Geneva, and Germany, is, in substance, 
 the same system, differing only in these several countries 
 in minor details, and chiefly in the names and arrange - 
 
 * There is about as much truth in the assertion, that Presby- 
 terianism was the creation of Calvin, as there is in the Popish al- 
 legation, that the doctrines of the Reformation originated with 
 Luther. The answer is the same. — L. 
 
HISTORY OF PKE3BYTERIANISM. 41 
 
 ments of their several ecclesiastical assemblies. As those 
 who commenced the Presbyterian Church in America, 
 about the beginning of the eighteenth century, were chiefly 
 emigrants from North Britain and Ireland; so the Church 
 of Scotland was, more than any other, their model. Oar 
 whole arrangement of judicatories, and our whole ecclesi- 
 astical nomenclature, are, with few exceptions, borrowed 
 from Scotland. What our ecclesiastical mother and 
 we call the " Church Session," most of the Presbyterians 
 on the continent of Europe call the "Consistory;" and 
 what we call the "Presbytery,'' they call the "Classes." 
 But, in general principles, we are all entirely agreed. 
 
 It would be doing gross injustice to Presbyterianism 
 not to state, before closing this historical sketch, that it 
 has been found, in all ages, friendly to " the rights of 
 man" — conducive to the advancement, rather than the 
 destruction, of civil and religious liberty. In making 
 this statement, it is not meant to be maintained that no 
 Presbyterian has ever been chargeable with the spirit 
 or practice of persecution ; but simply to say, that the 
 general characteristic of the Presbyterian Church, as a 
 denomination, is, that it has ever shown itself friendly 
 to the diffusion of knowledge, to the rights of conscience, 
 
 B ' O ' 
 
 and to the enjoyments of rational liberty. It has often, 
 very often, been a persecuted, but never a persecuting 
 Church. The few examples of a contrary aspect which 
 have appeared, were, in almost all cases, traceable either 
 to individual mistake and infirmity, or to a momentary 
 impulse of retaliation on bloody persecutors, when un- 
 expectedly placed in the power of those who had been 
 recently the victims of the most cruel oppression. The 
 death of Servetus (even allowing all the agency in his 
 death on the part of Calvin which the enemies of that 
 illustrious man have been fond of ascribing to him, but 
 which every well informed and impartial person knows 
 cannot be allowed) had no real connection with Pres- 
 byterianism. The cases of undue severity exercised to- 
 wards others, by Presbyterians in Great Britain, in the 
 course of the seventeenth century, were almost all refer- 
 able to the maxim, "that oppression makes even wise men 
 
42 HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 mad," and seldom rose much alcove the point of self-de- 
 fence.* And as to the fierce unrelenting oppression recent- 
 ly experienced by evangelical men in Geneva, it is noto- 
 riously the spirit and the work of Unitarianism — the same 
 spirit which, in the sixteenth century, prompted the lead- 
 ing Socinians, when Francis David, one of their own num- 
 ber, who believed with them the mere humanity of Christ, 
 and therefore thought that divine worship ought not to 
 be paid him — to throw him into prison, where he died.f 
 
 * It is truly wonderful that intelligent and conscientious rnen T 
 while they make such an outcry concerning the case of Servetus, 
 and study to place in so odious a light the severities inflicted on 
 some of the Episcopal clergy by the Independents in England, 
 during the Commonwealth, should entirely forget the instances of 
 persecution, a hundredfold more frequent and severe, practised by 
 Prelacy. Archbishop Cranmer was immediately active in dragging 
 at least four persons to the flames, of whom two were women. Let 
 the flames which consumed the amiable and pious Ann Askew, 
 kindled through the misguided zeal of that prelate, shame those who 
 would represent Calvin as the prince of persecutors. More than 
 this, in the reign of Edward VI., he is also confessed by the histo- 
 rians of his own Church to have "procured the death" of Joanna 
 Bocher and George Paris, labouring, and with success, to overcome 
 the scruples of the young king in signing the warrant for burning 
 them. Again, during the reign of James L, about twenty-five per- 
 sons w r ere hanged, drawn, and quartered, for their religion, in 
 England. (See Brookes History oj Religious Liberty, vol. ii. p. 403.) 
 During the same reign ( a.d. 1612), Bartholomew Legate and! 
 Edward Wightman were burnt to death for the same cause— the 
 former under the immediate administration and authority of Dr. 
 King, bishop of London, and the latter under the direction of 
 Neile, bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, who are acknowledged to 
 have had an immediate agency in bringing them to the stake. One 
 would think, that in more than half a century after the affair of 
 Servetus, the prelates of England might have become a little more 
 enlightened with regard to the rights of conscience. But the 
 miserable oppressions and cruelty exercised by Prelacy, and especi- 
 ally by Archbishop Laud and his coadjutors, and the still more cruel 
 ejections, imprisonments, and massacres, both in North and South 
 Britain, which marked the reigns cf Charles II. and James II., 
 are enough to sicken the heart, and ought for ever to impose silence 
 on Prelacy with regard to persecution. — Miller. Vide Rev. Mr. 
 Tweedie's "Calvin and Servetus." Johnstone, Edinburgh, 1846. This 
 work consists of a translation^ of the Trial of Servetus, now first 
 published. Nothing can more clearly show that the Reformer had 
 no hand whatever in the condemnation or execution of Servetus — 
 that both were the deeds of Calvin's enemies. — L. 
 
 f For a full discussion upon these points, the reader is refeired to 
 Part II., " l J resbyterianism the Friend of Freedom, Civil and 
 Religious." — L. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 DOCTRINE OP THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 Toe Presbyterian Church has been distinguished, in all 
 ages, for laying great stress on the maintenance of pure 
 doctrine. Such was eminently the case in primitive 
 times, when it was enjoined upon them to "contend 
 earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." 
 And such was no less remarkably their characteristic, 
 when, under the name of Waldenses, for five or six 
 hundred years before the Reformation, they maintained 
 a noble testimony in favour of the truth, in the midst 
 of the deplorable darkness and corruption of the Papacy. 
 At the period of the Reformation, the same zeal for the 
 true doctrine of the Gospel of Christ led the faithful 
 servants of God, in different parts of the Church, to 
 form and publish their '* Confessions of Faith," which 
 remain to the present day as monuments of their fidelity 
 to their Master's will. The people of whom we speak 
 evidently regarded the pure doctrines of the Gospel as 
 lying at* the foundation of Christian character and hope; 
 and while they attached no small importance to the 
 government and discipline of the Church, they regarded 
 as of far more vital importance those great fundamental 
 principles of our common salvation which enter essen- 
 tially into the character and life of Christian experience. 
 The system of doctrine of which the Presbyterian 
 Church has solemnly declared her acceptance and belief 
 is comprised in the " Westminster Confession of Faith," 
 and the " Larger and Shorter Catechisms." These, we 
 
44 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 believe, contain a summary of the doctrines taught in 
 the Holy Scriptures; and, on this account alone, we pro- 
 fess to receive them, and require a solemn assent to the 
 "Confession of Faith" on the part of all who are ad- 
 mitted to the pastoral office, or that of spiritual ruling 
 in our body. This system of doctrine has received the 
 distinctive title of Calvinism. Not because Calvin in- 
 vented it; but because, among all the modern advocates 
 of it, he was undoubtedly the most profound and able ; 
 and because it has suited the policy of some to endeavour 
 to convey the idea, that the system in question was un- 
 known until Calvin began to propagate and defend it. 
 
 In the Confession of Faith of the Tresbyterian Church, 
 there are many doctrines in which we entirely agree with 
 our brethren of other denominations. In regard to all 
 that is embraced in that formula concerning the being 
 and perfections of God; the trinity of persons in the 
 Godhead; the divinity, incarnation, and atoning sacri- 
 fice of the Son of God, &c, we may be said to hold sub- 
 stantially in common with all sects who deserve the 
 Christian name. But with respect to the true state of 
 human nature before God; the doctrine of sovereign, un- 
 conditional election to eternal life; the doctrine that 
 Christ died in a special sense for his elect people; the 
 doctrine of justification by the imputed righteousness of 
 Christ alone; of sanctification by the special and invin- 
 cible power of the Holy Spirit; and of the perseverance 
 of the saints in holiness— we differ very materially from 
 many who bear the Christian name. In short, with re- 
 gard to what are commonly called the u five points," dis- 
 cussed and decided in the Synod of Dort, our Confession 
 is opposed to Arminianism, and coincides with the Cal- 
 vinistic system maintained by that body. 
 
 It may be safely said that no theological system was 
 ever more grossly misrepresented, or more foully and un- 
 justly vilified, than this. It has been by multitudes de- 
 famed, as an abominable system, revolting to every dictate 
 of reason, dishonourable to God, unfriendly to Christian 
 comfort, adapted to beget discouragement and despair on 
 the one hand, or presumption and licentiousness on the 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 45 
 
 other. The gross misrepresentations with which it has 
 been assailed, the disingenuous attempts to fasten upon it 
 consequences which its advocates disavow and abhor, and 
 the unsparing calumny which is continually heaped upon 
 it and its friends, have scarcely ever been equalled in any 
 other case in the entire annals of theological controversy.* 
 Those who have been accustomed to listen to this blind and 
 unhallowed abuse, are respectfully requested to weigh 
 with serious impartiality the following considerations : — 
 1. It is but justice to ascertain what the real system 
 is which Presbyterians believe. The opponents of this 
 system are wont to give the most unjust and shocking 
 pictures of it. Whether this is done from ignorance or 
 dishonesty, it would be painful as well as vain, at pre- 
 sent, to inquire. They allege that it represents God as 
 really the author of sin, and man as laid under a physi- 
 cal necessity of sinning, and then is damned for it, do 
 what he can. They insist that our doctrine of depravity, 
 and the mode of inheriting it, if true, destroys moral 
 agency, reduces our race to the condition of mere ma- 
 chines, and, of course, makes all punishment of sin un- 
 
 * Excessive hostility and odium, directed against any system, 
 unless it be plainly self-contradictory and ruinous, are by no means 
 an unfavourable symptom, in so far as its divine truth is concerned. 
 Such has been the treatment of the truth in all ages. Any system 
 which so deeply abases the pride of man, and calls so loudly to a 
 holy life as Calvinism, cannot but provoke the enmity of many a 
 mind. To satisfy the reader that that system of interpretation is 
 not so utterly monstrous as some may imagine, from the terms in 
 which it is often spoken of, it may be mentioned, that the most 
 illustrious philosophers — such as Bacon, Leibnitz, and Newton, and 
 many others — on the ground of reason and philosophy, apart from 
 Scripture, substantially came to the principles of Calvinism. That 
 the system, too, is thoroughly logical, hangs together like a golden 
 chain (another presumption of its truth), may be gathered from the 
 fact, that when a mind has got hold of one of its first principles, 
 there is no stopping short of the whole. Scott, the well-known 
 Scripture commentator, keenly opposed to Calvinism, was anxious to 
 enter the lists of controversy with his friend, Mr. Newton of Lon- 
 don, against it; but Newton, while he disclaimed controversy, with 
 his superior discernment, saw that Scott had got hold of one of the 
 first links, and assured him that he would soon come to the same 
 conclusions with himself— a prediction which was amply realized. 
 It is well known that Scott afterwards became one of the ablest 
 advocates of Calvinism against a nrelate of his own Church. 
 — L. 
 
46 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 just and absurd. In short, they contend that the view 
 which we give of the plan of salvation, makes it a sys- 
 tem of heathenish fate, or of refined Antinoinianism, 
 equally destructive of holiness and comfort; and that, 
 under the guise of free grace, we build up a fabric of 
 favouritism on the one hand, and of fixed necessity on 
 the other — at once making God a tyrant, and man a 
 passive subject of his arbitrary will. But is it true that 
 Presbyterians embrace any such system as this ? No- 
 thing can be farther from the truth. It is a shameful 
 aricature, which has no correspondence with anything 
 but the perverted pictures of prejudice and bigotry. We 
 abhor such sentiments just as much as our uncandid 
 accusers. 
 
 The truth is, it would be difficult to find a writer or 
 speaker who has distinguished himself by opposing Cal- 
 vinism, who has fairly represented the system, or who 
 really appeared to understand it. They are for ever 
 fighting against a caricature. Some of the most grave 
 and venerable writers in our country, who have appeared 
 in the Arminian ranks, are undoubtedly in this predica- 
 ment. Whether this has arisen from the want of know- 
 ledge, or the want of candour, the effect is the same, 
 and the conduct is worthy of severe censure. The writer 
 of these pages is fully persuaded that Arminian principles, 
 when traced out to their natural and unavoidable conse- 
 quences, lead to an invasion of the essential attributes of 
 God, and, of course, to blank and cheerless Atheism. 
 Yet, in making a statement of the Arminian system, as 
 actually held by its advocates, he should consider him- 
 self as inexcusable, if he departed a hair's-breadth from 
 the delineation made by its friends. The system itself is 
 one thing — the consequences which may be drawn from 
 it another. 
 
 Without pretending to go over all the points of Cal- 
 vinism in detail, let it suffice to say, that the system 
 which Presbyterians profess to receive, is of the follow- 
 ing character and amount :* — That the Gospel finds all 
 
 * To prevent misapprehension, it may be well to notice, that 
 there is no necessary connection between Calvinism and Presbytery. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 47 
 
 men by nature dead in trespasses and sins, destitute 
 alike of the image and favour of God, and incapable of 
 regaining either, in virtue of any strength or resources 
 within themselves; that the plan of man's recovery from 
 this state of rebellion, depravity, and sin, is, from be- 
 ginning to end, a system of mere unmerited grace; that 
 it was the wonderful, unprompted grace, or undeserved 
 love of God, which, in the eternal counsels of peace, 
 contemplating man as fallen, devised a stupendous plan 
 of redemption from the guilt and power of sin; that in 
 these eternal counsels and purposes he regarded the 
 whole human race as equally fallen, and as equally un- 
 deserving on account of their sins; that, however, in 
 his sovereign mercy, he resolved to save a portion of 
 them; that he was prompted to this choice, not by any 
 foresight of faith and obedience on the part of the elect, 
 because their faith and obedience are his own sovereign 
 gift, but by the mere good pleasure of his will, that they 
 might be to the praise of the glory of his grace ; that 
 God was under no obligation to provide deliverance for . 
 any of our race; that he might justly have left us all 
 to perish in our iniquity, as he did the fallen angels, 
 toward whom he was, surely, guilty of no injustice; 
 that he was pleased, however, in the exercise of amaz- 
 ing mercy, to provide a plan of pardon, and of restora- 
 tion to fife and blessedness; that he gave his only be- 
 gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not 
 perish, but obtain everlasting life. We believe, farther, 
 that not only the providing of this Saviour, but the dis- 
 position, in each individual to accept of him, is all of 
 grace; that is, the free, unmerited gift of God. AVe 
 have no doubt, that all mankind, left to themselves ? 
 
 Presbyterian Churches, like others, sad to tell, have occasionally 
 declined from sound doctrine; but this was generally after they had 
 practically abandoned their peculiarities of Church government. 
 Decay was caused in a great measure by the abandonment. The 
 Confessions of Faith of all Presbyterian Churches have been Cal- 
 vinistic— generally higher in this respect than others. There is no 
 instance, so far as I remember, of a Presbyterian Church setting 
 out as an Arminian, and far less as a Socinian Church; and it may 
 be safely said, with few exceptions, that there is a growing revival 
 of Calvinistic principles among all the Presbyterian Churches of 
 the world. — L. 
 
4-8 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 would reject this great salvation, and that it is discrimi- 
 nating and all-conquering grace which inclines any to 
 receive it. We are persuaded farther, that as salvation 
 is all of grace, and as it is evident from Scripture, and 
 from daily observation, that all men are not believers, 
 and, of course, that all are not saved, so it was not God's 
 original intention to save all — for it is granted that he 
 does not save all; and that which he now does, if he be 
 such a God as the Bible represents him, he always in- 
 tended to do. We believe that known unto God are 
 all his works and ways from the beginning; and that all 
 the dispensations of his grace, as well as of his provi- 
 dence, and, among the rest, the effectual calling and 
 salvation of every believer, entered into his plan from 
 all eternity; "yet so," as our Confession of Faith declares, 
 " as that thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is 
 violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the 
 liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but 
 rather established." In short, the sum of our belief, in 
 reference to this great economy, may be expressed in one 
 sentence — " All that is evil in man is of himself, and to 
 him belongs the blame of it;" " and all that is good in 
 him is of God, and to him belongs the praise of it." We 
 are aware that this systenrof belief may be perverted, mis- 
 represented, and made perfectly odious, by drawing con- 
 sequences from it which we utterly reject and abhor. 
 For such perversions and unjust inferences, the advocates 
 of no creed are responsible. Let anyone carefully and 
 dispassionately read over the Confession of Faith of the 
 Presbyterian Church, and he will soon perceive that the 
 professed representations of it which are daily proclaimed 
 from the pulpit and the press, are wretched slanders, for 
 which no apology can be found but in the ignorance of 
 their authors. 
 
 2. Consider the ample support of this system which is 
 found in the Word of God. The first question which 
 every sincere and devout inquirer after truth will ask, is, 
 " What saith the Scripture?" Our own reasonings and 
 cavils, when thrown into the scale against revelation, are 
 nothing. " Let God be true, and every man a liar." 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 4 9 
 
 Now, it is confidently believed, that when we reverently 
 open the hook of God, and impartially examine what it 
 teaches concerning the important points which distinguish 
 our doctrine from other forms of belief, we shall find the 
 divine authority clearly and strongly in favour of that 
 creed which Presbyterians profess to receive. 
 
 Those who doubt this, are requested seriously, and 
 with prayer, to ponder the following Scriptures : — 
 
 "By one man sin entered into the world. By the 
 offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condem- 
 nation. By one man's disobedience many were made 
 sinners." (Rom. v. 18, 19.) "For all have sinned and 
 come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by 
 his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ 
 Jesus. Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified 
 by faith without the deeds of the law. Do we then 
 make void the law through faith? God forbid! yea, 
 we establish the law." (Rom. iii. 23-31.) "By grace 
 are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, 
 it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should 
 boast. For if it be of works, it is no more of grace, 
 otherwise grace is no more grace." (Eph. ii. 8, 9; Rom. 
 xi. G.) "Known unto God are all his works from the 
 beginning of the world." (Acts xv. 18.) "As many as 
 were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts xiii. \i.) 
 " Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the 
 Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obe- 
 dience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." (1 
 Pet. i. 2.) "According as he hath chosen us in him 
 before the foundation of the world, that we should be 
 holy and without blame before him in love; having pre- 
 destinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus 
 Christ, to himself, according to the good pleasure of his 
 will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he 
 hath made us accepted in the Beloved." (Eph. i. 4-7.) 
 " Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to 
 be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be 
 the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom 
 he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he 
 called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, 
 
50 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 them he also glorified. What shall we say, then, to 
 these things ? If God he for us, who can be against us ? 
 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect ? 
 It is God that justifieth ; who is he that condemneth ? 
 It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, 
 who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh 
 intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the 
 love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or perse- 
 cution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword ? 
 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors 
 through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that 
 neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor 
 powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor 
 height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able 
 to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ 
 Jesus our Lord." (Rom. viii. 29-39.) "Be thou par- 
 taker of the afflictions of the gospel, according to the 
 power of God; who hath saved us, and called us with an 
 holy calling, not according to our works, but according 
 to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in 
 Christ Jesus before the Avorld began." (2 Tim. i. 8, 9.) 
 "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath 
 begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day 
 of Jesus Christ." (Phil. i. 6.) " My sheep hear my 
 voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I 
 give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, 
 neither shall any pluck them out of my hand." (John x. 
 27, 28.) "The mountains shall depart, and the hills 
 be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee; 
 neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith 
 the Lord, that hath mercy on thee." (Isa. liv. ]().) 
 " Who maketh thee to differ from another ? and 
 what hast thou that thou hast not received? Now, if 
 thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou 
 hadst not received it? " (1 Cor. iv. 7.) "Holy Father, 
 keep through thine own name those whom thou hast 
 given me, that they may be one, as we are. I pray not 
 that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that 
 thou shouldest keep them from the evil." (John xvii. 
 11-15.) "Father, I will that they also whom thou 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 51 
 
 hast given me be with me where I am, that they may 
 behold my glory which thou hast given me; for thou 
 lovedst me before the foundation of the world." (John 
 xvii. 24.) " Even so, then, at this time also, there is a 
 remnant according to the election of grace. And if by 
 grace, then is it no more of works ; otherwise grace is no 
 more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more 
 grace, otherwise work is no more work. What then ? 
 Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for ; but 
 the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." 
 (Rom. xi. 5-7.) u Thy people shall be willing in the 
 day of thy power." (Ps. ex. 3.) "Then will I 
 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." (Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27.) 
 
 The reader of these pages is earnestly requested to 
 ponder seriously the foregoing Scriptures; to examine 
 them in their connection ; to interpret them with the 
 same candour and simplicity with which he is wont to 
 interpret other writings; and then to say whether they 
 do not manifestly support those peculiar doctrines for 
 which Presbyterians are so much reproached and vili- 
 fied? The question is, not whether the ingenuity of 
 Biblical criticism may not torture these passages into a 
 different meaning, but whether the plain, natural, and 
 obvious meaning be not that which will sustain the 
 system in support of which we are wont to quote them ? 
 If it will, the controversy is at an end; for whatever is 
 plainly contained in Scripture we are bound to receive. 
 
 3. It is worthy of notice, that the system of doctrine 
 maintained by the Presbyterian Church is the same in 
 substance with that which icas maintained by the wit- 
 nesses for the truth, and by the great body of the Re- 
 formers and which has generally been styled \ " The 
 doctrines of the Reformation." 
 
52 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 There is probably no class of professing Christians 
 more remote than Presbyterians from a disposition to 
 appeal to human authority as a test of truth. Our 
 ecclesiastical formularies, as well as our history, proclaim 
 that we consider the Scriptures as the infallible rule of 
 faith and practice; and that we are distinguished from 
 Prelatists and others, by contending for this principle 
 in reference to every department of the Christian system. 
 Yet it is, undoubtedly, an interesting fact, well worthy 
 of being noticed, and adapted to confirm our confidence 
 in the system which we have embraced, that all the 
 great and good men who took the lead in bearing testi- 
 mony against error, and in reforming the Church from 
 the corruptions of the Papacy, however diverse in their 
 views on other points, agreed, with scarcely an excep- 
 tion in adopting and maintaining that system of doctrine 
 which is popularly denominated Calvinism, and which 
 many of its bigoted opponents are so ignorant as to 
 imagine that Calvin invented. The Waldenses, those 
 far-famed witnesses of the truth, whom all Protestants 
 profess to venerate, but whom few, alas! appear to 
 understand and follow, not only adopted, in substance, 
 the whole Presbyterian government and discipline, as 
 we have seen in a former page, but also all the leading 
 features of our system of doctrine. The following ex- 
 tract from one of their Confessions is conclusive. The 
 eleventh article is in these words : " God saves from 
 that corruption and condemnation, into which all have 
 fallen, those whom he has chosen from the foundation 
 of the world, not for any disposition, faith, or holiness, 
 which he foresaw in them, but of his mere mere?/ in 
 Jesus Christ his Son; passing by all the rest, according 
 to the irreprehensible reason of his free will and justice." 
 And in one of their ancient catechisms, they tell us, 
 that " the real Church of Christ consists of the elect of 
 God, from the beginning to the end of the world, by 
 the grace of God, through the merit of Christ, gathered 
 together by the Holy Spirit, and fore-ordained to eternal 
 life." (See Gilly's Narrative of Researches among the 
 Waldenses, Appendix. See, also, Sir Samuel Mor- 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 53 
 
 land, pp. 40, 48, &c; Milner, iii. pp. 440, 441.) The 
 same general system was undoubtedly adopted by John 
 Wickliffe, the "morning star of the Reformation;" by 
 John IIuss, and Jerome of Prague, his companion in 
 faith and in martyrdom. " The distinguishing tenet 
 of Wickliffe in religion," says Milner, " was, undoubt- 
 edly, the election of grace." And the same writer gives 
 an account of IIuss and Jerome, which precludes all 
 doubt that, in their general system, they followed Wick- 
 liffe, who was a disciple of Augustine. 
 
 When we comedown to the time of the Reformation, 
 the same general fact continues to be unquestionable. 
 It is notorious that Luther, long before Calvin was 
 . known as a reformer, or even as a theological writer, 
 publicly maintained the doctrines of the divine decrees 
 and human impotence as thoroughly as Calvin ever did. 
 The proof of this is so complete, that no one well in- 
 formed in the history of those times will dare deny 
 it. Melancthon, the friend, coadjutor, and survivor of 
 Luther, also held in substance the very same system. 
 Those who r,ead the statements, and the extracts from 
 his writings, which appear in the pages of the Rev. Mr. 
 Scott, the Episcopal continuator of fc * Milner's Ecclesias- 
 tical History," can no longer doubt of this. Melancthon 
 assured Calvin that he concurred with him in his creed; 
 and Calvin, in his Preface to Melancthon's book of 
 " Common Places," recommends the work as one in 
 the doctrines of which he concurred. Zuingle, the 
 apostolical reformer of Switzerland, it is well known, 
 adopted the. same system. After all that has been 
 alleged to the contrary, nothing is more certain than 
 that he maintained the doctrines of the depravity and 
 moral impotence of human nature, the sovereign elec- 
 tion of grace, and the perseverance of the saints in holi- 
 ness, as decisively and zealously as any of his contem- 
 poraries. Yet Zuingle died before Calvin was ever 
 heard of as a friend to the Reformation, and before he 
 had published a sentence in reference to it. Of course, 
 the Swiss Reformer was indebted for no part of his creed 
 to the ministry or the writings of the illustrious pastor 
 
 E 
 
54 DOCTRINE OF TIIE 
 
 of Geneva. The same may be said of Bucer, of Peter 
 Martyr, of Bullinger, of Bugenhagius, of Junius, and in 
 general of all the leaders of the Reformation on the con- 
 tinent of Europe. 
 
 When we pass over to Great Britain, precisely the 
 same fact appears. Hamilton, Wishart, Archbishop 
 Cranmer; Bishops Ridley, Hooper, and Latimer; Arch- 
 bishops Grinda and Whitgift; John Knox; and, in short, 
 all the Reformers of any name, both in North and South 
 Britain, were doctrinal Calvintsts. This fact, indeed, 
 has been denied, but not by any candid, well-informed 
 man. The proof of it is complete. Let any one read 
 the Thirty- nine Articles of the Church of England, es- 
 pecially the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and seventeenth — 
 let him, particularly, ponder well the last mentioned 
 article, which treats directly of the doctrine of predes- 
 tination, and ask whether it is possible fairly to give it 
 any other than a Catvinistic interpretation. I am not, 
 indeed, ignorant that prejudice and bigotry have some- 
 times contended that this seventeenth article is decidedly 
 anti-Calvinistic in its import; and as proof of this, the 
 qualifying clause towards the end of it is cited as suffi- 
 cient evidence. Now, it so happens that that qualifying 
 clause is nearly copied from Calvin's Institutes ; and the 
 latter part of it is a literal translation of that Reformer's 
 caution against the abuse of this doctrine ! Again : let 
 him who entertains a doubt on this subject, read the 
 celebrated Catechism of Dr. NoAvell, which was reviewed, 
 corrected, formally approved, and ordered to be pub- 
 lished, as containing a summary of true doctrine, by the 
 same Convocation which formed and adopted the Thirty- 
 nine Articles, and which is acknowledged by the bitter- 
 est enemies of Calvin to be decisively Calvinistic. Let 
 him read the Lambeth Articles, drawn up and signed 
 by Archbishop Whitgift, and also subscribed by the 
 Archbishop of York, and at least three other leading 
 prelates, and by them transmitted to the University of 
 Cambridge, as containing doctrines " corresponding 
 with those professed in the Church of England." Let 
 him recollect that for more than half a century after the 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 55 
 
 Reformation was established in England, Calvin's Body 
 of Divinity, commonly styled his " Institutes of the 
 Christian Religion," was publicly received and studied 
 as a standard of orthodoxy in both the Universities ; 
 and that, by a Convocation held at Oxford, the work 
 was recommended to the general stu \y of the nation. 
 
 Now, is it not remarkable that all the great and good 
 men who took the lead in the Reformation, men of dif- 
 ferent languages, habits, and prejudices, many of them 
 absolute strangers to each other, not merely in Geneva, 
 but in Great Britain, in France, in Germany, in Holland, 
 in Switzerland — nay, wherever the darkness of the 
 Papacy was dissipated, and her corruptions abandoned — 
 all, all, with scarcely an exception, should become advo- 
 cates in substance of that system which we denominate 
 Calvinism ; that, appealing to the Bible as the common 
 repository and standard of gospel truth, they should, 
 with almost entire unanimity, without concert, and how- 
 ever divided as to other points, be so harmoniously 
 united in the great doctrines of sovereign grace, that 
 they have ever since been styled, emphatically, " The 
 doctrines of the Reformation?" How shall we account 
 for it, that brethren who claim to be well-informed, should 
 represent this system as originating with Calvin, and 
 peculiar to him and his followers, when, to say nothing 
 of its scriptural authority, every one knows it was, in 
 substance, espoused by Augustine, a thousand years 
 before Calvin was born; by all the witnesses of the truth 
 during the "dark ages;" and by all those venerable men, 
 whose piety, wisdom, and devotedness, have been the 
 theme of gratitude and praise for three hundred years ? 
 Above all, how 7 shall we account for it, that brethren, 
 who find no language too strong by which to express their 
 profound veneration for the spirit, the opinions, and the 
 services of Cranmer, Parker, Whitgift, and other distin- 
 guished prelates, who, under God, conducted and com- 
 pleted the Reformation in England ; while they are never 
 tired of vilifying the character, and denouncing the creed 
 of the venerable Calvin, whose name those very lauded 
 men never mentioned but with epithets of the high jst 
 
56 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 honour; whose writings they made their text-hooks for 
 students of theology; and whose person and ministry 
 they regarded as among the most glorious lights of Chris- 
 tendom ? * 
 
 4. As the system of doctrine taught in our Confession 
 is most in accordance with Scripture, and was common 
 to all the Reformers, so it has, to say the least, quite as r 
 few difficulties attending it an any other system. 
 
 It is not pretended that the Calvinistic system is free 
 from all difficulties. When finite creatures are called to 
 scan either the works or the revealed will of an Infinite 
 Being, they must be truly demented if they expect to 
 
 * For additional information on the above points, the reader is re- 
 ferred to an interesting and able work of the Rev. Augustus Toplady, 
 a well-known minister of the Church of England in the last century, 
 entitled " Historic Proof of the Doctrinal Calvinism of the Church 
 of England."" He shows that the doctrines of Calvinism, with more 
 or less clearness, have been the faith of the true witnessing Church 
 of God, from primitive, down through Popish times, onwards to 
 the Reformation; that they were the faith of all the Reformed 
 Churches at that period; and that Arminianism, in all ages preva- 
 lent in the Church of Rome, is a comparative novelty in the Protes- 
 tant Church, and has been always attended with the worst results, 
 moral and religious. 
 
 In addition to the ample information which he supplies on the 
 Calvinism of the Christian Church, it may be stated, that even the 
 Scottish PJpiscopalian3, who have generally been reputed anti-Cal- 
 vinistic, were not always of this character. The Confession of Faith 
 which the bishops drew up in 1616, is rigidly Calvinistic. Many 
 of them, in the course of the next twenty years, may have, and 
 doubtless did, become unsound, and for this, among other reasons, 
 were deposed by the General Assembly of 1638; but the Confession 
 stands as their professed faith; and in 16.02, not less than one hund- 
 red and eighty Scottish Episcopal ministers, in the name of the 
 Kpiscopal body, applied for admission to the Church of Scotland, 
 a Church which is strongly Calvinistic, on the ground of subscribing 
 the Westminster Confession. 
 
 Toplady, in 1773, in reference to the above work, says, "Though 
 I have, for fifteen years past, been solidly and clearly convinced of 
 the original and intrinsic Calvinism of the Established Church of 
 England, still I did not know that the subject was supported by such 
 a vast confluence of positive authorities, until the furious opposition 
 of the Methodists forced me to take a nearer and more exact view 
 of the argument. ,, Again, " On a retrospective survey of the whole 
 matter, I myself stand astonished at that profusion of evidence 
 which pours from every quarter in favour of the main point. My 
 own collections, to go no farther, viewed in the aggregate, absolutely 
 surprise me." ( Works, p. 840.) — L. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 57 
 
 find nothing which they cannot comprehend. Accord- 
 ingly, when we undertake to solve some of the diffi- 
 culties which that system of Christian doctrine usually 
 styled Calvinism presents, it cannot be denied that "such 
 knowledge is too wonderful for us; it is high, we can- 
 not attain unto it." How to reconcile what the Scrip- 
 tures plainly reveal, on the one hand, concerning the 
 entire dependence of man, and on the other, concerning 
 his activity and responsibility — how to explain the per- 
 fect foreknowledge and predestination of God, in consis- 
 tency with the perfect freedom and moral agency of his 
 intelligent creatures — is a problem which no thinkingman 
 expects fully to solve. But the question is, Are there 
 fewer difficulties attending any other system? Especially, 
 are there fewer difficulties attending the Arminian or 
 Pelagian systems, which are commonly the resort of those 
 who reject Calvinism ? There are not; nay, instead of 
 being less, they are greater, far greater, both in number 
 and magnitude. The writer of these pages rests in the 
 Calvinistic system with a confidence daily increasing, not 
 only because the more he examines it, the more clearly 
 it appears to him to be taught in the Holy Scriptures; 
 but, also, because the more frequently and impartially 
 he compares the amount of the difficulties on both sides, 
 the more heavily by far they seem to him to press against 
 the Arminian and Pelagian schemes. 
 
 It is easy — and in the estimation of the superficial and 
 unreflecting, it is conclusive — to object, that Calvinism 
 has a tendency to cut the nerves of all spiritual exertion; 
 that if we are elected, we shall be saved, do what we 
 wilt; and if not elected, we shall be lost, do what we 
 can. But is it not perfectly evident that this objection 
 lies with quite as much force against the Arminian or 
 Pelagian hypothesis? Arminians and Pelagians grant 
 that all men will not be actually saved; that the salva- 
 tion or perdition of each individual is distinctly foreknown 
 by God; and that the event will certainly happen as he 
 foresees that it will. May not a caviller then say, with 
 quite as much appearance of justice in this case as in the 
 other, " The result as to my salvation is known and 
 
58 DOCTRINE OP THE 
 
 certain. If I am to be saved, no anxiety about it is 
 necessary; and if I am to perish, all anxiety about it 
 would be useless?" But would Arminians consider this 
 objection as valid against their creed ? Probably not. 
 Yet it is just as valid against theirs as against ours. The 
 truth is, Arminians and Pelagians, by resorting to tbeir 
 respective schemes, do not really get rid of one particle 
 of the difficulty which they allege against the Calvinistic 
 system; they only place it one step farther lack, but must 
 meet it in unimpaired strength after all. If there be a God 
 who is endowed with perfect foreknowledge, and who 
 is, and always has been, acting upon a plan, of which 
 he knew the end from the beginning — and there is such 
 a being, or there is no God — then all the difficulty which 
 lies against the doctrine of sovereign, unconditional pre- 
 determination, lies equally, and in all its unmitigated 
 force against the doctrine of foreknowledge, and certain 
 futurition ; and all the shocking consequences with which 
 they charge our system of belief are quite as legitimately 
 chargeable on their own. 
 
 No other proof of this is needed than the subterfuges 
 to which Arminians and Pelagians have resorted, in order 
 to avoid the difficulties which they have felt pressing on 
 their schemes. Some have denied the possibility of God's 
 foreknowing future contingencies, alleging that such fore- 
 knowledge cannot be conceived or admitted, any more 
 than his power of doing impossibilities, or doing what 
 involves a contradiction. Others have denied the plen- 
 ary foreknowledge of God, alleging that there are many 
 things which he does not choose to know; the latter 
 making the Divine ignorance of many future things 
 voluntary, while the former consider it as necessary. 
 Pelagians, to get rid of the same difficulties, take refuge 
 in the principle that the Most High is deficient in power 
 as well as in knowledge; that he would be glad to have 
 less natural and moral evil in his kingdom than exists ; 
 would be glad to have many more saved than will be; but 
 is not able to fulfil his wishes, and is constantly restrained 
 and thwarted by his own inability. 
 
 Those who wish to see a specimen of the difficulties 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. # 59 
 
 to which good men feel themselves reduced in the course 
 of their opposition to Calvinism, may see a remarkable 
 one in the Rev. Dr. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the 
 Epistle to the Romans. There they will find an amiable 
 and pious man driven to the necessity of borrowing from 
 the Socinian camp a denial of the essential omm science of 
 God, because he saw that this attribute, if admitted, 
 would unavoidably land him in the peculiarities of Cal- 
 vinistic theology ! A more painful example of preju- 
 dice, and of subserviency to the dictates of a favourite 
 system, can scarcely be produced in the annals of Chris- 
 tian piety ! 
 
 Are not these consequences even more shocking than 
 the worst which its adversaries charge on the Calvinistic 
 system? Do not the allegations, that God is not omni- 
 potent — that he is not omniscient — that he is not act- 
 ing upon an eternal plan — that his purposes, instead of 
 being eternal, are all formed in time, and, instead of 
 being immutable, are all liable every day to be altered, 
 and are, in fact, altered by the changing will of his 
 creatures — that there is no certainty of his predictions 
 and promises ever being fulfilled, because he can neither 
 foresee nor control future contingencies — that it is his 
 express design to save all men alike, while yet it is 
 certain that all will not be saved — that he purposes as 
 much, and does as much for those who perish as for 
 those who are saved, but is, after all, baffled and dis- 
 appointed in his hopes concerning them — that he is cer- 
 tain of nothing, because he has determined on nothing, 
 and is not able to do all his pleasure ; — I say, do not 
 these allegations shock every serious mind ? Are they 
 not equally contrary to Scripture, to reason, and to all 
 the hopes of the pious ? Yet they have all been either 
 actually avowed by the opponents of Calvinism, or they 
 follow unavoidably from the principles which they as- 
 sume. The truth is, we abandon the ground that Jeho- 
 vah is acting upon an infinitely wise and eternal plan ; 
 that he is ordering all things according to the counsel of 
 his own will; and that his people are not their own 
 saviours, but indebted to his sovereign grace for every 
 
CO DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 real rrood which they possess or hope for ; — the moment 
 we abandon this giound, we abandon all that is solid 
 and tenable, and if we would follow up unavoidable 
 consequences, must plunge into the gulf of Atheism. 
 
 The same train of remark may be applied to the diffi- 
 culties which attend the doctrine of original sin. The 
 humiliating fart, that all men are by nature sinners ; 
 that their nature is corrupt — that is, that there is such 
 a tendency to sin in all the children of men, that no 
 mere man of all the human family ever failed of falling 
 into it — is not only taught in Scripture, but is notorious 
 to universal observation. Now, the question is, How 
 shall we account for this fact? Presbyterians, speaking 
 the language of Calvinism, of their Confession of Faith, 
 and, above all, as they think, of the Bible, say that 
 Adam was constituted the covenant-head of his posterity; 
 that they were to stand or fall with him ; that when he 
 fell all his posterity, in that first transgression, sinned 
 in him, and fell with him ; in other words, that the 
 guilt of his sin, in virtue of a sovereign and righteous 
 constitution, was imputed to his posterity — that is, it 
 was set to their account; they incurred the same forfeit 
 as if they had themselves committed it. And hence, as 
 Adam, by that transgression, became mortal, lost the 
 moral image of God, and incurred the penalty of a cor- 
 rupt nature; so all his posterity, in consequence of their 
 covenant relation to him, come into the world mortal, 
 depraved, and guilty, and liable to the same penalty in 
 all its extent which fell upon him. This, Presbyterians 
 profess to believe, is the meaning of those Scriptures 
 which declare, "In Adam all die." (1 Cor. xv. 22.) 
 " Bv one man's disobedience many were made sinners" — 
 " By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to 
 condemnation." (Rom. v. 18, 19.) They do not sup- 
 pose, indeed, that there is here any transfer of moral 
 character, or any transfusion of Adam's act into his 
 posterity; but that, in consequence of the covenant re- 
 lation in which he and they stood, they are treated as if 
 they had themselves committed the sin by which our 
 race fell. This, and this only, is the imputation of the 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. Gl 
 
 sin of our first parents, for which Presbyterians con- 
 tend. 
 
 Pelagians, revolting at this view of the subject, hope 
 to remove all difficulty by saying, that man's nature is 
 not corrupt ; that all men come into the world in the 
 same state of entire innocence that Adam was when first 
 created ; and that to suppose men to be born with a 
 corrupt nature, would be dishonourable to God, and in- 
 consistent with moral agency. They acknowledge, how- 
 ever, that all men are in fact sinners; and that all begin 
 to sin as soon as they become capable of moral action. 
 But is any difficulty which is supposed to attend the 
 Calvinistic doctrine really removed, or even diminished 
 by this hypothesis? Is it more honourable to God, or 
 less revolting to our sense of justice, to represent the 
 whole human family, without the adoption of any cove- 
 nant arrangement, or representative principle, as brought 
 into being, and placed by their Creator in circumstances 
 in which not one of their number ever fails of falling 
 into sin? 
 
 Arminians, or semi-Pelagians, also rejecting the Cal- 
 vinistic doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his 
 posterity, but, at the same time, perceiving that the 
 Pelagian h} r pothesis is utterly unscriptural, take another 
 method of removing the difficulty. They tell us that 
 Adam was not constituted the covenant head of his pos- 
 terity, and that the guilt of his first sin was not imputed 
 to them; but yet that, in virtue of their connection with 
 him, and descent from him, they come into the world 
 mortal, and infected with a sinful nature ; but that it is 
 on account of their own sin, and not that of Adam, that 
 they are guilty and exposed to any penalty. Is it not 
 plain, however, that this hypothesis, instead of removing 
 the difficulty which its advocates suppose to lie against 
 the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin, rather increases 
 it ? On what principle is it, according to them, that 
 mortality and a depraved nature descend from Adam to 
 his posterity ? Not, it seems, in virtue of any covenant 
 relation between them ; not on the principle of repre- 
 sentative headship ; but of an arbitrary constitution, 
 
62 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 ordering it so by a mere act of authority. And while 
 they reject the doctrine of imputation, they are con- 
 strained to confess, that in consequence, somehow, of 
 Adam's sin, all his posterity come into the world with a 
 depraved nature, which, if not removed, must lead to 
 everlasting destruction. And is this no evil, no penalty? 
 But if being born in this condition be a penalty, and a 
 heavy penalty too, why was this penalty inflicted upon 
 them ? It cannot be said that it was on account of 
 their depravity; for this would be to make their depra- 
 vity the procuring cause of itself. No imputation of our 
 first father's sin ! and yet acknowledge that, in conse- 
 quence of that sin, some of the most awful inflictions 
 are sent upon us that can affect moral and immortal 
 beings! ISo imputation! Whence, then, the fact that 
 all the posterity of Adam are born depraved, and liable 
 to death? How came this calamity upon them? Surely, 
 while the term is rejected, we have here the essence of 
 all the imputation for which we contend! Alas! we 
 never fail to augment difficulties, and introduce addi- 
 tional perplexity, whenever we deviate from the simple 
 statements of God's Word ! 
 
 5. The very same objections icere made in apostolic 
 times to the doctrines of grace, as taught by the inspired 
 Paul. In the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, 
 the doctrine of sovereign, distinguishing grace, is dis- 
 cussed professedly and at length. The apostle boldly 
 announces the language of God to be, " I will have 
 mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have com- 
 passion on whom I will have compassion. So, then, it is 
 not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of 
 God that showeth mercy." He then asks, " Is there 
 unrighteousness with God ? God forbid." Still, the 
 apostle is aware that a blind caviller may continue to 
 object. He therefore adds — "Thou wilt say, then, 
 unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath re- 
 sisted his will?" The very language and scope of this 
 objection show that the apostle meant that his doctrine 
 should be understood in a Calvinistic sense, for upon 
 any other ground the objection would be irrelevant. 
 
PRKSBYTERIAN CHURCH. 63 
 
 How does he reply to it? Does he retract or disavow 
 that view of the subject on which the cavil i3 evidently 
 founded ? Not at all. He attempts no mitigation or 
 softening. His reply is — "Nay, but O man, who art 
 thou that repliest against God ? Shall the thing formed 
 ^ say to him that formed it, "Why hast thou made me 
 thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the 
 same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another 
 unto dishonour ? What if God, willing to show his 
 wrath, and to make his power known, endured with 
 much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to de- 
 struction : and that he might make known the riches 
 of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore 
 prepared unto glory ?" Here the apostle has anticipated 
 the whole force of the Arminian objection. It cannot 
 be pushed farther than he has carried it in a single sen- 
 tence. No addition has eyxr been made to its force by 
 the most ingenious gainsayer. Yet the apostle answers 
 it, not by an attempt to explain, to bring down to human 
 comprehension, or to show that his statements had been 
 misconstrued. Nothing like it. He resolves the whole 
 into the supremacy, the sovereignty, and the incompre- 
 hensibleness of God and his counsels, and calls upon all 
 to yield to this great and all-governing principle, closing, 
 as he does in another place when on the same subject, 
 with that memorable exclamation — " O the depth of 
 the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! 
 how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past 
 finding out !" 
 
 6. It is a strong argument in favour of that creed 
 which the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church 
 exhibits, that every serious, devout professor of religion, 
 however decided as an Arminian or semi- Pelagian he 
 may be in preaching, or in conversation, never fails to 
 be a Calvinist in prayer. So far as my observation 
 has gone, the most zealous advocates of Arminianism 
 almost always lay aside their favourite opinions when 
 they pour out their hearts in prayer, under a feeling 
 sense of their dependence and their unworthiness. How 
 many examples have we of this in thousands of pulpits, 
 
64 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 and in thousands of published volumes, in which the 
 preaching is decidedly semi-Pelagian, while the prayers 
 are quite as decidedly Calvinistic! The reason of this 
 inconsistency is perfectly evident. In preaching and 
 conversation, errorists argue to maintain a point; in 
 prayer, they supplicate grace. In the former, they are 
 actuated by the spirit of controvertists ; in the latter, 
 they feel their entire dependence as creatures, and their 
 lost and perishing condition as sinners. " A prayer," 
 says one, "upon Arminian principles, and into which 
 the peculiarities of that system were introduced, we have 
 never seen, and never heard. It would be a theo- 
 logical curiosity sufficiently daring in its structure ; but 
 we venture to say, no man of Christian humility and 
 devotion will be found to carry it into the presence of 
 his God." There — there the sinner ever acknowledges 
 his weakness and depravity ^disclaims all merit; con- 
 fesses his multiplied sins ; adores the sovereign, unme- 
 rited mercy of God ; ascribes to his grace every good 
 desire and hope; glorifies his universal government over 
 all his creatures and all their actions ; and ascribes the 
 plan, the execution, and the consummation, of that de- 
 liverance for which he hopes, to the sovereign, undeserv- 
 ed grace of God abounding through the redemption that 
 is in Christ Jesus. Now here is the very essence of 
 Calvinism ; — not, indeed, of those monstrous absurdities 
 and impieties in which its adversaries are ever fond of 
 dressing it up ; but of that sober and scriptural system 
 which is found in our formularies, and for which all 
 whom we acknowledge as Calvinists have ever con- 
 tended. 
 
 7. Finally, it is worthy of serious inquiry, whether 
 the moral influence of the Calvinistic system has ??ot 
 been found in all ages more pure and happy than that 
 of any other. For this appeal no apology is necessary. 
 That system which is ever found connected with larger 
 measures of the spirit of prayer, and of humble, habitual, 
 deep devotion; that system which is ever productive of 
 more holy living, and more active Christian benevolence 
 than any other — we may confidently say, witbout pre- 
 
PRES15YTERIAN CHURCH. 6;> 
 
 sumption, is most agreeable to Scripture, arid, of course, 
 most Avorthy of being embraced. This allegation, it is 
 presumed, will not be denied. For, although the oppo- 
 nents of this system at one time charge it with having 
 a tendency to promote licentiousness, yet much more 
 \ frequently and unanimously they charge it with being 
 austere, over strict in its abstinence from worldly plea- 
 sures, and standing unnecessarily aloof from the various 
 forms of public amusement. Is it not notorious that 
 the followers of A ugustine, of the Paulicians, of Clau- 
 dius of Turin, of the Waldenses, and of Wickliffe, Huss, 
 and Jerome, in the dark ages, were far more pure in 
 their morals, devout in their habits, and separated from 
 a corrupt and idolatrous world, than any of their con- 
 temporaries ? Will it not be granted by every intelli- 
 gent reader, that during the first half century after the 
 Reformation was established in England, when no one 
 doubts that nineteen-twentieths of the Protestant clergy 
 in that kingdom were avowed Calvinists, the state both 
 of piety and of morals was unspeakably better than 
 during the latter half of the seventeenth century, when 
 Arminianism had, among the majority, taken its place? 
 What was the character of the two thousand " ejected 
 ministers," in the reign of Charles II., who were almost 
 to a man Calvinists? Were they not characteristically, 
 as a body, the most pious, pure, diligent, and exem- 
 plary servants of Christ that England ever saw ? Is it 
 not universally admitted, that the state of piety and of 
 morals has ever been far more pure in Scotland than in 
 England, and pre-eminently in those districts and con- 
 gregations in Scotland in which Calvinism has main- 
 tained a steady reign? And can any part of the world 
 be named, in which, for nearly a hundred years after its 
 settlement, purer morals reigned than in New England, 
 in which, as every one knows, during the greater part 
 of that period, a Calvinistic creed almost universally 
 prevailed?* 
 
 The following remarks, by a distinguished divine of 
 
 * For some additional facts on the moral tendency of Calvinism 
 vide the Appendix. — L. 
 
6f) DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 the Church of England who professes not to be a Cal- 
 vinist, are as just as they are striking: — 
 
 " Does not this opinion (of the immoral tendency of 
 Calvinism) in a great measure originate from a mistaken 
 conception of what Calvinism is ? Those who would 
 impute all these practical evils to the operation of Cal- 
 vinism, appear to suppose that the belief of the Calvinist, 
 by which he admits the doctrine of personal election, 
 necessarily includes also an assumption of his own elec- 
 tion. The Calvinist, -properly so called, is no enthu- 
 siast. He believes, indeed, in the eternal purposes of 
 God, as to the salvation of the elect ; but as to the hopes 
 of his own salvation, and of his individual interest in 
 those purposes, he professes to obtain it by the evidences 
 which he possesses of his being himself in a renewed and 
 justified state. He knows from the Word of God that 
 the saints are ' chosen to salvation through sanctification 
 of the Spirit,' no less than 'the belief of the truth;' that 
 they are 'predestinated to be conformed to the image of 
 Christ,' and ' created in Christ Jesus unto good works, 
 which God hath before ordained that they should walk in 
 them/ And hence he feels that it is only so long as he 
 experiences the sanctifying influences of the Spirit in his 
 own heart, so long as he himself in some degree reflects the 
 image of Christ, and walks, imperfectly indeed, but yet 
 sincerely, in good works, that he can have any scriptural 
 grounds for concluding that he is one of God's elect, and 
 will have his portion with the saints. This is true Cal- 
 vinism. And where is the tendency of this doctrine to 
 make its followers slothful or confident, negligent of the 
 meansof grace, or inattentive to moral and relative duties? 
 While the practical evils which Calvinism is charged 
 with producing, are so prominently and studiously ex- 
 hibited to view by many of its opponents, let us not 
 omit, on the other hand, to do justice to this calumniated 
 system, nor forget the abundant good which it is not 
 only capable of accomplishing, but which it actually does 
 {iccomplish. I have no doubt, but that some of the 
 sublimest feelings of pure and spiritual delight which 
 are ever experienced on earth, are those of which the 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 67 
 
 Calvinist partakes, when, in his secret retirement with 
 his God, 'the Spirit bearing witness with his spirit,' and 
 shining on his own gracious operation on the heart, he 
 meditates on the wonderful and unspeakable privileges 
 to which, through Christ, he sees himself entitled; and, 
 resolving all the blessings which have been already re- 
 ceived, or are prepared for him hereafter, into the eter- 
 nal purpose and electing love of God his Father, and 
 absorbed in a holy contemplation of the divine counsels 
 and perfections, he lies prostrate before the throne ot 
 grace, in deep humiliation, and with overwhelming joy. 
 I do not say that others have not their peculiar feelings 
 of spiritual delight; but these are his. And does he 
 rise from such communion with his God, without en- 
 larged desires and resolutions of more seriously devoting 
 himself to the Divine favour, of more decidedly over- 
 coming the flesh and the world, and of more faithfully 
 doing the will and advancing the glory of his Lord and 
 Saviour? Facts and experience reply to this inquiry. 
 Among no denomination or description of professing 
 Christians is there to be found a larger portion of 
 humble, pious, and devoted servants of God — persons 
 of a truly Christian spirit, zealous of good works, and 
 exemplary in every duty and relation of life — than among 
 those who hold the Calvinistic tenets. I am sure that 
 your observation and your candour will fully justify this 
 statement. And, therefore, so far as this system is to 
 be judged of by its actual effects, I think that, on a 
 candid re-consideration of the subject, you will be in- 
 duced to abandon your-objection, and to admit that it 
 was founded on an erroneous and partial view of the 
 subject." * 
 
 In the same general strain, Bishop Burnet, who was 
 avowedly a moderate Arminian, expresses the following 
 opinion as to the practical advantages of Calvinism: 
 " A Calvinist is taught by his opinions to think meanly 
 of himself, and to ascribe the honour of all to God; 
 which lays in him a deep foundation for humility; he 
 
 * " Letters addressed to a Serious and Humble Inquirer," &c, by 
 the Rev. Edward Cooper, Rector of Hamstall Ridware. 
 
f>8 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 is also much inclined to secret prayer, and to a fixed 
 dependence on God." 
 
 A very able and learned foreign lawyer, the author of 
 the article Predestination in the Encyclopedia Bri- 
 tannica, though he is evidently no friend to Calvinism, 
 makes the following declaration : — " There is one re- 
 mark which we feel ourselves bound in justice to make, 
 although it appears to us somewhat singular. It is this : 
 That from the earliest ages down to our own days, if we 
 consider the character of the ancient Stoics, the Jewish 
 Essenes, the modern Calvinists and Jansenists, when 
 compared with that of their antagonists, the Epicureans, 
 the Sadducees, the Arminians, and the Jesuits, we shall 
 find that they have excelled, in no small degree, in the 
 practice of the most rigid and respectable virtues; and 
 have been the highest honour of their own ages, and the 
 best models for imitation to every age succeeding. At the 
 same time, it must be confessed, that their virtues have 
 in general been rendered unamiable by a tinge of gloomy 
 and severe austerity." 
 
 After all, however, that can be said in favour of that 
 doctrinal system which it is our happiness and honour, as 
 a Church, to receive; however demonstrative its scrip- 
 tural support, and however manifest its deduction from 
 the character of an infinitely great, wise, and good Gover- 
 nor of the universe; it will never cease, while human 
 nature remains as it is, to be hated, reviled, caricatured, 
 ridiculed, and rejected, by a large majority of the pro- 
 fessedly religious world. It is too humbling to human 
 pride; it calls for too much self-denial, self-renunciation, 
 and submission of the mind and the heart to heavenly 
 teaching; demands too much spirituality and withdraw- 
 ment from worldly pleasures and amusements, not to be 
 opposed by the mass of mankind, and even by the mass of 
 professing Christians, who have little taste for the spirit 
 of the gospel. These very doctrines were thus treated in 
 the days of the inspired apostles, who first taught them 
 in their fulness; and, even in our own communion, 
 those of our members who are most tinctured with the 
 worldly spirit, are ever found most apt to quarrel with 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 60 
 
 the peculiarities of our creed. The most deeply humble, 
 enlightened, and spiritual Christians are, in all ages 
 and Churches, ever found to be those to whom the 
 doctrines of free and sovereign grace, for substance, 
 as collected in our standards from the Scriptures of 
 truth, are most precious, and in whose view they are most 
 glorious. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 The Church, being a social body, called out of the 
 world, and constituted by the authority of Jesus Christ, 
 indispensably needs a form of government. No society 
 can exist in purity and peace without order. And no 
 order can he maintained without authority, laws, and a 
 set of officers to apply the laws, and administer the 
 form of order which may have been adopted. Our 
 Master in heaven has commanded "his body, the 
 Church," to preserve within her borders purity of doc- 
 trine, and holiness of conversation ; and for this purpose 
 to "warn the unruly," to admonish the careless, reclaim 
 the wandering, and to cut of those who are obstinately 
 corrupt, either in faith or practice. All this she was 
 commanded to do, and actually did perform, while all the 
 civil governments of the world were leagued against her, 
 and the fires of martyrdom were kindled on ever)- side. 
 Now, it is obviously impossible for the Church to 
 fulfil these obligations, without such an ecclesiastical 
 constitution, such a system of laws, and such a body of 
 officers, as will enable her to apply to her members that 
 authority which her Master has vested in her, "for edi- 
 fication, and not for destruction." Hence the necessity 
 of organizing the Church under some distinct and defi- 
 nite form. It is not asserted, or believed by us, that 
 any one form of government is essential to the existence 
 of the Church; but simply, that if purity and peace be 
 maintained, there must be some form adopted; and that 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CUUHCII. 71 
 
 that form which is derived from the Word of God, is 
 undoubtedly the hest, and binding on all.* 
 
 The Presbyterian Church claims to derive her form 
 of government from the Holy Scriptures. She is per- 
 suaded that the New Testament most distinctly presents, 
 as existing in the apostolic Church, all the three 
 features which constitute the peculiarities of her eccle- 
 siastical polity, viz., the parity of her ministers, the 
 government of the Church by ruling elders, and the 
 attainment of unity and co-operation by courts of review 
 and control. She aims to avoid tlie unauthorized pre- 
 tensions of Prelacy on the one hand, and the lax, in- 
 adequate scheme of Independency on the other ; and to 
 adopt that system of ministerial equality and efficient 
 representation in the government of the Church, which 
 at once guards, as far as possible, against the encroach- 
 ments of clerical ambition, secures the rights of the 
 people, and provides for the exercise of pure and whole- 
 some discipline in the most edifying manner. 
 
 I. In the first place, we reject the claim of Prelacy. 
 Our Episcopal brethren contend that in the Christian 
 Church there are three orders of clergy — bishops, pres- 
 byters, and deacons ; that the first only have power 
 to ordain, and the last to preach, and administer the 
 sacrament of baptism alone. We maintain, that all 
 ministers of the gospel who are empowered to admini- 
 ster the Word and sacraments, are officially equal, and 
 authorized to perform the highest acts of ecclesiastical 
 power. We believe, in a word, that there is but one 
 order of gospel ministers authorized in the New Testa- 
 ment; that the title of bishop was constantly applied in 
 the apostolic age, and for a considerable time afterwards, 
 
 * The condescending consideration of our Lord for his people, 
 •which he often manifested when upon earth, would warrant the 
 same expectation. Surely in their Church estate, now that he is in 
 heaven, he would not leave them without government, the prey of 
 anarchy and confusion — destructive of the very ends of a Church 
 altogether. Having loved the Church, and purchased it with his 
 hlood, and now managing all the affairs of the world in subordination 
 to its interests, we may be sure he would appoint a government, and 
 not leave so important a matter to accident or the invention of erring 
 men. — L. 
 
72 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 to the ordinary pastors of particular Churches ; and that 
 setting up a superior under this title, as exclusively pos- 
 sessed of the power of ordaining, is a departure from 
 the primitive model — a usurpation for which there is 
 not the smallest warrant in the Word of God. 
 
 Our Episcopal brethren, indeed, freely acknowledge 
 that the title of "bishop" is never employed in the 
 New Testament, in a single instance, to designate that 
 class of officers to which they now exclusively apply it. 
 They, with one voice, grant that all that we read in the 
 apostolical writings concerning bishops, is to be regarded 
 as pertaining to presbyters, or the ordinary pastors of 
 Churches; in other words, to what they call the "second 
 grade" of ministers. They allege, however, that the 
 apostles occupied a place of ecclesiastical pre-eminence 
 in the primitive Church ; that they alone, while they 
 lived, were endowed with the power' of ordination ; that, 
 as they deceased, their pre-eminence was transmitted 
 to certain successors ; that to these successors of the 
 apostles, the title of bishop, which had before, while 
 the apostles lived, been given to presbyters, began to be 
 appropriated ; and that ever since the apostolic age this 
 title has been confined to prelates;* to those who suc- 
 ceeded to the apostolical pre-eminence, and whu, like 
 the apostles, exclusively possess the power of ordination. 
 
 But to no part of this claim does the New Testament 
 afford the least countenance. It is manifest that ordi- 
 nation was not confined to the apostles officially and 
 technically so called; for nothing can be plainer, than 
 that Barnabas, Timothy, and Titus, who were not 
 apostles in the appropriated sense, were invested with 
 the ordaining power, and actually and abundantly exer- 
 cised it. It is equally manifest,' that when the apostles 
 ceased from the Church, they left no successors in that 
 peculiar and pre-eminent office which they filled during 
 their lives. "The apostolical office/' says Dr. Barrow, 
 an eminent Episcopal divine — " The apostolical office, 
 as such, was personal and temporary, and therefore, ac- 
 
 * See Bishop Onderdonk'a "Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," p. 12. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 73 
 
 cording to'its nature and design, not successive nor com- 
 municable to others, in perpetual descendence from tliem: 
 it was, as such, in all respects extraordinary, conferred in 
 aspecial manner, designed forspecial purposes, discharged 
 by special aids, endowed with special privileges, as was 
 needful for the propagation of Christianity, and found- 
 ing of Churches. To that office, it was requisite that 
 the person should have an immediate designation and 
 commission from God; that he should be endowed with 
 miraculous gifts and graces; that he should be able, ac- 
 cording to his discretion, to impart spiritual gifts; and 
 that he should govern in an absolute manner, as being 
 guided by infallible assistance, to which he might ap- 
 peal. Now, such an office, consisting of so many ex- 
 traordinary privileges, and miraculous powers, which 
 "were requisite for the foundation of the Church, was 
 not designed to continue by derivation, lor it contained 
 in it divers things which apparently were not communi- 
 cated, and which no man, without gross imposture and 
 hypocrisy, could challenge to himself."* 
 
 kSuch is the judgment of this learned and able Prela- 
 tist concerning the foundation of the whole argument 
 before us. There is not the semblance of support, then, 
 to be found in Scripture for the alleged transmission of 
 the pre-eminent and peculiar powers of the apostles to 
 a set of ecclesiastical successors. As men endowed with 
 the gifts of miracles and inspiration, who were, prior to 
 the completion of the New Testament canon, constituted 
 the infallible guides of the Church, they had no succes- 
 
 * Pope's Supremacy, p. 79. 
 
 It is quite plain that the apostolic office was a temporary one, in 
 force till the canon of Scripture was completed. After this, it be- 
 came unnecessary, and therefore ceased. " W hen I shall see," says 
 James Owen, in his " Plea for Scripture Ordination," p. 56, 
 " bishops immediately sent of God— infallibly assisted by the Holy 
 Ghost— travelling to the remotest kingdoms to preach the gospel 
 in their own language to the infidel nations, and confirming their 
 doctrine by undoubted miracles, 1 shall bel.eve them to be the apos- 
 tles' true successors in the apo tolic office." Why do Prelatists 
 not contend for successors to the pruphets and evangelists, as well as 
 to the apostles ? They were equally "given " by Christ lor the edi- 
 fication of the Church ; but this would expose the absurdity of the 
 claim. — L. 
 
/ 4 THE GOVKHNMEM OP THE 
 
 sors; nor can the remotest hint he found in Scripture 
 that they had, or "were ever intended to have, any such 
 successors. But as ministers of Christ, empowered to go 
 forth preaching the gospel and administering Christian 
 sacraments, they had successors, and these successors 
 were, manifestly, all those who were empowered to 
 preach the gospel, and administer the sacramental seals 
 of discipleship; for in the final commission which the 
 Saviour gave to the apostles, and which must he con- 
 sidered as embracing their final and highest functions, 
 they are sent forth to disciple all nations, and to haptize 
 them "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost;" and it was in immediate connection 
 with the command to discharge these ordinary duties, 
 that the promise which is considered as pointing to the 
 ministerial succession was given: — " Lo, I am with 
 you alway, even unto the end of the world* If the 
 friends of Prelacy could produce even the semhlance of 
 testimony from Scripture that the ordaining power is 
 something more sacred and elevated than that of dis- 
 pensing the gospel, and administering sacraments; if 
 they could produce the least hint from the New Testa- 
 ment, that the powers possessed hy the apostles were 
 afterwards divided, and that one class of ministers suc- 
 ceeded them in certain pre-eminent powers, not men- 
 tioned in their final commission, while another class 
 succeeded them only in respect to lower and more ordi- 
 nary functions, their cause would rest on some plausible 
 ground; hut there is not a syllable in Scripture which 
 gives the most distant intimation of either of these 
 alleged facts. It is not so much as pretended that a 
 passage is to he found which gives a hint of this kind. 
 Accordingly, when we ask the advocates of Episcopacy 
 whence they derive their favourite doctrine, that diocesan 
 bishops succeed the apostles in the appropriate powers 
 and pre-eminence of their apostolical character, they re- 
 fer us to no passages of Scripture asserting, or even hint- 
 ing it; but to some equivocal suggestions and allusions 
 of several Fathers who wrote within the first four or five 
 hundred years after Christ. The writer most frequently 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 75 
 
 quoted by our Episcopal brethren for this purpose, is 
 Theodore^ who flourished about the middle of* the fifth 
 century, and who speaks thus: — " The same persons 
 were anciently called bishops and presbyters; and those 
 whom we now call bishops, were then called apostles. 
 But in process of time, the title of apostle was appro- 
 priated to those who were called apostles in the strict 
 sense, and the rest, who had formerly the name of 
 apostles, were styled bishops.. In this sense, Enaphro- 
 ditus is called the apostle of the Philippians; Titus was 
 the apostle of the Cretians, and Timothy of Asia." On 
 this testimony several remarks may be made: — 
 
 1. It is not the testimony of Scripture, but the dream 
 of a writer four centuries after the apostolic age, in whose 
 time the Church had become very corrupt, and in whose 
 works much supprstition and error are found. 
 
 2. No one doubts that, in Theodoret's time, Prelacy 
 had obtained a complete establishment, and that he 
 alleges principles and facts in relation to the priesthood 
 in his day, which none but Papists are prepared to 
 sanction. 
 
 3. It is very certain that the Fathers who flourished 
 nearest to the apostolic age, generally represent presby- 
 ters, and not prelates, as the successors of the apostles. 
 Ignatius, in particular, who was contemporary with the 
 last of the apostles, expresses himself again and again 
 in the following language: — "The presbyters succeed 
 in the place of the bench of the apostles " And again: 
 " In like manner, let all reverence the presbyters, as the 
 sanhedrim of God, and college of the apostles." And 
 again : "Be subject to your presbyters, as to the apostles 
 of Jesus Christ our hope." And, once more: " Follow 
 the presbyters as the apostles." Which shall we believe, 
 Ignatius or Theodoret ? Beyond all doubt, neither is 
 to be trusted in relation to a matter which receives no 
 countenance from Scripture. It is notorious, too, that 
 Irena?us, a Christian father who flourished toward the 
 latter part of the second century, repeatedly speaks of 
 presbyters as being the successors of the apostles. In 
 other places he speaks of the same persons as bishops, 
 
76 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 and under that title also represents them as the succes- 
 sors of the apostles. And this he does, not once only, 
 hut several times, as if his object were to show that, 
 according to the representation of the New Testament, 
 bishop and presbyter were the same. 
 
 4. Augustine, a writer earlier than Theodoret, more 
 learned, and of higher authority, expressly declares that 
 the apostolical office was above that of any bishop. (De 
 Baptis. contra Donatis., ii. ].) 
 
 5. And, after all, to what does Theodorefs statement 
 amount? Why, only that in the fifth century, such 
 claims and such language as he presents were common. 
 Who doubts this ? But does he say that the New Tes- 
 tament authorizes any such statement ? Pie does not. 
 Nor, if he had, could we possibly believe him with the 
 Bible in our hands ? The truth is, no such fact as this 
 argument supposes is stated or hinted at in Scripture. 
 It everywhere represents the apostles as extraordinary 
 officers, who, in their peculiar qualifications and autho- 
 rity, had no successors; but who, in respect to that office 
 which is perpetual, are succeeded by all regularly autho- 
 rized ministers of the gospel. And to give any other 
 view of the subject, is an imposition on popular credulity. 
 Accordingly, this whole argument for the superiority of 
 bishops, drawn from the plea that they are the peculiar 
 and exclusive successors of the apostles, in their official 
 pre-eminence, has been wholly abandoned by a number 
 of the most distinguished divines of the Church of Eng- 
 land, as invalid and untenable. 
 
 The next argument commonly urged by our Episco- 
 pal brethren in support of Prelacy, is, that Timothy was 
 evidently, in fact, bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete; 
 and that this furnishes, of course, a plain example of an 
 order of ministers superior to common pastors. This 
 alleged fact is a corner-stone of the Episcopal fabric; 
 and unless it can be supported, the whoie edifice must 
 fall to the ground. 
 
 But for this alleged Prelacy of Timothy and Titus, 
 there is not only no positive proof, but there is not even 
 a shadow of it, in the whole New Testament. There is 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CIIURCII. 77 
 
 no evidence whatever that either of ihem ever had a 
 fixed pastoral charge at Ephesus or Crete. There is no 
 evidence that either of them ever performed the work of 
 ordination alone. One of them, while at Ephesus, was 
 expressly directed to " do the work of an evangelist," 
 and there is not the slightest intimation that either acted 
 in any higher character. There is no hint that they per- 
 formed any act, to which any reguhir minister of the 
 gospel is not fully competent. In short, the whole Epis- 
 copal argument drawn from the charge to Timothy and 
 Titus is destitute of the semhlance of proof from Scrip- 
 ture. All the premises on which it is founded are taken 
 for granted, without evidence. All that appears to have 
 been done by these evangelists, is done every day by 
 evangelists sent forth by the Presbyterian Church; and 
 no reason can be assigned for ascribing to the mission- 
 aries to Ephesus and Crete any higher character than 
 that the Episcopal cause demands it. In truth, when 
 thrown into the form of a regular syllogism, its amount 
 is neither more nor less than the following: — " None 
 but diocesan bishops can ordain ministers and ' set in 
 order' Churches; but Timothy and Titus discharged 
 these offices: therefore, Timothy and Titus were dio- 
 cesan bishops." But is not the very thing to be proved, 
 — viz., that diocesan bishops alone can ordain, &c. — 
 here taken for granted ? Can there be a more gross 
 begging of the whole question than this argument ex- 
 emplifies? 
 
 It is hardly necessary to inform any intelligent reader 
 of the Bible, that the postscripts, at the close of the 
 Second Epistle to Timothy, and of the Epistle to Titus, 
 and which speak of the former as " the first bishop of 
 Ephesus," and the latter as " the first bishop of Crete," 
 are of no authority. It is acknowledged by all learned 
 men, that they make no part of the sacred text. They 
 were, no doubt, interpolated by officious transcribers, 
 more than four hundred years after the d:\te of the epistles. 
 They are not found at all in the most authentic copies of 
 the original. They are not the same in the copies in which 
 they are found. They were excluded from all the earliest 
 
78 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 English translations. And for a loner time after their 
 introduction, they were printed in a different type from 
 the received text, to indicate that they formed no part 
 of the authentic Scriptures. But when our present 
 translation of the Bible, in the reign of James I., was 
 executed, as the translators were all Episcopalians, they, 
 very improperly, suffered these postscripts to occupy the 
 place in which we now find them, without any mark to 
 distinguish them from the authorized text. 
 
 Such is the amount of the argument drawn from the 
 alleged Episcopal character of Timothy and Titus. It 
 finds no countenance whatever in the New Testament. 
 Every fact which is stated in the inspired history 
 concerning those pious evangelists is not only perfectly 
 reconcilable with the Presbyterian doctrine, hut agrees 
 far better with it than with the Episcopalian hypothesis. 
 Accordingly, the eminent Episcopal divine, Dr. Whitby, 
 with all his zeal for Prelacy, speaks, in his Commentary, 
 in the following language: — "The great controversy 
 concerning this, and the Epistles to Timothy, is, whether 
 Timothy and Titus were indeed made bishops — the one 
 of Ephesus, and the Proconsular Asia ; the other of 
 Crete. Now, of this matter I confess I can find nothing 
 in any writer of the first three centuries, nor any inti- 
 mation that they bore that name." And afterwards he 
 aids, concerning the whole argument: u I confess that 
 these two instances, absolutely taken, afford us no con- 
 vincing arguments in favour of a settled diocesan Epis- 
 copacy, because there is nothing which proves they did, 
 or were, to exercise these acts of government rather as 
 bishops than evangelists." It is true, this learned writer, 
 while he acknowledges that no evidence in favour of the 
 Episcopal character of these missionaries is to be found 
 within the first three centuries, expresses an opinion, that 
 there is testimony enough to establish it in the writers 
 of the fourth and fifth centuries. This, however, is not 
 scriptural testimony; and what is not found in the 
 Bible, is surely not binding on the Church. Besides, 
 this testimony of the fourth and fifth centuries, when 
 impartially examined, and compared with other con- 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. ?9 
 
 temporaneous testimony, will be found perfectly worth- 
 ies*, and, of course, unavailing to the cause in support 
 of which it is adduced, because it is not consistent either 
 with itself or with the New Testament.* 
 
 Another argument from Scripture, commonly urged 
 by our Episcopal brethren, is derived from the " angels" 
 addressed in the Epistles to the Seven Churches of the 
 Lesser Asia. " In each of those Churches," say the ad- 
 vocates of Prelacy, " an individual is addressed under 
 the title of < Angel,' which is a very strong argument 
 against ministerial parity, and in favour of Episcopacy." 
 But this argument is just as powerless as any of the 
 preceding, or rather, it is destitute even of their degree 
 of plausibility. The term " angel" signifies messenger. 
 As an ecclesiastical title, it is derived from the Old Tes- 
 tament. In every Jewish synagogue, or worshipping 
 congregation, there was " an angel of the Church," 
 whose duty it was to preside and take the lead in pub- 
 lic worship. This title was evidently transferred from 
 the Synagogue to the Christian Church. And if we 
 suppose each of these "angels" to be the ordinary pas- 
 tor of a single church or congregation, it will perfectly 
 accord with every representation concerning them found 
 in the epistles in question. But he who looks carefully 
 into the addresses to the several Churches contained in 
 these epistles, will find much reason to doubt whether 
 individual ministers are at all designated by the title of 
 "angel." Some have supposed that collective bodies of 
 pastors were intended. Of this opinion a number of the 
 most eminent Episcopal writers have been the advocates. 
 There is absolutely not a shadow of proof that prelates, 
 or anything like them, are referred to. Some of the 
 most learned and zealous advocates of Prelacy have 
 
 * Episcopal writers are very much divided among themselves as 
 to the case of Timothy and Titus. Some would make them out to be 
 archbishops! It is plain that they were Commissioners appointed 
 for a special object, which is not inconsistent with the principles or 
 practice of the Presbyterian Church. Vide " Prynn's Unbishoping 
 of Timothy and TiUis;" and " Ay ton's Original Constitution," 
 412-440. See al.-o the testimonies of Episcopal writers in his Ap- 
 pendix, 22-28.— L. 
 
£0 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 acknowledged this ; and the whole argument really 
 amounts to nothing more than a mere gratuitous assump- 
 tion of the point to be proved.* 
 
 One more argument may be briefly adverted to, which 
 our Episcopal brethren sometimes urge in support of 
 their cause. They say that the Apostle J;unes was evi- 
 dently bishop ff Jerusalem. This they attempt to prove 
 by telling us that he spoke last, and gave a very pointed 
 sentence, or opinion, in the Synod of Jerusalem; that 
 Peter, after his release from prison, said to certain per- 
 sons, " Go, show these things unto James and to the 
 brethren;" and that when Paul visited Jerusalem, it is 
 said concerning him: "And the day following, Paul 
 went in with us unto James, and all the elders were pre- 
 sent." On these, and other occasions, the advocates of 
 Episcopal claims tell us, James was spoken of as a dis- 
 tinguished man, and treated with marked respect ; and 
 from this circumstance it is inferred that he was the 
 bishop of Jerusalem. 
 
 This argument, when stripped of all its decorations, 
 stands thus: "James was the last speaker, and gave a 
 decisive opinion in an ecclesiastical assembly; therefore, 
 he was superior to all others present, and, of course, the 
 bishop of Jerusalem ! Peter requested an account of his 
 release from prison to be sent to James; therefore, James 
 was the bishop of Jerusalem ! Paul and his company 
 went to the house of James in Jerusalem, and there found 
 the elders convened ; therefore, James was the ecclesias- 
 tical governor of that city ! " This is absolutely the 
 whole of the scriptural argument drawn from the char- 
 acter of James ! Surely, a more singular instance of the 
 gratuitous assumption of what ought to be proved, was 
 never exhibited. f 
 
 So utterly groundless, then, do we find the claim of 
 our Episcopal brethren, when brought to the test of 
 
 * Dr. Sti'.lingfleet. an able Episcopal writer, asks, " Why may not 
 the word " anger be taken only by way of representatives of the body 
 itself ; or, what is far more probable, of the concessory, or order of 
 presbyters in that Church. " (Irenicum, p. h"3().)— L. 
 
 f Vide a number of Episcopal testimonies, in Ayton's Appendix, 
 against the supposed Prelacy of James. — L. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 81 
 
 Scripture. Their claim, it will he ohserved, is positive 
 and explicit. It is, that the New Testament holds forth, 
 as existing in the apostolic Church, and intended to be 
 perpetual, an order of men superior to ministers of the 
 word and sacraments; that this order is alone empowered 
 to ordain; and, of course, that without ordination by this 
 order of men, there can be no ministry, no Church, no 
 valid ordinances, no "covenanted mercy," to any of the 
 children of men. In short, they would persuade us, not 
 only that the New Testament bears them out in main- 
 taining the actual existence of such an order in the apos- 
 tolic Church, but also, that it warrants them in contend- 
 ing for it as absolutely and indispensably necessarv. The 
 burden of proof lies on them. They have not proved, 
 and cannot prove, either. That the power of ordaining 
 was not. confined to the apostles while they lived, is 
 manifest to all who read the Bible without prejudice. 
 That the extraordinary powers of the apostles were to 
 be transmitted to successors, can no more be proved 
 from the Word of God, than that inspiration and'miracles 
 are still continued and transmitted from man to man in 
 the Church. That Timothy and Titus were prelates, 
 because they were appointed to "ordain elders," and 
 "set in order the things that were wanting" in Ephesus 
 and Crete, when it is utterly uncertain whether either of 
 them performed a single ordination alone, is no more 
 proved, or even probable, than that modern Presbyterian 
 missionaries to frontier settlements are prelates, because 
 they are commissioned to perform similar work. And 
 so of all the other alleged sources of proof from Scrip- 
 ture. They are just as destitute of force, and just as 
 delusive as the Popish doctrine — that the primacy of 
 St. Peter, and the transmission of that primacv to the 
 bishops of Rome, may be proved from the Word of 
 God. 
 
 Some of the most learned advocates of Episcopacy, 
 however, while they have freely confessed that their 
 favourite system could not be established from Scrip- 
 ture, have confidently asserted, that it is abundantly 
 and unquestionably supported by the testimony of the 
 
82 
 
 THE GOVEKNMKNT OF THE 
 
 Fathers. Into this field it is not judged proper here to 
 enter, for the following reasons: — 
 
 1. The Bible contains the religion of Protestants. It 
 is the only infallible, and the only sufficient rule of faith 
 and practice. Even if Prelacy were found unequivo- 
 cally represented as existing, by the Fathers, in fifty 
 years after the last apostle, yet if it he not found in the 
 Bible, as it assuredly is not, such testimony would by 
 no means establish its apostolic appointment. It would 
 only prove that the Church was very early corrupted* 
 We know, indeed, that no such testimony exists; but 
 if it did, as long as we have the Bible, we ought to 
 reject it. 
 
 2. We know that human inventions, and various 
 forms of corruption, did in fact very early obtain cur- 
 rency in the Christian Church; and that several prac- 
 tices, quite as likely to be opposed as the encroachments 
 of Prelacy, were introduced and established within the 
 first three hundred years. 
 
 3. This is a kind of testimony very difficult to be 
 brought within a narrow compass. For, while some de- 
 tached passages from the early Fathers have the appear- 
 ance at first view of favouring Prelacy ; yet, when care- 
 fully examined, and compared with other passages from 
 the same Fathers, and others of equal credibility, their 
 testimony will be found utterly unfavourable to Prelati- 
 cal claims. He who reads what the learned Jerome, in 
 the fourth century, declares concerning Prelacy, as hav- 
 ing no foundation in divine appointment, and as gradu- 
 ally brought in by human ambition, will begin to see 
 that the testimony of the Fathers on this subject is very 
 different from what sanguine and ardent Prelatists are 
 accustomed to represent it. So the testimony of Jerome 
 was understood by Bishop Jewel, by Bishop Morton, 
 by Archbishop Whitgift, by Bishop Bilston, by Bishop 
 Srillingfleet, and by a number of other divines as learned 
 and able as ever adorned the Church of England. And 
 with respect to the testimony of Ignatius, early in the 
 second century, who is commonly regarded and resorted 
 to ns the sheet-anchor of the Episcopal claim, one could 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. S3 
 
 scarcely wish for a more distinct and graphic description 
 of Presbyterianism than his epistles represent as existing 
 in all the Churches which he addressed. Ignatius speaks 
 expressly of a bishop, elders, and deacons existing in 
 every worshipping assembly which he addressed. Is 
 this the language of Prelacy ? So far from it, nothing 
 can be plainer than that this language can be reconciled 
 with the Presbyterian system alone. Presbyterians are 
 the only denomination who have, in every worshipping 
 assembly, a bishop, presbyters or elders, and deacons.* 
 
 But it cannot be too often repeated, or too constantly 
 kept in view, that whatever the Fathers may say on this 
 subject, is not to decide respecting it. If Episcopacy, 
 when brought to the test of Scripture, cannot stand, we 
 may very willingly leave its support from other sources 
 to those who may feel inclined to " receive for doctrines 
 the commandments of men." This principle formed 
 one of the great dividing lines between our fathers, the 
 Puritans of England, and the prelates and others by 
 whom the Reformed Church was organized in that land. 
 The Puritans contended that the Bible was the only 
 infallible rule of faith and practice; that it ought to be 
 regarded as the standard of Church government and 
 discipline, as well as of doctrine; and that the Church, 
 as it stood in the days of the apostles, is the proper 
 model for our imitation. But the bishops and the court 
 clergy openly maintained that the Scriptures were not to 
 be considered as the only standard of Church govern- 
 ment and discipline; that the Fathers and the early 
 councils were to be united with them as the rule; that 
 the Saviour and his apostles left the whole matter of 
 Church order to be accommodated to the discretion of 
 the civil magistrate, and to the form of polity in the 
 State; and that the form of Church governmenr adopted 
 in the third and fourth centuries, and especially in the 
 civil establishment under Constantine, was really to be 
 preferred to that which existed in the days of the apostles, 
 which they considered as peculiarly fitted to the infant 
 
 * For a short view of the Testimony of the Fathers and Refor- 
 mers, see Appendix. — L. 
 
8* THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 state of the Church, while depressed by persecution. 
 And upon this plan it is notorious that the men who 
 took the lead in reforming and organizing the Church 
 of England avowedly proceeded. 
 
 Bit we can not only prove a negative — that is, we 
 can not only establish that there is no evidence in favour 
 diocesan Episcopacy to be found in Scripture — but 
 we can go farther, and show that the testimony in favour 
 of ministerial parity found in the New Testament is 
 clear and strong. Nothing is plainer than that our 
 blessed Lord severely rebuked, and explicitly condemned 
 all contests among his ministering servants about rank 
 and pre-eminence." It is acknowledged, by the great 
 mass of learned and pious men of all Protestant deno- 
 minations, that it is plain, from the apostolical writings, 
 that the ecclesiastical order of the Synagogue was trans- 
 ferred by inspired men to the Christian Church. It is 
 evident, on the slightest inspection of the New Testa- 
 ment history, that the names and functions of the Church 
 officers appointed by the apostles were derived, not from 
 the Temple, but from the Synagogue. It is explicitly 
 granted by our Episcopal brethren themselves, that in 
 the New Testament, the titles bishop and presbyter 
 were used interchangeably to designate the same office, 
 and that the names were then common. Nothing is 
 plainer than that the elders of the Church of Ephesus 
 are spoken of as its bishops (Acts xx ), and, of course, 
 that there were a plurality of bishops in the same Church, 
 which is wholly inconsistent with the doctrine of Pre- 
 lacy. f It is manifest that Timothy received his desig- 
 nation to the sacred office " by the laying on of the 
 hands of the presbytery" We find that such men as 
 
 * Our Lord foresaw, and no doubt meant to discourage, the lordly 
 pretensions which he knew would one day appear in his professed 
 Church. His cautions were evidently me.int to gu ird his followers 
 in all agjs against the spirit of Popery, and the course from which 
 it, in a gre.it me isure, springs — unequal official rank in the ministry, 
 whether in the Cuurch of Rome or in professedly P/otestant com- 
 munions. — L. 
 
 f It is essential to Prelacy to have one bishop over many — it may 
 be hundreds, or even thousands of Churches. — L. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. S5 
 
 Barnabas, and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, none 
 of whom, it is evident, were prelates, were commanded 
 to lay their hands on Paul, and one of their own num- 
 ber, and ** separate them" to a special ministry on 
 which they were about to depart; " and when they had 
 fasted and prayed, they laid their hands on them and 
 sent them away." But it is contrary to all order, human 
 and divine, for an official inferior authoritatively to bless, 
 and, by imposition of hands, to set forth an official 
 superior; and, finally, it is evident, that the mere silence 
 of Scripture, as to the claim of our Episcopal brethren, 
 affords positive and conclusive proof that it cannot be 
 well founded. The advocates of Prelacy, especially the 
 more zealous and determined of their number, make 
 their claim a fundamental one. According to them, as 
 before said, there can be no covenanted Church, no 
 valid ministry or sacraments, without ordination to the 
 sacred office by prelates. Now, can it be believed, that 
 a matter so important, nay, vital, should not be laid 
 down in Scripture, in explicit terms, and with incon- 
 trovertible evidence? Surely, if the claim were well 
 founded, whatever else was left in doubt, the preroga- 
 tive of the bishop might be expected to be set forth with 
 reiterated and unquestionable evidence. But our Epis- 
 copal brethren themselves acknowledge that this is not 
 the case. Their scriptural testimony is, in no one in- 
 stance, direct and explicit; but all indirect, and remotely 
 inferential. They do not pretend to quote a single 
 passage of Scripture which declares, in so many words, 
 or anything like it, in favour of their claim; but their 
 whole reliance, in regard to scriptural testimony, is placed 
 on facts, and deductions from those facts, which many 
 of the most learned of their own denomination pro- 
 nounce utterly unavailing for their purpose. Now, can 
 any rational man helieve that our blessed Lord and his 
 apostles could possibly have regarded the doctrine of 
 Prelacy in the same light, and laid equal stress upon it 
 with our Episcopal brethren, and yet have left the whole 
 subject, to say the least, in so inexplicit and dubious a 
 
 G 
 
Sfi THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 posture? He who can believe this is prepared to believe 
 anything that his prejudices may dictate. 
 
 In conformity with the foregoing statements, it is well 
 known that, at the era of the Reformation, the leaders 
 of the Church of England stood alone in reforming their 
 Church upon Prelatical principles.* Luther, Melanc- 
 thon, Zuingle, Bucer, and Peter Martyr, as well as 
 Calvin and Knox, as stated in a preceding chapter — all, 
 all, scattered through every part of Europe, without 
 concert, interpreted the New Testament as plainly teach- 
 ing the doctrine of ministerial parity, and regarded every 
 kind of imparity in the gospel ministry as the result of 
 human contrivance, and not of divine appointment. In 
 
 * Perhaps some readers, who are aware that the Lutheran Church 
 in Germany now lias superintendents, and that the Churches of Den- 
 mark, Norway, and Sweden, have bishops, may think that the text 
 needs qualification. But I believe Dr. Milleris quite accurate. It 
 is well known that Luther held the scriptural authority of parity of 
 ministers; that he acted upon the principle, though himself simply 
 a presbyter, joining in the ordination of men to the office of the 
 ministry down to within a few days of his death; and that in this 
 hip sentiments and practice were at one with those of the other illus- 
 trious German Reformers. At the same time, he thought it not 
 unlawful, as a matter of mere human and political expediency, 
 sometimes to have superintendents. Hence the existence of the 
 office in the Lutheran Church, which seems to be much the same as 
 the office bearing the same name in the early history of the Church of 
 Scotland. So far as I can learn, the superintendents in the German 
 Lutheran Church at the present day have no inherent superiority 
 over other pastors ; the office, too, is not for life — but temporary 
 according to the need of the Church. As in Presbyterian Churches, 
 the Lutheran holds the office of the ruling elder to be scriptural 
 and divine. 
 
 With regard to the Northern Churches of Denmark, Sweden, and 
 Norway, though they have now bishops and archbishops, and a full 
 organization of Episcopal government, yet it is important to remem- 
 ber that those who planted the Reformation, and ordained the first 
 Protestant ministers, were not prelates, but presbyters; that those 
 who wear the names of bishops and archbishops, themselves re- 
 ceived the ordination of presbyters, and so can transmit only Presby- 
 terian ordination; and that all the Swedish divines, even the highest, 
 hold Prelacy not to be of divine right, but a mere human rciiulution. 
 They, as well as the Danes, have all along maintained the divine 
 parity of ministers, though their bishops retain the office for life. 
 The Rev. Dr. Collier of Philadelphia, a learned Swedish pastor, cer- 
 tifies these facta in reference to his country. See " Letters of Dr. 
 Miller," p. 386. It is well known that Bugenhagius, who ordained 
 the first superintendents in Denmark, was merely a presbyter. Vide 
 u Biographia, Evangelica," under his name. — L. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 87 
 
 short, in every part of Protestant Christendom, out ot 
 England — however the leaders of the Reformation dif- 
 fered, and differed sometimes with ardour on other sub- 
 jects — here they, with scarcely a single exception, were 
 all agreed, that in the apostles' days bishop and pres- 
 byter were the same, in fact as well as in name; and 
 that, even when it was thought proper to allow to any 
 minister a degree of pre-eminence, it was to be defended 
 on the ground of human prudence alone. How shall 
 we account for this fact, but by supposing that the plain 
 and obvious construction of the Word of God, on this 
 subject, is favourable to Presbyterian parity, and un- 
 friendly to Prelatical claims ? 
 
 But w r hile our Episcopal brethren depart from the 
 primitive and apostolic model in regard to bishops, so 
 they equally depart from that model in respect to the 
 deacon's office. They contend that deacons are one of 
 the orders of clergy, and are authorized, by divine 
 appointment, to preach and baptize. Let any one im- 
 partially read the first six verses of the 6th chapter of 
 the Acts of the Apostles, and then say whether there is 
 the smallest warrant for this opinion. The apostles say 
 to the people, " It is not meet that we should leave the 
 Word of God and serve tables. Wherefore look ye out 
 among you seven men of honest report, whom we may 
 appoint over this business ; but we will give ourselves 
 continually to prayer and to the ministry of the Word." 
 Can it be supposed, in direct opposition to this whole 
 statement, that these very deacons were appointed, after 
 all, not to take care of the poor, but to labour in " the 
 ministry of the Word?" This were an inconsistency, 
 nay, an absurdity so glaring, that the only wonder is, 
 how any one can possibly adopt it after reading the in- 
 spired statement. The circumstance of Philip, some 
 time after his appointment as deacon, being found preach- 
 ing and baptizing in Samaria and other places, does not 
 afford the smallest presumptive evidence against this 
 conclusion. Are not cases frequently occurring in the 
 Presbyterian Church in which young men, after serving 
 aye.ir or two as ruling elders or deacons, are set apart 
 
88 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 as ministers of the gospel ? Soon after Philip's appoint- 
 ment to the deaconship in Jerusalem, the members of 
 the Church in that city were chiefly " scattered abroad 
 by persecution." He 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 
 u evangelist '' by the same inspired writer who gives us 
 the account just recited of his appointment as deacon. 
 (Acts xxi. 8.) Until it can be proved, then, that he 
 preached and baptized as a deacon, and not as an evan- 
 gelist, the supposition is utterly improbable, and wholly 
 unworthy of credit. 
 
 The truth is, the primitive and apostolical office of 
 deacon, was to take care of the poor and "serve tables." 
 By little and little, several centuries after the apostolic 
 age, the occupants of this office usurped the functions 
 of a higher one ; which usurpation was afterwards 
 confirmed by ecclesiastical custom. So a number of the 
 mos't respectable of the early Fathers clearly understood 
 the matter. Thus Origen, in his Commentary on the 
 21st chapter of Matthew, speaking of the corruption 
 which prevailed among the deacons in his day, repre- 
 sents them, not as neglecting to preach or baptize, but 
 as " neglecting the poor, and converting to their own 
 use the Church's charitable funds." Again, the same 
 father tells us (Tract 16, in Matt), " the deacons pre- 
 side over the money-tables of the Church." And again, 
 v ' The deacons were appointed to preside over the tables 
 of the Church, as we are taught in the Acts of the 
 Apostles." Ambrose, in the fourth century, in his 
 Commentary on Ephesians. expressly declares that, in 
 his day, " the deacons ordinarily were not authorized 
 to preach." Chrysostom. in the same century, in his 
 f "ommentry on Acts vi., Homil. 14, tells us, that in his 
 time " there were no such deacons in the Church as 
 the jipastles ordained ;" and, in the same connection, 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 80 
 
 gives it as his opinion, that it ought to have been tlitMi 
 as it was in the apostles' days. Jerome, in his famous 
 letter to Evagrius, expressly calls the deacon " a minister 
 of tables and widows." The " Apostolical Constitu- 
 tions," commonly referred to the fourth or fifth century, 
 contain (book ii., ch. 27) the following passage : — 
 " Let the deacon give nothing to any poor man without 
 the bishop's knowledge and consent." And in the sixth 
 general Council of Constantinople, Can. 16, it is de- 
 clared, that the scriptural deacons were no other than 
 overseers of the poor, and that such was the opinion of 
 the ancient Fathers."* 
 
 But parity among her ministers is not the only feature 
 •which distinguishes the government of the Presbyterian 
 Church. Her mode of conducting discipline in each 
 Church by a bench of elders acting as the representative 
 of the members at large ; and by courts of review and 
 control, admitting of appeals, where parties feel aggriev- 
 ed, and binding all the particular Churches together as 
 one body walking by the same rules of truth and order, 
 and subject to the same uniform constitutional autho- 
 rity, are among her peculiar privileges. In regard to 
 both these points, Presbyterians differ from Indepen- 
 dents and Congregationalists, as well as from Episcopa- 
 lians, and, indeed, from most other denominations of 
 Christians. To these our attention will next be directed. 
 
 Independents and Congregationalists commit the whole 
 government and discipline of their Churches immediately 
 to the body of the communicants. In some of their 
 Churches all the communicants, male and female, have 
 
 * Before tamely submitting to be unchurched by what, after all, 
 is only a handful of Protestant Christendom, Presbyterians, consti- 
 tuting the vast majority, may well start the inquiry, Whether that 
 Church can be a Church of Christ, which creates the office of pre- 
 late without divine appointment — which mangles the office of 
 presbyter — perverts the office of deacon to a purpose never con- 
 templated in Scripture, and which altogether extinguishes the divine 
 office of ruling elder ? It may well admit of question, "Whether such 
 a Church be apostolic and primitive ? At least, when there is so 
 much evidently necessary to make out their own Christian title, the 
 new Anglican school may pause a little in their 6ummary unchurch- 
 ing of their neighbours. — L. 
 
90 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 an equal vote ; in others, the males only take a part in 
 discipline. In the estimation of Presbyterians, this mode 
 of conducting ecclesiastical discipline is liable to most 
 serious objections. They consider it as wholly unsup- 
 ported by Scripture ; as " setting those to judge, in many 
 cases, who are least esteemed in the Church ;" as ex- 
 tremely unfavourable to the calm and wise administra- 
 tion of justice; nay, as, of all the forms of ecclesiastical 
 discipline, most exposed to the sway of ignorance, pre- 
 judice, passion, and artful intrigue ; that, under the 
 guise of liberty, it often leads to the most grievous 
 tyranny ; and is adapted to exert an injurious influence 
 on the characters both of the pastor and the people. 
 
 In the Presbyterian Church, the government and dis- 
 cipline in each congregation is committed to a bench of 
 elders, consisting of eight or ten of the most pious, 
 enlightened, wise, prudent, and grave members of the 
 Church. They constitute, with the pastor at their head, 
 a judicial body, who maintain an official inspection over 
 the members of the Church, and deliberately sit in judg- 
 ment on all those delicate and yet momentous cases, 
 which are connected with receiving, admonishing, re- 
 buking, suspending, excommunicating, and dismiss'ng 
 the members of the flock committed to their care. Our 
 reasons for conducting in this manner the government 
 and discipline of the Church, are the following : — 
 
 1. It is certain, that in the system of the Jewish 
 Synagogue, according to the model of which the Chris- 
 tian Church was undoubtedly organized, the whole 
 government and discipline was conducted by a bench of 
 elders, and not by the body of the people. 
 
 2. It is manifest that government and discipline were 
 so conducted in the apostolic Church. AVe read that, 
 in every Church under the direction of the apostles, a 
 plurality of elders were ordained ; and we find a class 
 of elders distinctly spoken of, who "ruled well," but did 
 not " labour in the word and doctrine." (1 Tim. v. 17.) 
 
 3. AYe find this class of elders, as bearing rule in 
 each Church, very distinctly and frequently alluded to 
 in several of the earliest Christian Fathers, and by none 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 91 
 
 more clearly than by Ignatius, the pious pastor of 
 Antioch.* 
 
 4. The pious witnesses of the truth, who kept alive 
 the true doctrine and order of the Church during the 
 dark ages, more especially the Waldenses and the Bohe- 
 mian brethren, uniformly governed their Churches by 
 means of ruling as well as teaching elders, as we have 
 before seen. 
 
 5. All the leading Reformers on the continent of 
 Europe, with scarcely an exception, though separated 
 from each other by different names and strong preju- 
 dices, agreed, without concert, in teaching the divine 
 authority of ruling elders, and, in proof of it, referred to 
 the same Scriptures which we are accustomed to cite for 
 establishing the same thing. The Reformers in England 
 stood alone in excluding this class of officers from their 
 Church; and even some of their number — among the rest 
 Archbishop Whitgift, as we have seen — acknowledged 
 that there were such officers in the primitive Church ; 
 but that, in the then existing circumstances, it was not 
 necessary or expedient to retain them. 
 
 6. Such officers are indispensably necessary to the 
 maintenance of sound and edifying discipline. With- 
 out them, discipline will either be wholly neglected, or 
 carried on with popular noise and confusion, or con- 
 ducted by the pastor himself — thus often placing him 
 in circumstances adapted to make him either a tyrant, 
 partial to favourites, or a political temporizer. This has 
 appeared so manifest to many Independent Congre- 
 gational Churches, that they have appointed each a 
 committee, consisting of six or eight of their most pious, 
 enlightened, and grave members, on whom was devolved 
 the whole business of preparing, arranging, and manag- 
 
 * This is explicitly acknowledged by a number of learned Episco- 
 palians. Among the rest Archbishop Whitgift expresses himself 
 thus :— " I know 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 openlv professed the gospel, and before there was 
 any Church by public authority established." {Defence agaimt 
 Cftrtwriffkt, pp. G'iiB, 651.)— M. 
 
92 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 ing every case of discipline, so that the body of the com- 
 municants might have nothing more to do than to give 
 their public sanction, by a vote, to what had been vir- 
 tually done already by this judicious committee. Could 
 there be a more emphatic acknowledgment of the im- 
 portance and necessity of this class of officers ?* 
 
 Tinally, Independents and Congregationalists consider 
 each particular Church as entirely independent of every 
 other Church. They suppose that the authority exercised 
 by the communicants of each Church is supreme and 
 final; and that no courts of review and control, formed 
 by the representatives of a number of co-ordinate 
 Churches, and invested with judicial power over the 
 whole, ought to be admitted. Hence, when any mem- 
 ber of an Independent, or of a strictly Congregational 
 Church, is considered by himself, or by his friends, as 
 unjustly cast out, or is in any way injuriously treated, 
 he has no remedy. The system of Independency fur- 
 nishes no tribunal to which he can appeal. He must 
 sit down, while he lives, under the oppressive sentence, 
 unless the body originally pronouncing it should choose 
 to remove it. The same essential defect in this system 
 also appears in a variety of other cases. If a controversy 
 arise between a pastor and his flock, acting on strict 
 Congregational principles ; or if a contest occur between 
 two Independent or Congregational Churches in the 
 vicinity of each other, their ecclesiastical constitution 
 furnishes no means of relief. The controversy may be 
 subjected to the decision of a civil court, or to the judg- 
 ment of selected arbitrators, just as may be done when 
 controversies occur among secular men. But their sys- 
 tem of Church order affords no remedy. Recourse must 
 be had for relief to those worldly instrumentalities, which 
 are equally painful to the pious heart, and dishonourable 
 to the cause of Christ. 
 
 But for all these difficulties, Presbyterianism, in her 
 essential constitution, furnishes appropriate, prompt, and 
 
 * For farther and fuller views on the office of ruling elder, as 
 also the subsequent point of Courts of Review, vide my little work on 
 the " Eldership of the Church of Scotland,' 1 &c, 1841, pp. 93-98.—.//. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 03 
 
 for the most part, adequate relief. Her system of govern- 
 ment and discipline contains within its own bosom the 
 means of adjustment and of peace. Every species of 
 controversy is committed for settlement to a grave and 
 enlightened judicial body, made up of the representatives 
 of all the Churches in a given district — a body, not the 
 creature of a day, which, when its work is done, ceases 
 to exist ; but organized, permanent, and responsible ; 
 whose decisions are not merely advisory, but authorita- 
 tive ; and from whose sentences, if they be considered 
 as erroneous, an appeal may be taken to a higher tribu- 
 nal, embracing a larger portion of the Church, and far 
 removed from the excitement of the original contest. 
 
 We find the principle on which these courts of review 
 and control are founded strikingly exemplified in the 
 New Testament history, and our practice abundantly 
 warranted by New Testament facts. When a question 
 arose at Antioch respecting the obligation of Jewish ob- 
 servances, the Church in that place did not attempt, as 
 a body of Independents would, of course, have done, 
 to decide the matter for themselves, leaving the other 
 Churches to do as they pleased; but they felt that, as 
 it was a question which concerned the whole Christian 
 body, so a general and authoritative decision of the 
 question, binding on the whole body, ought to be made. 
 They, therefore, empowered special delegates to carry up 
 the question to " the apostles and elders at Jerusalem," 
 to be by them conclusively settled. There, accordingly, 
 it was debated and decided upon in full synod ; and 
 that decision, in the form of "decrees" (Sahara), that is, 
 authoritative adjudications, sent down to all the Churches 
 to be registered and obeyed. Can any one conceive of 
 a more perfect example of a Presbyterian synod, con- 
 vened as a judicial body, and pronouncing a decision, 
 not as a mere advisory council, but as a judicatory of 
 Christ, invested with judicial power to declare the path 
 of duty in a given case, not for a single congregation 
 merely, but for the whole visible Church ? 
 
 There is no doubt, indeed, that this system of autho- 
 ritative decision, not for one congregation only, but for a 
 
 y 
 
94 THE GOVERNMENT OP THE 
 
 number of Churches belonging to the same visible body, 
 may be weakly or wickedly managed. Like every- 
 thing in the hands of man, and even like the gospel 
 itself, it may be unskilfully administered, and sometimes 
 even perverted into means of oppression and mischief. 
 So may the most perfect system in the world, civil and 
 ecclesiastical. So may Independency and Congrega- 
 tionalism. For, as an eminent Independent (the Rev. 
 Robert Hall) remarked, in speaking on this very subject, 
 " While power is dangerous in the hands of a few, wis- 
 dom is seldom with the multitude." The fault, how- 
 ever, is not in the system, but in the administration. 
 Here is a form of ecclesiastical polity, complete in all its 
 parts — fitted to obviate every difficulty; not, indeed, 
 armed with civil power — not permitted to enforce its 
 decisions by civil penalties (in which every friend of 
 genuine Christianity must rejoice); a polity to which 
 folly, caprice, or rebellion, may refuse to bow; but, so 
 far as happy adjustment and moral power can go, better 
 adapted to promote the union, and the harmonious 
 counsel and co-operation of all the Churches which are 
 willing to avail themselves of its advantages, assuredly, 
 than any other that Christendom presents. 
 
 Such is a cursory view of the argument in favour of 
 Presbyterian Church government, and of the peculiar 
 advantages attending that form of ecclesiastical order. 
 It is better adapted than any other to repress clerical 
 ambition ; to prevent clerical encroachments and tyranny ; 
 to guard against the reign of popular effervescence and 
 violence; to secure the calm, enlightened, and edifying 
 exercise of discipline ; to maintain the religious rights of 
 the people against all sinister influence ; and to afford 
 relief in all cases in which a single Church, or an inferior 
 judicatory, may have passed an improper sentence, from 
 either mistake, prejudice, or passion. It establishes, in 
 all our ecclesiactical borders, that strict, representative 
 system of government, which has been " ever found to 
 lie at the foundation of all practical freedom, both poli- 
 tical and religious;" and which, under God, affords the 
 best pledge of justice and stability in the administration. 
 
PRESBYTERTAN CHURCH. 95 
 
 It affords that inspection over the lives and conversation 
 of Church members, which is ever indispensably needed, 
 and which is at once vigilant, parental, and judicious ; 
 and when faithfully carried into execution, is better fitted 
 than any other to bring the whole Church to act together, 
 and to unite all hearts and hands in Christian benefi- 
 cence.* And, finalty, it is better fitted than any other 
 to maintain a wise, impartial, and faithful inspection 
 over the lives and ministrations of the body of the clergy. 
 How much better is a venerable presbytery adapted to 
 discharge this duty to edification, than a single bishop, 
 who, to say nothing of other faults, may indulge in the 
 grossest favouritism or tyranny, without the possibility 
 of adequate control ! This form of Church government 
 cannot, indeed, of itself, infuse life and activity into an 
 ecclesiastical body ; but where vitality, and zeal, and 
 resources exist, there is, undoubtedly, no form of eccle- 
 siastical organization so well adapted to bind together a 
 body consisting of many parts, to unite councils, to 
 invigorate efforts, and to cause a large and extended 
 mass of professing Christians to walk by the same rules, 
 to mind the same things, to speak the same language, 
 and to feel that they are in fact, as well as in name, one 
 body in Christ, and every "one members one of another." 
 Our Methodist brethren refuse to admit any repre- 
 sentation from the laymen of their Churches into their 
 Conferences, to which the exercise of ecclesiastical autho- 
 rity is committed; and by this refusal, as well as on 
 account of some other things of a similar nature, they 
 have occasioned a serious schism in their body. Our 
 Episcopal brethren, yielding to what appeared to them 
 the necessity and importance of introducing a lay repre- 
 sentation into their ecclesiastical assemblies, have " lay 
 deputies" in the lower house of all their " Conventions."t 
 For this feature, however, in their organization in this 
 country, they do not pretend to offer any divine warrant. 
 
 * Fee " Presbyterianism Favourable to Peace and Union,''' in 
 Part II.— L. 
 
 f The Episcopalians to whom Dr. Miller refers, are American 
 Episcopalians. — L. 
 
9<) TnE GOVERNMENT, ETC. 
 
 It, is well known that there is no such feature in the 
 Church from which they derive their origin; and it is 
 without the shadow of support from any other principle 
 in their system than that which grows out of the suppos- 
 ed right of the Church to institute, at her pleasure, both 
 rites and offices which the Master never sanctioned. On 
 the contrary, for every part of her system, the Presbyte- 
 rian Church claims a scriptural warrant. She maintains 
 that no Church is at liberty to appoint officers, or to ex- 
 ercise authority which cannot be found in Scripture. Sue 
 vests ruling elders with the function of overseeing and 
 governing in the Church, not because they are con- 
 venient and useful, or even necessary, but because she 
 finds ample evidence of their institution in the apostolic 
 Church. She commits to appropriate judicial assemblies 
 the authoritative regulation of all her affairs, under the 
 laws of Christ, not merely because she sees many human 
 advantages resulting from this system, but also, and 
 chiefly, because she finds in the scriptural principles of 
 the essential unity of the visible Church, and in the de- 
 cisive example of the synod of Jerusalem, the fullest in- 
 spired warrant for this plan of ecclesiastical polity. Let 
 Presbyterians rejoice that even those denominations 
 which reject, in theory, her scriptural representative sys- 
 tem, are compelled, after all. to resort to it in fact, and 
 cannot without it preserve either unity or order.* 
 
 * It is a high testimony to Presbytery, that intelligent Christian 
 men and Christian Churches are gradually forced, 1 <\ the experienced 
 defects of every other ecclesiastical system, to Presbyterian ground. 
 It is generally understood that the Methodist Church feels the need 
 of some such office as the ruling elder being introduced t > its Con- 
 ference. In the United States of America, the Episcopal Church 
 has been greatly pared down in its Church government, as well as 
 decidedly improved in its liturgy; in short, has been made to ap- 
 proach nearer to Presbytery. The German Lutherans, too, who 
 settle there, soon give up their superintendents, as well as rise in 
 their theological purity. It is well known, too, that when a Church 
 bscomes missionary, either at home or abroad, it is obliged to set 
 up associations for the accomplishment of its purposes— associations 
 which substantially, and in that respect, make it Presbyterian. — L. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE WORSHIP OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 A fundamental principle of the Presbyterian Church, 
 in forming her " Directory for the Worship of God," is, 
 that here, as in everything else. Holy Scripture is the 
 only safe guide. One of the earliest practical errors which 
 gained ground in the Christian community was, the 
 adoption of the principle that the ministers of religion 
 might lawfully add, at their pleasure, to the rites and 
 ceremonies of the Church. In consequence of the ad- 
 mission of this error, Augustine complained, as early as 
 the beginning of the fifth century, that for one appoinr- 
 ment of God's, ten of man's had crept into the Church, 
 and formed a burden greater, in some respects, than was 
 the ceremonial economy of the Jews. The fact is, for the 
 sake of drawing both Jews and Pagans into the Church, 
 many ri^es and ceremonies were adopted from both, that 
 they might feel more at home in the Christian assemblies. 
 This evil increased, until, before the Reformation, it had 
 reached that revolting amount of superstition which now 
 distinguishes the Church of Rome. 
 
 It was in reference to this point that our fathers, both 
 in Scotland and England, had many conflicts, when their 
 respective Churches in those countries were organized 
 and settled in the sixteenth century. On the one hand, 
 the prelates, and other court clergy, were in favour of a 
 splendid ritual, and were disposed to retain a large num- 
 ber of the ceremonies which had been so long in use in. 
 the Church of Rome. On the other, the Puritans in 
 
98 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 England, and the corresponding body in Scotland, con- 
 tended that the Scriptures being the only infallible rule 
 of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have 
 a place in the public worship of God, which is not war- 
 ranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, 
 or by good and sufficient inference. In Scotland the 
 advocates of primitive simplicity prevailed, and establish- 
 ed in their national Church the same mode of worship 
 which we believe existed in the apostolic age, and which 
 now obtains in the Presbyterian Church in that country 
 and in the United States. In England, our fathers, the 
 Puritans, were not so happy as to succeed in establishing 
 the same scriptural system. Under the influence of the 
 monarch and the court clergy, they were outvoted. Still 
 it is undoubtedly certain, that a large portion of the most 
 pious and devoted of the clergy of the Church of England 
 during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and some of her 
 most worthy dignitaries, when the character of that 
 Church, under its reformed regimen, was finally fixed, 
 did importunately plead for laying aside in public wor- 
 ship every thing to which Presbyterians at the present 
 day object, as having no warrant in Scripture.* And 
 
 * Taken as a whole, no body of religious men were, perhaps, pos- 
 sessed of a higher or more estimable character than the Puritans of 
 England. They are not to be confounded with the Sectaries who ap- 
 peared at the beginning of the Commonwealth. The Puritans were 
 Presbyterian; the sectaries Independent. The Puritans were the 
 descendants uf the faithful founders of the Church of England, who 
 were anxious to carry the Reformation farther than unhappy politi- 
 cal expediency would allow, and sometimes formed almost one-half 
 the English Church. The other party were comparatively modern, 
 and by no means of so honourable an ancestry. Had the wishes of 
 the Puritans at an early day been realized, England, humanly speak- 
 ing, would have been brought into such moral order, that there would 
 have been no scope in prevailing ignorance for the growth of the 
 Sectaries — parties, from a supposed connection with whom the 
 Presbyterian Puritans have ever suffered in public estimation. The 
 ecclesiastical, and so the civil liberties of England, have been much 
 indebted to the sound religious principles which the Puritans diffused 
 — the strong exercise of private judgment to which they called — 
 the sacrifices which they cheerfully endured for conscience— the for- 
 titude with which they bore their sufferings. They contribute i 
 largely, also, to lay the foundations of the Presbyterian Church in 
 the United States of America, and to stamp a Protestant and K\ an- 
 gelical character upon a nation which seems destined, in the provi- 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 99 
 
 although they failed of securing their object in the Nation- 
 al Church, yet the descendants of the Puritans, both in 
 that country and our own, have been permitted to rea- 
 lize their wishes as to most of the particulars on which 
 they then insisted. On some of the principal of these 
 particulars it is proposed now to dwell, and to assign, 
 with regard to each, our reasons for adhering to them in 
 our system of worship. 
 
 But before we proceed to this detail, it may be useful 
 to offer a general remark or two, which will serve to 
 show why we object to all human inventions and addi- 
 tions in the worship of God. 
 
 1 . Christ is the only King and Head of the Church. 
 His Word is the law of his house. Of course, the Church 
 ought not to consider herself as possessing any power 
 which that Word does not warrant. If, therefore, she 
 cannot find in Scripture authority, either direct or fairly 
 implied, to the amount contended for, she does not pos- 
 sess that authority. 
 
 2. We think that such inventions and additions are 
 expressly forbidden in Scripture. The significant ques- 
 tion asked by God of his ancient people, when speaking 
 on this very subject (Isa. i. 12), ' c Who hath required 
 this of your hands ?" seems to be decisive. " Teaching 
 for doctrines the commandments of men," is spoken of 
 (Matt. xv. 9) by our blessed Saviour as highly offensive to 
 him. It would seem tacitly to imply that we are wiser 
 than God, and understand the interest of the Church 
 better than her Head and Lord. 
 
 3. If we once open this door, how or when shall it be 
 closed ? The Church, we are told, has power to decree 
 rites and ceremonies; that is, a majority of the ruling 
 powers of the Church have power at any time, as cap- 
 rice, or a love of show, or superstition, or any other mo- 
 tive, may prompt, to add rite after rite, and ceremony 
 
 dence of God, to be an active co-operator with Great Britain in the 
 evangelization of the world. The great thing which is awanting in 
 regard to them is, an intelligent and impartial historian, who shall 
 be a thorough Presbyterian, and record their eventful and instruc- 
 tive history in a suitable spirit. — L. 
 
100 THE WORSIIIP OF TTIE 
 
 after ceremony, at pleasure, to the worship of God. Now, 
 if this power be really inherent in the Church, what limit 
 shall be put to its exercise? If she have power to add ten 
 or twenty new ordinances to her ritual, has she not equal 
 power to add a hundred, or five hundred, if a majority of 
 her ministers should feel inclined to do so ? And was it 
 not precisely in this way, and upon this very principle, 
 that the enormous mass of superstition which character- 
 izes the Papacy, gradually accumulated ? Surely a power 
 which carries with it no limit but human caprice, and 
 which has been so manifestly and shockingly abused in 
 past ages, ought by no means to be claimed or exercised 
 in the Church of God. But to be more particular. 
 
 SECTION I. — PRESBYTERIANS REJECT PRESCRIBED 
 LITURGIES. 
 
 We do not, indeed consider the use of forms of prayer 
 as in all cases unlawful. We do not doubt that they 
 have been often useful, and that to many this mode of 
 conducting public devotions is highly edifying. If any 
 minister of our Church should think proper to compose 
 a form of prayer, or a variety of forms, for his own use, 
 or to borrow those which have been prepared by others, 
 he ought to be considered as at perfect liberty so to do. 
 But we object to being confined to forms of prayer. We 
 contend that it is of great importance to the edification of 
 the Church, that every minister be left at liberty to con- 
 duct the devotions of the sanctuary as his circumstan- 
 ces and the dispensations of Providence may demand.* 
 
 * The question is often argued as if it lay between a form of prayer 
 and effusions altogether unpremeditated; but the real question lies 
 between being stinted and bound to one uniform series of words by 
 authority— repeated, it maybe, several times every Sabbath-day to 
 weariness, without daring to depart from them, and such freedom to 
 the individual minister, that he may meditate or write beforehand 
 as he judges best. It is plain that, under the last mode, the minister 
 may avail himself of all the advantages, if there are such, of pre- 
 vious written preparation; while he is free from the serious disad- 
 vantages which are inseparable from being " stinted" from week to 
 week to the same invariable set of words. The Presbyterian 
 J)irectory of Public Worship recommends previous preparation. — L. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 101 
 
 Our reasons for adopting this judgment, and a correspon 
 ding practice, are the following : — 
 
 1. We think it perfectly evident that no forms of 
 prayer, no prescribed liturgies, were used in the apostolic 
 age of the Church. We read of none ; nor do we find 
 the smallest hint that any thing of the kind was then 
 employed in either public or social worship. Will the 
 most zealous advocates of liturgies point out even a pro- 
 bable example of the use of one in the New Testament ? 
 Can any one believe that Paul used a prescribed form of 
 prayer when he took leave of the elders of Ephesus, after 
 giving them a solemn charge ? (Acts xx. 37.) Can it 
 be imagined that he used a liturgy, when, in bidding 
 farewell to a circle of friends in the city of Tyre who had 
 treated him with kindness, he kneeled down on the sea- 
 shore and prayed with them ? Or can we suppose that 
 he and Silas read from a book, when, at midnight, in the 
 prison of Philippi,they prayed and sang praises unto God? 
 Again, when Paul exhorted Timothy to see that ' l kings 
 and all in authority" were remembered in public prayer, 
 is it not evident that the Church had no liturgy ? If 
 she had been furnished with one, and confined to it, 
 such direction would have been unnecessary, or rather 
 absurd; for they would have had their prayers all pre- 
 pared to their hand. In short, when we find prayer spok- 
 en of in the New Testament on a great variety of occa- 
 sions, and in a great variety of language, is it not passing 
 strange, if liturgies were then used, that no turn of ex- 
 pression giving the remotest hint of it should be employ- 
 ed ? Surely, if forms of prayer had been regarded in the 
 days of the apostles, as not only obligatory, but so highly 
 important as some Protestants now profess to regard them, 
 who can believe that the inspired writers would have 
 passed over them in entire silence ? The very least that 
 we can infer from this circumstance is^ that the use of 
 them is not binding on the Church. The primitive 
 Christians had, indeed, precomposed psalms and hymns, 
 which they united in singing, and probably a uniform 
 method, derived from the example and letters of the first 
 ministers, of administering the sacraments and blessing 
 
 H 
 
102 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 the people; but so have Presbyterians, and various other 
 ecclesiastical bodies, who yet are not considered as using 
 a liturgy. These, of course, have no application to the 
 present inquiry. 
 
 2. The Lord's Prayer, given at the request of the dis- 
 ciples, forms no objection to this conclusion It was 
 evidently not intended to be used as an exact, and far 
 less as an exclusive form. It is not given in the same 
 words by any two of the evangelists. As it was given 
 before the New Testament Church was set up, so it is 
 strictly adapted to the old rather than the new ceremony. 
 It contains no clause, asking for blessings in the name 
 of Christ, which the Saviour himself afterwards solemnly 
 enjoined as indispensable. After the resurrection and 
 ascension of Christ, when the New Testament Church 
 was set up, w r e read nothing more in the inspired history 
 concerning the use of this form ; and it is not until 
 several centuries after the apostolic age, that we find 
 this prayer statedly introduced into public worship. 
 Accordingly, it is remarkable that Augustine, in the 
 fourth century, expresses the decisive opinion, " that 
 Christ intended this prayer as a model, rather than a 
 form; that he did not mean to teach his disciples what 
 words they should use in prayer, but what things they 
 should pray for." 
 
 3. No such thing as a prescribed form of prayer ap- 
 pears to have been known in the Christian Church, for 
 several hundred years after Christ. The contrary is, in- 
 deed, often asserted by the friends of liturgies, but wholly 
 without evidence; nay, against the most conclusive evi- 
 dence. The most respectable early writers who under- 
 take to give an account of the worship of the early 
 Christians, make use of language which is utterly irre- 
 concilable with the practice of reading prayers. They 
 tell us that the minister, or person who led in prayer, 
 *' poured out prayers according to his ability ;' that he 
 prayed, " closing his bodily eyes, and lifting up the eyes 
 of his mind, and stretching forth his hands toward heaven." 
 Surely, in this posture, it was impossible to "read prayers." 
 Socrates and Sozomen, respectable ecclesiastical histori- 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 103 
 
 ans,who wrote in the fifth century, both concur in declar- 
 ing that, in their day, " no two persons were found to 
 use the same words in public worship." And Augustine, 
 who was nearly their contemporary, declares, in relation 
 to this subject, u There is freedom to use different 
 words, provided the same things are mentioned in prayer." 
 Basil, in the fourth century, giving directions about 
 prayer, remarks, that there were two parts of this service; 
 first, thanksgiving and praise, with self-abasement; and, 
 secondly, petition. He advises to begin with the former, 
 and, in doing it, to make choice of the language of Scrip- 
 ture. After giving an example of his meaning, he adds, 
 " When thou hast praised Him out of the Scriptures, as 
 thou art able (a strange clause, truly, if all had been 
 prepared beforehand, and readout of a book), then pro- 
 ceed to petition." ((Jlarkson on Liturgies^. \ 20.) Would 
 not all this be manifestly absurd, if public prayer had 
 been by a prescribed liturgy in Basil's days ? The truth 
 is, it is evident that extemporary or free prayer was 
 generally used in the primitive Church, and continued 
 to be used until orthodoxy and piety declined, and the 
 grace as well as the gift of prayer greatly diminished. 
 Then ministers began to seek the best aid that they could 
 procure. The Church, however, at large, even then, pro- 
 vided no liturgies; but each pastor, who felt unable to 
 pray extemporaneously, procured prayers composed by 
 other individuals, which he used in public. Accordingly, 
 Augustine tells us, that some ministers in his day (a 
 period in which we have complete evidence that many of 
 the sacred order were so uneducated as to be unable to 
 write their own names) " lighted upon prayers which 
 were composed not only by ignorant babblers, but also 
 by heretics; and through the simplicity of their igno- 
 rance, having no proper discernment, they made use of 
 them, supposing them to be good." Surely this could 
 never have happened, if the Church had been accustomed 
 at that time to the use of prescribed liturgies. In short, 
 the very first document in the form of a prayer-book of 
 which we read, is a Libellus Officialise mentioned in the 
 proceedings of the Council of Toledo, in the year 633. 
 
104 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 after Christ; and that was, evidently, rather a " Direc- 
 tory for the Worship of God," than a complete liturgy. 
 There is, indeed, evidence that, before this time, minis- 
 ters, deficient in talents and piety, either wrote prayers 
 for themselves, or procured them from others, as before 
 stated; hut the first hint to be found of an ecclesiastical 
 body interposing to regulate the business of public prayer 
 appears about the middle of the fifth century. 
 
 With respect to the boasted liturgies of St. Mark, St. 
 James, &c, of which we often hear, all enlightened Pro- 
 testants, it is believed, agree that they are manifestly 
 forgeries; and as to the liturgies attributed to Chrysos- 
 tom, Basil, and several others of the early Christian Fa- 
 thers, Bishop White, an English prelate, who lived in 
 the seventeenth century, delivered thefollowing opinion: 
 — " The liturgies," says he, " fathered upon St. Basil, 
 and St. Chrysostom, have a known mother (to wit, the 
 Church of Rome); but there is (besides many other just 
 exceptions) so great a dissimilitude between the suppos- 
 ed fathers of the children, that they rather argue the dis- 
 honest dealing of their mother, than serve as lawful wit- 
 nesses of that which the adversary intended to prove 
 by them." ( Tracts against Fisher, the Jesuit, p. 377.) 
 
 4. If the apostles, or any apostolic men, had prepared 
 and given to the Church any thing like a liturgy, we 
 should, doubtless, have had it preserved, and transmitted 
 with care to posterity. The Church, in this case, would 
 have had oneuniform book of prayers, which would have 
 been in use, and held precious throughout the whole 
 Christian community. But nothing of this kind has ever 
 been pretended to exist. For, let it be remembered that 
 the prayers in the Romish and English liturgies, ascribed 
 to some of the early Fathers of the Church, and even to 
 apostolical men, supposing them to be genuine, which by 
 good judges, as we have just seen, is more than doubted, 
 were not liturgies, but short prayers, or " collects," — 
 just such as thousands of Presbyterian ministers, who 
 never thought of using a liturgy, have composed in their 
 moments of devout retirement, and left among their pri- 
 vate papers. Who doubts that devotional composition 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 105 
 
 is made by multitudes who reject the use of prescribed 
 forms of prayer in public worship ? Accordingly, when 
 liturgies were gradually introduced into general use, in 
 the sixth and subsequent centuries, on account of the de- 
 cline of piety and learning among the clergy, there was 
 no uniformity even among the Churches of the same 
 state or kingdom. Every bishop, in his own diocese, 
 appointed what prayers he pleased, and even indulged 
 his taste for variety. Accordingly, it is a notorious fact, 
 which confirms this statement, that when the Reforma- 
 tion commenced in England, the established Romish 
 Church in that country had no single uniform liturgy 
 for the whole kingdom; but there seems to have been a 
 different one for the diocese of every bishop. And when, 
 in the second year of King Edward's reign, the principal 
 ecclesiastical dignitaries of the kingdom were directed to 
 digest and report one uniform plan for the public service 
 of the whole Church, they collated and compared the 
 five Romish missals of the several dioceses of Sarum, 
 York, Hereford, Bangor, and Lincoln, and out of these 
 formed a liturgy for the Protestant Episcopal Church of 
 England. So that the prayer-books which had been 
 used in five Popish bishoprics, constituted the basis of 
 the first liturgy of King Edward, and consequently of the 
 Book of Common Prayer, as now used in Great Britain 
 and the United States. This liturgy, at first, contained 
 a number of things so grossly Popish, that, when it was 
 read by Calvin and others, on the continent of Europe, 
 to whom copies were sent for obtaining their opinion, 
 their severe criticisms led to another review, and a con- 
 siderable purgation. Still a number of articles were left 
 acknowledged on all hands to have been adopted from 
 the missals of the Church of Rome, which, as stated 
 in various parts of this' chapter, exceedingly grieved the 
 more pious and evangelical part of the Church; but 
 which the queen, and the ecclesiastics more immediately 
 around her person, refused to exclude. Their antiquity 
 was pled as an argument in their favour. 
 
 5. Confining ministers to forms of prayer in public 
 worship, tends to restrain and discourage the spirit of 
 
IOC THE WOKSHTP OF THE 
 
 prayer. We cannot help thinking that the constant re- 
 petition of the same words, from year to year, tends to 
 produce, at least with very many persons, dulness and 
 a loss of interest. We are sure it is so with not a few. 
 Bishop Wilkins, though a friend to the use of forms of 
 prayer, when needed, argues strongly against binding our- 
 selves entirely to such " leading strings," as he emphati- 
 cally calls them, and expresses the opinion, that giving 
 vent to the desires and affections of the heart in extem- 
 porary prayer, is highly favourable to growth in grace. 
 (Gift of Prayer, ch. ii. pp. 10, 11.) Accordingly, it is 
 remarkable that, when those who were once distinguish- 
 ed for praying extemporaneously with fluency and unc- 
 tion, lay aside this habit, and confine themselves to 
 stinted forms for many years, they are apt to manifest 
 a striking decline in the spirit of devotion, and are no 
 longer able to engage in free prayer without much hesita- 
 tion and embarrassment. 
 
 6. No form of prayer, however ample or diversified, 
 can be accommodated to all the circumstances, exigen- 
 cies, and wants of either individual Christians or of the 
 Church in general. Now, when cases occur which are 
 not provided for in the prescribed forms, what is to be 
 done ? Either extemporary prayer must be ventured 
 upon, or the cases in question cannot be carried before 
 the throne of grace in words at all. Is this alternative 
 desirable? Cases of this kind have occurred, approach- 
 ing the ludicrous, in which ministers have declined en- 
 gaging in social prayer in situations of the deepest inte- 
 rest, because they could find nothing in their prayer-book 
 adapted to the occasion ! Nay, so common and so inte- 
 resting a service as the monthly concert in prayer, on the 
 first Monday evening of every month, can never be at- 
 tended upon by an Episcopal pastor, in an appropriate 
 and seasonable manner, without indulging in extempo- 
 rary prayer. This has been, more than once, confessed 
 and lamented by ministers of that denomination. * 
 
 * There is another serious disadvantage, and that is, that the 
 form of prayer may he too late to be of service to the end for which 
 it is designed. Suppose sudden illness in the royal family, all 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 107 
 
 7. It is no small argument against confining ministers 
 and people to a prescribed form, that whenever religion 
 is in a lively state in the heart of a minister accustomed 
 to use a liturgy, and especially when it is powerfully 
 revived among the members of his Church, his form of 
 prayer will seldom fail to be deemed an undesirable 
 restraint ; and this feeling will commonly either vent 
 itself in fervent extemporary prayer, or result in languor 
 and decline under restriction to his form. The more 
 rigorous and exclusive the confinement to a prescribed 
 form, the more cold and lifeless will the prevailing for- 
 mality generally be found. The excellent Mr. Baxter 
 expresses the same idea with more unqualified strength. 
 " A constant form," says he, " is a certain way to 
 hring the soul to a cold, insensible, formal worship." 
 (Flee Disputations, &c, p. 385.) 
 
 8. Once more : prescribed liturgies, which remain in 
 use from age to age, have a tendency to fix, to perpetu- 
 ate, and even to coerce, the adoption and propagation of 
 error. It is not forgotten, that the advocates of liturgies 
 urge, as an argument in their favour, a consideration 
 directly the converse of this, viz., that they tend, by 
 their scriptural and pious character, to extend and per- 
 petuate the reign of truth in a Church. Where their 
 character is really thus thoroughly scriptural, they may, 
 no doubt, exert, in this respect, a favourable influence ; 
 hut where they teach or insinuate error, the mischief 
 can scarcely fail to be deep, deplorable, and transmitted 
 from generation to generation. Of this, painful exam- 
 ples might be given, if it were consistent with the brevity 
 of this sketch to enter on such a field.* 
 
 ministers who are not tied to a liturgy, can immediately adapt their 
 public prayers to the occasion, and pray for the royal recovery. In 
 the case of a Church bound to a liturgy, before the form can be 
 prepared and spread all over an extensive country, the royal patient 
 may be recovered or dead — in neither case needing the prescribed 
 form. If, in the meantime, the people are generally aware of the 
 royal illness, but are bound to the usual form, from which there is 
 no departure, how aAvkwardly straitened must the heart feel in such 
 circumstances ! — L. 
 
 * Any advantage arising from an evangelical liturgy, whei'e the 
 minister is unsound or heretical, there is every reason to believe, is 
 
1 10 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 inanded to be kept holy, except the LordVday, which 
 is the Christian Sabbath." 
 
 We believe, indeed, and declare, in the same formula, 
 that it is both scriptural and rational to observe special 
 days of fasting and thanksgiving, as the extraordinary 
 dispensations of Divine Providence may direct. But 
 we are persuaded, that even the keeping of these days, 
 when they are made stated observances, recurring, of 
 course, at particular times, whatever the aspect of provi- 
 dence may be, is calculated to promote formality and 
 superstition, rather than the edification of the body of 
 Christ. 
 
 Our reasons for entertaining this opinion are the follow- 
 ing :— 
 
 1. We are persuaded that there is no scriptural war- 
 rant for such observances, either from precept or example. 
 There is no hint in the New Testament that such days 
 were either observed or recommended by the apostles, or 
 by any of the Churches in their time. The mention of 
 Easter in Acts xii. 4, has no application to this subject. 
 Herod was a Jew, not a Christian; and, of course, had 
 no desire to honour a Christian solemnity. The real 
 meaning of the passage is, as the slightest inspection of 
 the original will satisfy every intelligent reader, " In- 
 tending after the passover to bring him forth to the 
 people." 
 
 2. We believe that the Scriptures not only do not 
 warrant the observance of such days, but that they posi- 
 tively discountenance it. Let anyone impartially weigh 
 Col. ii. 16', and also Gal. iv. 9-11; and then say 
 whether these passages do not evidently indicate that 
 the inspired apostle disapproved of the observance of 
 such days. 
 
 that Church, which have heen so particularly and minutely trans- 
 mitted to us? How strange is it, that Christians should so eagerly 
 strive to • put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, 1 which was not 
 imposed on the Church of God while she was in a state of minority, 
 under tutors and governors, and in bondage under the elements 
 of the world." Again, " The Jews had /onus of psalmody, why 
 had they not also forms of prayer for their public worship ? We can 
 produce their psalm-book; let our author produce their prayer- 
 book." — L. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 1 1 1 
 
 3. The observance of fasts and festivals, by divine 
 direction, under the Old Testament economy, makes 
 nothing in favour of such observances under the New 
 Testament dispensation. That economy was no longer 
 binding, or even lawful, after the New Testament Church 
 was set up. It were just as reasonable to plead for the 
 present use of the passover, the incense, and the burnt- 
 offerings of the old economy, which were confessedly done 
 away by the coming of Christ, as to argue in favour of 
 human inventions, bearing some resemblance to them, as 
 binding in the Christian Church. 
 
 4. The history of the introduction of stated fasts and 
 festivals by the early Christians, speaks much against 
 both their obligation and their edifying character. Their 
 origin was ignoble. They were chiefly brought in by 
 carnal policy, for the purpose of drawing into the Church 
 Jews and Gentiles, who had both been accustomed to 
 festivals and holy-days; and from the moment of their in- 
 troduction, they became the signal for strife, or the monu- 
 ments of worldly expedient and degrading superstition. 
 
 As there were no holy-days, excepting the Lord's-day, 
 observed in the Christian Church while the apostles lived, 
 and no hint given that they thought any other expedient 
 or desirable; so we find no hint of any such observance 
 having been adopted until towards the close of the second 
 century. Then, the celebration of Easter gave rise to a 
 controversy; the Asiatic Christians pleading for its ob- 
 servance at the same time which was prescribed for the 
 Jewish Passover, and contending that they were suppor- 
 ted in this by apostolical tradition; while the Western 
 Church contended for its stated celebration on a certain 
 Sunday, and urged, with equal confidence, apostolic tra- 
 dition in favour of their scheme. Concerning this fierce 
 and unhallowed controversy, Socrates, the ecclesiastical 
 historian, who wrote soon after the time of Eusebius, 
 and begins his history where the latter closes his narra- 
 tive, speaking on the controversy concerning Easter, ex- 
 presses himself thus : " Neither the ancients, nor the fa- 
 thers of later times (I mean such as favoured the Jewish 
 custom), had sufficient cause to contend so eagerly about 
 
112 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 the feast of Easter; for they considered not within them- 
 selves, that when the Jewish religion was changed into 
 Christianity, the literal ohservance of the Mosaic law, 
 and the types of things to come, wholly ceased. And 
 this carries with it its own evidence. For no one of 
 Christ's laws permits Christians to observe the rites of 
 the Jews. Nay, the apostle hath in plain words for- 
 bidden it, where he abrogates circumcision, and exhorts 
 us not to contend about feasts and holy-days. For, 
 writing to the Galatians, he admonishes them not to ob- 
 serve days and months, and times and years. And unto 
 the Colossians he is as plain as may be, declaring that 
 the observance of such things was but a shadow. Neither 
 the apostles nor the evangelists have enjoined on Chris- 
 tians the ohservance of Easter; but have left the remem- 
 brance of it to the free choice and discretion of those 
 who have been benefited by such days. Men keep holy- 
 days, because thereon they enjoy rest from toil and labour. 
 Therefore, it comes to pass that in every place they do 
 celebrate of their own accord the remembrance of the 
 Lord's passion. But neither our Saviour nor his apostles 
 have anywhere commanded us to observe it." (Socrates, 
 lib. v., cap. 21.) 
 
 Here, then, is an eminent Christian writer who flou- 
 rished early in the fifth century, who had made the his- 
 tory of the Church his particular study, who explicitly 
 declares that neither Christ nor his apostles gave any 
 command, or even countenance, to the observance of fes- 
 tival days; that it was brought into the Church by cus- 
 tom; and that in different parts of the Church there was 
 diversity of practice in regard to this matter. With re- 
 spect to Easter, in particular, this diversity w r as striking. 
 We no sooner hear of its observance at all, than we be- 
 gin to hear of contest, and interruption of Christian 
 fellowship on account of it — some quoting the authority 
 of some of the apostles for keeping this festival on one 
 day; and others, with equal confidence, quoting the 
 authority of other apostles for the selection of a different 
 day — thereby clearly demonstrating that there was error 
 somewhere, and rendering it highly probable that all 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CIUJRCH. 1 1 3 
 
 parties were wrong, and that no such observances at all 
 were binding on Christians. 
 
 The festival of Easter, no doubt, was introduced in 
 the second century, in place of the Passover, and in ac- 
 commodation to the same Jewish prejudice which had 
 said, even during the apostolic age, " Except ye be cir- 
 cumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." 
 Hence, it was generally called pascha and pasch, in con- 
 formity with the name of the Jewish festival, whose place 
 it took. It seems to have received the title of Easter in 
 Great Britain, from the circumstance, that when Chris- 
 tianity was introduced into that country, a great Pagan 
 festival, celebrated at the same season of the year, in 
 honour of the Pagan goddess Eostre, yielded its place to 
 the Christian festival, which received, substantially, the 
 name of the Pagan deity. The title of Easter, it is be- 
 lieved, is seldom used but by Britons and their descen- 
 dants. 
 
 Few festivals are celebrated in the Romish Church, 
 and in some Protestant Churches, w 7 ith more interest 
 and zeal than Christmas. Yet when Origen, about the 
 middle of the third century, professes to give a list of 
 the fasts and festivals which were observed in his day, 
 he makes no mention of Christmas. From this fact, Sir 
 Peter King, in his " Inquiry into the Constitution and 
 Worship, &c, of the Primitive Church," &c, infers that 
 no such festival was then observed; and adds, " It seems 
 improbable that they should celebrate Christ's nativity, 
 when they disagreed about the month and the day when 
 Christ was born." Every month in the year has been 
 assigned by different portions and writers of the Christian 
 Church as the time of our Lord's nativity; and the final 
 location of this, as well as other holy-days, in the eccle- 
 siastical calendar, was adjusted rather upon astronomi- 
 cal and mathematical principles, than on any solid calcu- 
 lations of history. 
 
 5. But the motives and manner of introducing Christ- 
 mas into the Christian Church, speak more strongly 
 against it. Its real origin was this : Like many other 
 observances, it was borrowed from the heathen. The 
 
1 14 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 well-known Pagan festival among the Romans, distin- 
 guished by the title of Saturnalia, because instituted in 
 honour of their fabled deity, Saturn, was celebrated by 
 them with the greatest splendour, extravagance, and de- 
 bauchery. It was, during its continuance, a season of 
 freedom and equality; the master ceased to rule, and the 
 slave to obey — the former waiting at his own table upon 
 the latter, and submitting to the suspension of all order 
 and the reign of universal frolic. The ceremonial of this 
 festival was opened on the 19th of December, by light- 
 ing a profusion of waxen candles in the temple of Saturn; 
 and by suspending in their temple, and in all their habi- 
 tations, boughs of laurel, and various kinds of evergreen. 
 The Christian Church, seeing the unhappy moral influ- 
 ence of this festival, perceiving her own members too 
 often partaking in its licentiousness, and desirous, if 
 possible, of effecting its abolition, appointed a festival, 
 in honour of her Master's birth, nearly about the same 
 time, for the purpose of superseding it. In doing this, the 
 policy was to retain as many of those habits which had 
 prevailed in the Saturnalia as could in any way be recon- 
 ciled with the purity of Christianity. They made their 
 new festival, therefore, a season of relaxation and mirth, 
 of cheerful visiting, and mutual presents. They lighted 
 candles in their places of worship, and adorned them 
 with a profusion of evergreen boughs. Thus did the 
 Komish Church borrow from the Pagans some of her 
 most prominent observances; and thus have some ob- 
 servances of this origin been adopted and continued by 
 Protestants. 
 
 6. It oeing evident, then, that stated fasts and festi- 
 vals have no divine warrant, and that their use under 
 the New Testament economy is a merehuman invention, 
 we may ask those who are friendly to their observance, 
 what limits ought to be set to their adoption and use in 
 the Christian Church ? If it be lawful to introduce five 
 ^uch days for stated observance, why not ten, twenty, or 
 five score? A small number were, at an early period, 
 brought into use by serious men, who thought they were 
 thereby rendering God service, and extending the reign 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 115 
 
 of religion. But one after another was added, as super- 
 stition increased, until the calendar became burdened 
 with between two and three hundred fasts and festivals, 
 or saints' days, in each year; thus materially interfering 
 with the claims of secular industry and loading the wor- 
 ship of God with a mass of superstitious observances, 
 equally unfriendly to the temporal and eternal interests 
 of men.* Let the principle once be admitted, that stated 
 days of religious observance, which God has nowhere 
 commanded, may properly be introduced into the Chris- 
 tian ritual, and, by parity of reasoning, every one who, 
 from good motives, can effect the introduction of a new 
 religious festival, is at liberty to do so. Upon this prin- 
 ciple was built up the enormous mass of superstition 
 which now distinguishes and corrupts the Romish 
 Church. 
 
 7. The observance of the uncommanded holy-days is 
 ever found to interfere with the due sanctification of the 
 Lord's-day. Adding to the appointments of God is 
 superstition; and superstition has ever been found un- 
 friendly to genuine obedience. Its votaries, like the Jews 
 of old, have ever been found more tenacious of their own 
 inventions, of traditionary dreams, than of God's revealed 
 code of duty. Accordingly, there is perhaps no fact 
 more universal and unquestionable, than that the zealous 
 observers of stated fasts and festivals are characterise 
 cally lax in the observance of that one day which God 
 has eminently set apart for himself, and on the sanctifi- 
 cation of which all the vital interests of practical religion 
 are suspended. So it was among the Israelites of 
 old. As early as the fifth century, Augustine complains 
 that the superstitious observance of uncommanded rites 
 
 * This wa9 one of the ways in which the Church of Rome, in its 
 darkest days, seriously impoverished the people under her rule; ami 
 by keeping them dependent in their means, rendered them also de- 
 pendent in their judgments. The wisdom of the poor man is almost 
 always despised. In many countries, a third or more of time with- 
 drawn frointhe workers of active industry, would be almost national 
 ruin. The Creator and Proprietor of all has said, " Six days shalt 
 thou labour;" but the Church of Rome knows better, and steps in 
 with a contradiction to the extent of almost one half. — L. 
 
1 1 6 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 betrayed many in his time into a spirit of irreverence and 
 neglect towards those which were divinely appointed. So 
 it is, notoriously, among the Romanists at the present 
 day. And so, without any breach of charity, it may be 
 said to be in every religious community in which zeal for 
 the observance of uncommanded holy-days prevails. It 
 is true, many in these communities tell us that the ob- 
 servance of holy-days, devoted to particular persons and 
 events in the history of the Church, has a manifest and 
 strong tendency to increase the spirit of piety. But if 
 this be so, we might expect to find much more scriptu- 
 ral piety in the Romish Church than in any other, since 
 holy-days are ten times more numerous in that denomi- 
 nation than in the system of any Protestant Church. 
 But is it so ? Let those who have eyes to see, and ears to 
 hear, decide.* 
 
 If the foregoing allegations be in any measure well 
 founded; if there be no warrant in God's Word for any 
 observances of this kind; if, on the contrary, the Scrip- 
 tures positively discourage them; if the history of their 
 introduction and increase mark an unhallowed origin; 
 if, when we once open the door to such human inven- 
 tions, no one can say how or when it may be closed ; 
 and if the observance of days, not appointed of God, has 
 ever been found to exert an unfriendly influence on the 
 sanctification of that holy day which God has appointed, 
 surely we need no farther proof that it is wise to discard 
 them from our ecclesiastical system. 
 
 SECTION III. WE REJECT GODFATHERS A^SD GODMOTHERS 
 
 IN BAPTISM. 
 
 It is well known that the Presbyterian Church differs 
 from Roman Catholics and Episcopalians in regard to 
 
 * And yet this is the state of things which the new non- Protestant 
 Anglican school would revive, under the penalty of unchurching 
 nine-tenths of Protestant Christendom, unless they forthwith comply 
 with its demands; and sensible men, who were once evangelical, are 
 imposed upon by such pretensions, and stand in awe of revived 
 Popery ! This is the meaning of going back to the principles and 
 practices of the primitive Church !— L. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 117 
 
 sponsors in baptism. We differ in two respects. First, 
 in not requiring or encouraging the appearance of any 
 other sponsors, in the baptism of children, than the par- 
 ents, when they are living, and qualified to present them- 
 selves in this character; and, secondly, in not requiring, 
 or even admitting, any sponsors at all in cases of adult 
 baptism. And we adopt this principle and practice for 
 the following reasons : — 
 
 1. There is not a shadow of evidence in the New 
 Testament, that any other sponsors than parents were 
 ever admitted to answer for their children in baptism in 
 the apostolic Church; nor is any text of Scripture at- 
 tempted to be adduced in its support by the warmest 
 friends of this practice. When the jailer of Philippi 
 was baptized, " he and all his straightway; " and when 
 Lydiaand w her household" were baptized, we read of no 
 sponsors but the heads of these families, whose faith en- 
 titled them to present their households to receive the 
 appropriate seal of faith. 
 
 2. We find no trace of any other sponsors than parents 
 during the first five hundred years after Christ. When 
 some persons, in the time of Augustine, who flourished 
 toward the close of the fourth, and the 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 oppos- 
 ed them, and gave it as his opinion, that, in extraordi- 
 nary 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 
 Christian 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 charge, might, with 
 propriety, take such children, offer them in baptism, and 
 become responsible for their Christian education. In this 
 principle and practice, all intelligent and consistent 
 Presbyterians are agreed. The learned Bingham, an 
 Episcopal divine of great industry and erudition, seems 
 to have taken unwearied pains, in his " Ecclesiastical 
 i 
 
1 1 8 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 Antiquities," to collect every scrap of testimony within 
 his reach, in favour of the early origin of sponsors. But 
 he utterly fails of producing even plausible evidence to 
 this amount; and at length candidly acknowledges that, 
 in the early ages, parents were, in all ordinary cases, the 
 presenters and sureties of their own children; and that 
 children were presented by others only in extraordinary 
 cases, such as those already stated, when their parents 
 could not present them. 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 this service to be surrendered 
 to other hands. 
 
 3. The subsequent history of this practice marks the 
 progress of superstition. Mention is made by Cyril in 
 the fifth century, and by Fulgentius in the sixth, 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, un- 
 able to speak for themselves, or to make the usual pro- 
 fession; 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 suffi- 
 cient knowledge, and having before expressed a desire to 
 be baptized. For this there was, undoubtedly, at least 
 some colour of reason; and the same thing might, per- 
 haps, be done without impropriety in some conceivable 
 circumstances now. From this, however, there was a tran- 
 sition soon made to the use of sponsors in all cases of 
 adult baptism. This latter, however, Avas upon a differ- 
 ent principle from the former. When adults had the 
 use of speech and reason, and were able to answer for 
 themselves, the sponsors provided for such never answered 
 nor professed for them. This was invariably done by 
 the adult himself. Their only business, as it would ap- 
 pear, was to be a kind of curators or guardians of the 
 spiritual life of the persons baptized. This office was 
 generally fulfilled, in each Church, by the deacons, when 
 adult males were baptized; and by the deaconesses 
 when females came forward to receive this ordinance. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 1 1 9 
 
 Hence, in the Roman Catholic, and some Protestant 
 sects, the practice was ultimately established of provid- 
 ing godfathers and godmothers in all cases of adult 
 baptism. 
 
 4. Among the pious Waldenses and Albigenses, in 
 the middle ages, no other sponsors than parents were in 
 common use. But where the parents were dead, or 
 absent, or unable on any account to act, other professors 
 of religion, who were benevolent enough to undertake 
 the charge, were allowed to appear in their place, and 
 answer and act in their stead. 
 
 5. If, then, the use of godfathers and godmothers, as 
 distinct from parents, in baptism, has no countenance in 
 the Word of God; if it was unknown in the Church during 
 the first five hundred years after Christ ; and if it was su- 
 perstitious in its origin, and connected with other super- 
 stitions in its progress, we have, undoubtedly, sufficient 
 reason for rejecting the practice. When the system is 
 to set aside parents in this solemn transaction; to require 
 others to 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 
 fulfilling, and, in most cases, notoriously have it not in 
 their power to fulfil, and, indeed, appear to feel no 
 special obligation to fulfil, we are constrained to regard 
 it as a human invention, altogether unwarranted, and 
 adapted, on a variety of accounts, to generate evil rather 
 than good. 
 
 According to one of the canons of the Church of Eng- 
 land, " parents are not to be urged to be present when 
 their children are baptized, nor to be permitted to stand 
 as sponsors for their own children." That is, the parents, 
 to whom God and nature have committed the education 
 of children — in whose families they are to grow up — 
 under whose eye and immediate care their principles, 
 manners, and character are to be formed — shall not be 
 allowed to take even a part in their dedication to God, 
 nor encouraged even to be present at the solemn trans- 
 action ! In the Protestant Episcopal Church in this 
 
I 20 TIIE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 country, " parents shall 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.* 
 
 SECTION IV. — THE SIGN OF THE CROSS IN BAPTISM. 
 
 This is one of the additions to the baptismal rite 
 which Protestant Episcopalians have adopted from the 
 Romanists, and which Presbyterians have always re- 
 jected. A large body of the most pious and learned 
 divines of the Established Church of England, in an 
 early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when the 
 reformation of that Church was about to be conclusively 
 settled, earnestly petitioned that the sign of the cross in 
 
 * The Prelaticai Church is a curious mixture of high claims and 
 low practices. We have seen much of the tirst, we may here advert 
 to one of the second. One would think, from the way in which 
 ordination'and the sacraments are spoken of — the exclusive channels 
 of salvation, if not salvation itself— that the administration of bap- 
 tism by any one save a prelatically ordained officer, would be shrunk 
 from as sacrilege ; but so it is, that the Church of England, following 
 the Church of Rome, recognises and practises lay baptism ! — bap- 
 tism by commanding officers in the army or navy, who have no holy 
 orders ! What are Ave to think of the consistency of a system which 
 allows any layman, however humble, to dispense baptism as validly 
 as the highest bishop ; and which, at the same time, is unchurching 
 nine-tenths of Protestant Christendom, because its Churches have 
 no Episcopal ordination ? Is baptism — by many accounted regene- 
 ration itself— less important than ordination ? Is this the language 
 of Scripture ? 
 
 For farther information, the reader is directed to the long and 
 learned judgment of Sir Herbert Jenner, in the Court of Arches, 
 June, 1841; in the course of which he shows, that, in the early 
 Church of the fourth and fifth centuries (the Church which is 
 idolized by the new Anglican school), lay baptism was almost uni- 
 versal in the Eastern and Western Churches ; that, in England, 
 previous to the Reformation, so established was the practice, that 
 ministers were called to instruct their parishioners how tc administer 
 the ordinance in a decent manner, as all might be called upon to do 
 so : that, after the Reformation, it was a frequent and serious ground 
 of complaint by the Puritans against the Church of England, that wo- 
 vien were allowed to baptize ; that there were occasional controversies- 
 on the subject of lay baptism; but that the Church of England all 
 along held, and continues to hold, its validity. Hence the judge sen- 
 tenced Mr. Escott,the Puseyitc clergyman, who had refused to bury 
 a Wesleyan child on the ground that it had not been baptized (be- 
 cause baptized by a Dissenting minister— layman in the sense of the 
 new school), to three months' suspension, and the costs of the 
 suit. — L. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 121 
 
 baptism, as well as stated fasts and festivals, godfathers 
 and godmothers in baptism, kneeling at the Lord's sup- 
 per, bowing at the name of Jesus, &c., might be abo- 
 lished. When their petitions to this amount were read, 
 and their arguments heard, in the lower house of Con- 
 vocation, the vote was taken, and passed by a majority 
 of those present; forty-three voting in favour of grant- 
 ing the prayer of the petitioners — in other words, in 
 favour of abolishing the rites complained of; and thirty- 
 five against it. But when the proxies were called for and 
 counted, the scale was turned; those in favour of the 
 abolition being fifty-eight, and those against it fifty-nine. 
 So that, by a solemn vote of the Convocation, the 
 several rites regarded and complained of as Popish 
 superstitions, and the sign of the cross among the rest, 
 were retained in the Church only by a majority of one. 
 
 In the objections at that time urged against the sign 
 of the cross in baptism, by those learned and venerable 
 Episcopal divines, Presbyterians have ever concurred. 
 These objections are the following: — 
 
 1. Not the smallest countenance is to be found in 
 Scripture for any such addition to the baptismal rite. 
 Nothing of this kind is pretended to be produced by its 
 most zealous advocates. All acknowledge it to be a 
 human invention. 
 
 2. In the records of the earliest writers by whom it is 
 mentioned, it appears associated with so much super- 
 stition, as cannot fail to discredit it in the view of all 
 intelligent Christians. From the very same sources from 
 which we gather the information that, in the second and 
 third centuries, the sign of the cross was added to the 
 rite of baptism, we also learn that there were added 
 to the same ordinance a number of other human inven- 
 tions — such as " exorcising" the candidate for baptism, 
 to drive away evil spirits; putting into his mouth a 
 mixture of milk and honey, as a symbol of his childhood 
 in a new life; anointing with spittle and with oil, and 
 the laying on of hands, for the purpose of imparting the 
 Holy Spirit. These are all deemed by Protestants 
 unwarranted additions to Christ's simple appointment; 
 
122 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 and in what respect does the sign of the cross stand upon! 
 better ground? 
 
 3. Tertullian, one of the earliest writers in whom we 
 find any mention made of the sign of the cross as a reli- 
 gious rite, represents it as used in his day with a degree 
 of superstition scarcely credible in such an early age, and 
 which ought to operate as a permanent warning to all 
 succeeding ages. " Every step," says he, " that we take — 
 when we come in and when w T e go out; when we put 
 on our clothes or our shoes; when we bathe, eat, light 
 up candles, go to bed, or sit down — Ave mark our fore- 
 heads with the sign of the cross. If for these, and other 
 acts of discipline of the same kind, you demand a text 
 of Scripture, you will find none; but tradition will be 
 alleged as the prescriber of them." (De Corona, cap. 
 iii.) The sign of the cross was thought, by those deluded 
 votaries of superstition, a sure preservative against all 
 sorts of malignity, poisons, or fascination, and effectual 
 to drive away evil spirits. The principal Fathers of the 
 fourth century affirm that it was the constant and un- 
 doubted means of working many miracles. " This sign," 
 says Chrysostom, " both in the days of our forefathers 
 and our own, has thrown open gates that were shut, 
 destroyed the effect of poisonous drugs, disarmed the 
 force of hemlock, and cured the bites of venomous 
 beasts." (Tom. vii., p. 552, A.) 
 
 4. When we consider the miserable superstition with 
 which the use of the sign of the cross is constantly 
 marked by Roman Catholics — that they regard it as 
 essential to the validity of the ordinance of baptism ; that 
 they adore it; that they apply it in every step and act 
 of religious life; that many of them consider no oath as 
 binding which is taken on the Bible without the figure 
 of the cross upon it; and that they rely upon it as a 
 kind of talisman, connected with every blessing ; surely, 
 when Ave see this degrading system of superstition 
 connected with this sign, acknowledged on all hands to 
 be a mere human invention, it is no wonder that en- 
 lightened and conscientious Christians should feel con- 
 strained to lay it aside. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 123 
 
 SECTION V. — WE REJECT THE RITE OP 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. 
 In giving the views of Presbyterians on this subject, it 
 is not at all intended to condemn those who think proper 
 to employ the rite in question; but only to state with 
 brevity some of the reasons why the venerated fathers of 
 our Church thought proper to exclude it from our truly 
 primitive and apostolical ritual, and why their sons, to 
 the present hour, have persisted in the same course. 
 
 1. We find no warrant for this rite in the Word of 
 God. Indeed, its most intelligent and zealous advocates 
 do not pretend to adduce any testimony from Scripture 
 in its behalf. 
 
 2. Quite as little support for it is to be found in the 
 purest and best ages of uninspired antiquity. Toward 
 the close of the second century, indeed, and the begin- 
 ning of the third, among several human additions to the 
 rite of baptism which had crept into the Church — 
 such as exorcising the infant, to drive away evil spirits, 
 putting a mixture of milk and honey into his mouth, 
 anointing him with spittle and with oil, in the form of 
 a cross — it became customary to lay on hands, for the 
 purpose of imparting the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This 
 laying on of hands, however, was always done immedi- 
 ately after the application of water, and always by the 
 same minister who performed the baptism. Of course, 
 every one who was authorized to baptize, was also autho- 
 rized to lay on hands upon the baptized individual. As 
 this was a mere human invention, so it took the course 
 which human inventions are apt to take. It was mo- 
 dified as the pride and the selfishness of ecclesiastics 
 prompted. When Prelacy arose, it became customary 
 to reserve this solemn imposition of hands to prelates, 
 as a part of their official prerogative. As soon as con- 
 venient after baptism, the infant was presented to the 
 
124 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 bishop, to receive from him the imposition of hands, for 
 conveying the gifts of the Spirit. Jerome, in the fourth 
 century, bears witness, however, that this was done rather 
 for the sake of honouring their office, than in obedience 
 to any divine warrant. But, in process of time, another 
 modification of the rite was introduced. The imposition 
 of the bishop's hands did not take place immediately 
 after baptism, nor even in the infancy of the baptized 
 individual, but was postponed for a number of years, 
 according to circumstances, and sometimes even to adult 
 age. Then the young person, or adult, was presented 
 with great formality to the bishop, for his peculiar bene- 
 diction. Among many proofs that this was not the 
 original nature of the rite, is the notorious fact, that 
 throughout the whole Greek Church, at the present 
 time, the laying on of hands is administered, for the 
 most part, in close connection with baptism, and is dis- 
 pensed by any priest who is empowered to baptize, as 
 was done in the third and fourth centuries, before the 
 Greek Church was separated from the Latin. In like 
 manner, in the Lutheran and other German Churches, 
 where a sort of confirmation is retained, although they 
 have ecclesiastical superintendents or seniors, the act of 
 laying on hands is not reserved to them, but is per- 
 formed by each pastor for the children of his parochial 
 charge. 
 
 3. The rite of confirmation is not only altogether 
 destitute of divine warrant, but it is also superfluous. 
 As it was plainly, at first, a human invention, founded 
 on the superstitious belief that, by the laying on of hands, 
 the special gifts of the Holy Spirit were to be continued 
 in the Church; so it is unnecessary. It answers no 
 practical purpose which is not provided for quite as 
 well, to say the least, in the Presbyterian Church, which 
 rejects it. It is said to be desirable that there should 
 be some transaction or solemnity by which young people, 
 Avho have been baptized in their infancy, may be called 
 to recognise 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 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 125 
 
 d^-bo 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 qua- 
 lified 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 
 acknowledgment and profession of the truth, the service, 
 and the hopes of Christ? have we not in the sacra- 
 mental supper just such a solemnity as we need for 
 the purpose in question, simple, rational, scriptural, and 
 to which all our children may come just so soon as they 
 are prepared, in any suitable manner, to confess Christ 
 before men ? We do not need confirmation, then, for 
 the purpose for which it is proposed. We have some- 
 thing better, because appointed of God; quite as expres- 
 sive, more solemn, and free from certain objectionable 
 features, which are next to be mentioned. 
 
 4. Finally ; we reject the rite of confirmation in our 
 Church, because, in addition to all the reasons which 
 have been mentioned, Ave consider the formulary pre- 
 scribed for its administration in the Church of England, 
 and substantially adopted in the Episcopal Church in 
 this country, as liable to the most serious objections. We 
 do not think it a duty to administer, in any form, a rite 
 which the Saviour never appointed ; but our repugnance 
 is greatly increased by the language in which the rite in 
 question is dispensed 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 sentence: ' 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. And again, in an- 
 other prayer after the imposition of hands, he speaks to 
 the Searcher of hearts thus: " We make our humble 
 
1 2b' THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 supplications unto thee for these thy servants, upon 
 whom, after the example of thy holy apostles, we have 
 now laid our hands, to certify them by this sign of thy 
 favour and gracious goodness toward them," &c. And 
 also, in the act of laying on hands, assuming that all who 
 are kneeling before him already have the holy, sanctify- 
 ing 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 rea- 
 son to fear, are very far from having been " born of the 
 Spirit," in the scriptural 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 
 " favour;" and declares that, being already in a state of 
 grace and reconciliation with God, they are called to 
 " grow in grace," and to " increase in the Holy Spirit 
 more and more." 
 
 An enlightened Presbyterian minister would consider 
 himself, if he were to use such language to such a circle, 
 as encouraging radical misapprehensions of the nature of 
 true religion; as perverting the doctrine of regeneration 
 by the Holy Spirit; and as speaking a language adapted 
 fatally to deceive the souls of those whom he addressed. 
 Surely, with such views, we should be highly criminal 
 w r ere we to adopt such a rite, and dispense it after such 
 an example. 
 
 SECTION VI. WE REJECT KNEELING AT THE LORD'S 
 
 SUPPER. 
 
 This is another part of the Romish ritual, which a 
 large body of the most pious and learned divines of the 
 Church of England, at the period of the Reformation, 
 were earnestly desirous of having laid aside ; but they 
 were overruled by the queen and court clergy, who chose 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 1 27 
 
 to retain it; and it has ever since found a place in the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church. It is well known that 
 Presbyterians differ, in this respect, from their Episcopal 
 neighbours. They prefer what has been commonly called 
 " the table posture," for such reasons as the following : — 
 
 1. It is granted, on all hands, that the posture in which 
 the Lord's supper was first administered by the Saviour 
 himself, was that in which it was customary to receive 
 ordinary meals. It is not known that any one denies 
 or doubts this. The evangelists are too explicit in their 
 statement of this fact to admit of doubt. The Evange- 
 list Matthew declares — " Now, when the evening was 
 come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they were 
 eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, 
 and gave it to his disciples," &c. But if the Saviour 
 himself chose this posture, as most agreeable to his will, 
 may we not conclude that it is, on the whole, the wisest 
 and best ? 
 
 2. It is very certain that kneeling at the Lord's table 
 was unknown in the Christian Church for a number of 
 centuries after the apostolic age. Indeed, in the second, 
 third, and following centuries, it was accounted unlawful 
 even to kneel on the Lord's- day; this posture being 
 reserved for days of fasting and humiliation. This is 
 asserted by Tertullian; and the Council of Nice passed 
 a solemn decree to the same amount, because on that 
 day is celebrated the joyful remembrance of our Lord's 
 resurrection. The posture, both of public prayer on the 
 Lord's-day and of receiving the communion, was inva- 
 riably standing. The proof of this is so complete as 
 to preclude the possibility of doubt. The most ardent 
 friends of kneeling do not pretend, so far as is now 
 recollected, to find any example of this posture in the 
 whole history of the Church, prior to the thirteenth cen- 
 tury; that is, not until the Papacy had reached the 
 summit of its system of corruption. And, accordingly, 
 in the Greek Church, which separated from the Latin 
 before the doctrine of transubstantiation arose, kneeling 
 at the communion was unknown. In short, kneeling at 
 the Lord's table was not introduced until transubstan- 
 
128 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 tiation arose; and with transubstantiation it ought, by 
 Protestants, to have been laid aside. "When men began 
 to believe that the sacramental elements were really 
 transmuted into the body and blood of the Redeemer, 
 there was some colour of apology for kneeling and 
 adoring them. But when this error was abandoned, 
 that which had grown out of it ought to have been 
 abandoned also. 
 
 The essential nature of the eucharist renders the at- 
 tendance upon it in a kneeling posture incongruous, and, 
 of course, unsuitable. This ordinance is a feast — a feast 
 of love, joy, and thanksgiving. The very name eucha- 
 rist, implies as much. It is intended to be a sign of 
 love, confidence, and affectionate fellowship, between 
 each communicant and the Master of the feast, and be- 
 tween all the members of his body. It is also intended 
 to be an emblem and a means of that spiritual nourish- 
 ment which is found in feeding by faith, and in a spiri- 
 tual sense, on the body and blood of the Redeemer, set 
 forth in this ordinance as crucified for us. Now, it has 
 been often asked — " In what nation is it thought suitable 
 to kneel at banquets?" Where do men eat and drink 
 upon their knees ? True, indeed, humility and penitence 
 become us in every approach to God, and certainly in 
 no case more peculiarly than when we celebrate the 
 wonders of grace and love manifest in the Saviour's 
 dying for us ; yet it is equally true, that as the ordinance 
 is characteristically a feast of confidence, fellowship, 
 joy, and thanksgiving, so the exercises and the posture 
 most becoming the attendance on it, are those which 
 indicate gladness, gratitude, and affectionate intercourse. 
 He must be strangely prejudiced in favour of a supersti- 
 tious precedent, who can persuade himself that kneeling 
 is the most suitable expression of those exercises. 
 
 4. Finally; the abuse and the misapprehension of the 
 practice of kneeling at the Lord's supper, are considera- 
 tions of no small weight in the minds of those who reject 
 this practice. As it originated in gross error, so it is 
 adapted to nourish error and superstition ; and however 
 understood by intelligent Christians, it has been misap- 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 129 
 
 prehended, and wiH be, as long as it shall be used, mis- 
 apprehended by many ignorant minds. Accordingly, as 
 before stated, when the English liturgy was revised, and 
 about to be ultimately settled, in the reign ,of Queen 
 Elizabeth, some of the most pious and learned divines 
 of that Church entreated that kneeling at the eucharist 
 might either be abolished altogether, or, at least, left 
 optional or indifferent. When the divines appointed to 
 report on the subject brought in a report which left it 
 indifferent, the queen drew her pen over the lines which 
 represented it, and made the practice binding. And all 
 that the friends of abolishing the practice could obtain, 
 was a rubric, or marginal advertisement, declaring that by 
 communicating in this posture no worship of the elements 
 was intended. This obstinate adherence to the practice 
 in question greatly grieved the foreign Protestants; and 
 the learned Beza wrote to Archbishop Grindal on the 
 subject, in a style of respectful but firm remonstrance. 
 " If," says Beza, " you have rejected the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation, and the practice of adoring the host, why 
 do you symbolize with Popery, and seem to hold both, 
 by kneeling at the sacrament ? Kneeling had never 
 been thought of, had it not been for transubstantiation." 
 The archbishop replied, " That though the sacrament 
 was to be received kneeling, yet the rubric accompanied 
 the service-book, and informed the people that no adora- 
 tion of the elements was intended." " ! I understand 
 you," said Beza : u there was a certain great lord who 
 repaired his house, and, having finished it, left before his 
 gate a great stone, for which he had no occasion. This 
 stone caused many people in the dark to stumble and 
 fall. Complaint was made to his lordship, and many an 
 humble petition was presented, praying for the removal 
 of the stone; but he remained long obstinate. At length 
 he condescended to order a lantern to be hung over it. 
 i My lord,' said one, ' if you would be pleased to rid 
 yourself of farther solicitation, and to quiet all parties, 
 order the stone and the candle to be both removed. '" 
 
130 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 SECTION VIL WE DO NOT ADMINISTER THE LORD'S 
 
 SUPPER IN PRIVATE. 
 
 Few ordinances have been more misapprehended and 
 pervertedthan the Lord's supper. Before the close of 
 the third century, superstitious views of its efficacy, and 
 its necessity to salvation, began to be adopted, and led 
 to a corresponding practice. Entirely mistaking the 
 meaning of John vi. 53, many Christians of that day 
 supposed that no one could die safely without having 
 participated of this ordinance. Accordingly, it was not 
 only administered to all adult persons, who professed to 
 be the disciples of Christ, but also to infants, soon after 
 their baptism. Nay, to such an extravagant height was 
 this frenzy of superstition carried, that when any one 
 had died suddenly, without having partaken of this sacra- 
 ment, the consecrated elements were, in many instances, 
 thrust into the mouth of the lifeless corpse, in hope that 
 it might not yet be too late to impart a saving benefit to 
 the deceased. This delusion soon produced, or rather 
 strongly implied, the Popish doctrine, that this sacrament, 
 as well as baptism, carried with it an inherent efficacy 
 (an opus operatum, as they expressed it), which insured 
 a saving operation in all cases in which it was regularly 
 administered. From this, the transition was easy to the 
 notion, that the consecrated elements, when exhibited, 
 cured diseases, and accomplished many other wonderful 
 miracles. Hence, these elements, before the commence- 
 ment of the third century, after being dispensed in the 
 public assembly, were sent, generally by deacons, to 
 those who, on any account, were absent. Not long after- 
 wards, the sick, the dying, and those who were confined 
 on any account to their dwelling, had a portion of the 
 elements despatched to them, either by ecclesiastics, or, 
 if more convenient, by the hands of laymen, and even 
 children. Some, on receiving the elements in church, 
 contrived to carry away with them a portion, and were 
 in the habit of taking a small part of this portion every 
 day, for thirty or forty days together. Nay, some carried 
 a portion of the sacrament (as they expressed it) with 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 131 
 
 them on long journeys and voyages, had recourse to it 
 as a defence in cases of danger, and inserted some 
 portion of it in plasters for healing wounds and ulcers. 
 All this under the impression that these sacramental 
 elements had an inherent energy of the most potent and 
 beneficial kind. No wonder that, wherever these senti- 
 ments prevailed, private communion, if such an expres- 
 sion may be allowed, was universal. The sacrament in 
 a great measure lost its character as a social ordinance; 
 and the symbols of the Redeemer's broken body and 
 shed blood were considered as invested with a sort of 
 magical influence wherever they appeared — to be car- 
 ried about the person as an amulet for defence, and 
 resorted to as a medicine of sovereign power. 
 
 It is true, some of these views and habits were checked 
 by the rise of the doctrine of transubstantiation. When 
 the elements were believed, by the consecrating prayer, 
 to have been transmuted into the real body and blood 
 of Christ, it was thought indecent to carry them home, 
 to deposit them in a chest or cupboard, and to swallow 
 a small portion every day. Still the most humiliating 
 superstitions, as to the consecrated elements, continued 
 to prevail. 
 
 When the Reformation took place in the land of our 
 fathers, many of these views and habits, and especially 
 the more gross of them, were happily corrected. Still 
 it is to be lamented that the Reformation in the Church 
 of England, in respect to this ordinance, as well as some 
 others, was not more thorough; and that, after all the 
 remonstrances and importunity of the most venerable and 
 pious divines of that Church, a number of things were 
 left in use, which it were to be wished had been laid 
 aside. Of these the habit of private communion is one. 
 The eucharist is administered by the clergy of that 
 Church, every day, to the sick and the dying, with 
 scarcely any scruple, whenever it is requested. To the 
 worldly, the careless, and even the most profligate, it is 
 freely carried, when they come to die, if they desire it; 
 indeed, some have supposed that any minister who should 
 publicly refuse to administer this ordinance to a sick 
 
132 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 person, when requested, would be liable, in that country, 
 to a civil prosecution. Suffice it to say, that such a 
 refusal is very seldom given. Even criminals of the most 
 profligate character, just before their execution, always 
 have this sacrament administered to them, if they are 
 willing to receive it, and that when no appearance what- 
 ever of genuine penitence is manifested.* 
 
 Presbyterian ministers, in all ordinary cases, decline 
 administering the Lord's supper to the sick and the 
 dying, and generally in private houses, for reasons which 
 appear to them conclusive. They are such as these: — 
 
 1. They consider this ordinance as social and ecclesi- 
 astical in its very nature. It is a communion, in which 
 the idea of a " solitary mass," as admitted among Papists, 
 would seem to be an absurdity. 
 
 2. We find no warrant for private communion in the 
 New Testament. It is true, we read of Christians, in 
 the apostolic age, " breaking bread from house to house ;" 
 but that is, evidently, a mode of expressing their ordi- 
 nary worshipping assemblies. They had no ecclesias- 
 tical buildings. They worshipped altogether in private 
 houses, in " upper chambers," &c. There, of course, 
 they administered the communion to as many as could 
 come together. And as they could not occupy the same 
 apartment statedly, or, at any rate, long together, on 
 account of the vigilance of their persecutors, they went 
 " from house to house" to worship, as circumstances in- 
 vited; or in a number of houses at the same time, where 
 Christians were too numerous for a single dwelling. We 
 read of no instance of the sacramental symbols being 
 
 * See the cases of the hardened Despard and Bellingham, men- 
 tioned in the Christian Observer, vol. xiii., p. 6. — M. 
 
 To these many others might be added. For instance, Courvoisier, 
 the recent and unprovoked murderer of a venerable old nobleman, 
 whose case excited such intense interest throughout the country. 
 This man, so far as one could learn from the public prints, did not 
 give one symptom of genuine repentance. He seems, most unneces- 
 sarily, to have lied to the last moment ; and yet every pious mind 
 •was shocked with reading that he was called to partake, and actually 
 did partake, of the memorials of the redeeming love of Christ. What 
 profanation could be more fearful ! and yet the Episcopal Church, 
 and particularly its new school, affect prodigious reverence for 
 ordinances. — L. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 133 
 
 carried to an individual on a sick-bed. On the contrary, 
 when the inspired apostle gives directions that the sickbe 
 visited and prayed with by the « elders of the Church 
 (James v. 14), he says not a word of administering to 
 them the communion. . 
 
 3. If persons, on their dying-beds, earnestly desire 
 this ordinance to be administered to them as i a viaticum, 
 or preparation for death, and as a kind of pledge of the 
 divine favour and acceptance, we believe that, on this 
 very account, it ought to be refused them. To comply 
 with their wishes, at least in many cases, is to encourage 
 them to relv on the power of an external sign rather 
 than on the merit of the Saviour himself. Such views 
 being, manifestly, unscriptural, false, and adapted to 
 deceive and destroy the soul, ought by no means to be 
 countenanced. But what can tend more directly to 
 favour, and even nurture, these views, than to hasten 
 with the sacramental memorials to the bed-side of every 
 dying person who desires them? Ought the evident 
 propensity of careless and ungodly men to fly to this 
 ordinance as the last refuge of a guilty conscience to be 
 deliberately promoted by the ministers of religion < 
 
 4. If this practice be once begun, where is it to end' 
 All men are serious when they come to die. Even the 
 most profane and licentious, in that crisis, are commonly 
 in no small degree anxious and alarmed, and disposed 
 to lay hold of every thing that seems favourable to the 
 smallest hope. Yet every wise man, who has lived long, 
 and observed much, is deeply suspicious of the sincerity 
 of death-bed penitents. Whatisaconscientioiisimi^ 
 to do in such cases? How is he to draw the line between 
 those who are and those who are not, m his judgment, 
 fit subjects for this ordinance ? Is it no unseasonable 
 as well as distressing, to have any thing like arguing or 
 disputing with the sick and the dying on such a subject? 
 SnVe o & ne hand, if we faithfully refuse to administer 
 the ordinance where the dying man gives no evidence 
 of either knowledge or faith-shall we not agitate the 
 patient distress his friends, and give against him a kind 
 of public sentence, so far as our judgment goes, of his 
 
134 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 reprobation ? And, on the other hand, if we strain 
 conscience, and, in compliance with earnest wishes, 
 administer the ordinance to those who give no evidence 
 whatever of fitness for it, shall we not run the risk of 
 deceiving and destroying souls, by lulling them asleep 
 in sin, and encouraging reliance on an external sign of 
 grace? Will not by-standers be likely to be fatally 
 injured ? And shall we not, by every such act, incur 
 great guilt in the sight of God ? 
 
 5. By declining, in all ordinary cases, to administer 
 this ordinance on sick-beds, either to saints or sinners, 
 we avoid these embarrassments, so deep and trying to a 
 conscientious man; we avoid multiplied evils, both to 
 the dying themselves and their surviving friends, and 
 we shall take a course better adapted than any other to 
 impress upon the minds of men that great and vital 
 truth, that the atoning sacrifice and perfect righteous- 
 ness of the Redeemer, imputed to us, and received by 
 faith alone, are the only scriptural foundation of hope 
 toward God; that, without this faith, ordinances are 
 unavailing; and with it, though we may be deprived, 
 by the providence of God, of an opportunity of attend- 
 ing on outward ordinances in their prescribed order of 
 administration, all is safe for time and eternity. The 
 more solemnly and unceasingly these sentiments are 
 inculcated, the more we shall be likely to benefit the 
 souls of men; and the more frequently we countenance 
 any practice which seems to encourage a reliance on 
 any external rite as a refuge in the hour of death, we 
 contribute to the prevalence of a system most un- 
 scriptural, deceptive, and fatal in its tendency. 
 
 It was remarked, that Presbyterians take this ground, 
 and act upon these principles, in all ordinary cases. It 
 has sometimes happened, however, that a devout and 
 exemplary communicant of our Church, after long 
 enjoying the privileges of the sanctuary, has been con- 
 fined for several, perhaps for many years, to a bed of 
 sickness, and been, of course, wholly unable to enjoy a 
 communion season in the ordinary form. In such 
 cases Presbyterian ministers have sometimes taken the 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 135 
 
 elders of the Church with them, and also invited half- 
 a-dozen other friends of the sick person — thus making, in 
 reality, " a Church," meeting by its representatives — 
 and administered the communion in the sick-chamber. 
 To this no solid objection is perceived. But the mo- 
 ment we open the door — unless in very extraordinary 
 cases indeed — to the practice of carrying this sacrament 
 to those who have wholly neglected it during their 
 lives, but importunately call for it as a passport to 
 heaven in the hour of nature's extremity, we coun- 
 tenance superstition, we deceive souls, and we pave the 
 way for abuses and temptations, of which no one can 
 calculate the consequences, or see the end. 
 
 SECTION VIII. — WE REJECT BOWING AT THE NAME OP 
 JESUS. 
 
 Those who have frequently witnessed the worship 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church, have no doubt 
 observed that when the name of Jesus occurs in repeat- 
 ing the Apostles' Creed, there is a sensible obeisance or 
 bowing of the knee, which occurs in pronouncing no 
 other name in the public service. The obeisance is, in 
 many cases, confined to the pronunciation of the name 
 as it occurs in the creed. The same name may be 
 pronounced in the other parts of the liturgy, or in the 
 sermon, without being accompanied with any such act 
 of reverence. Presbyterians have never adopted this 
 practice, for the following reasons : — 
 
 1. We find no semblance of a warrant for it in 
 Scripture. Some Episcopal apologists, indeed, for this 
 practice, of the inferior and less intelligent class, have 
 cited in its defence Phil. ii. 10; but this plea has 
 been abandoned, it is believed, by all truly learned and 
 judicious friends of that denomination. Dr. Nichols, 
 one of the most zealous and able advocates of the ritual 
 of the Church of England, expressly says : " We are 
 not so dull as to think that these words can be rigorously 
 applied to this purpose." 
 
 2. It seems unaccountable that the obeisance in 
 
136 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 question should be so pointedly made at this name of 
 the Saviour, and not at all when his other titles are 
 pronounced. When his titles of God, Redeemer, 
 Saviour, Christ, Immanuel, and even Jehovah, are pro- 
 nounced, no such testimonial of reverence is manifested. 
 Can any good reason, either in the Bible or out of it, 
 be assigned for this difference ? We feel as if, with our 
 views of the subject, it would be superstition in us 
 to adopt or countenance such a practice. 
 
 3. Is not the habit of such observances without 
 warrant, and, as would seem, without reason, plainly 
 adapted to beget a spirit of superstition, and to occupy 
 our minds with the commandments of men, rather than 
 with the ordinances of Heaven ? It will, perhaps, be 
 said in reply, that we surely cannot^ pronounce the 
 name of Jesus, our adorable Saviour, with too much 
 reverence; why, then, find fault with an act of obeisance 
 at his glorious name ? True; every possible degree of 
 reverence is his due. But why not manifest the same 
 at the pronunciation of all his adorable and official 
 names ? Suppose any one were to single out a particular 
 verse of Holy Scripture, and whenever he read that verse 
 were to bow his head, or bend his knees, in token of 
 reverence, but wholly to omit this act of obeisance in 
 reading all other parts of Scripture, even those of exactly 
 the same import as the verse thus distinguished — should 
 we not consider his conduct as an example of strange 
 caprice, or of still more strange superstition? Such, 
 however, precisely, is the case before us. And if 
 this mode of reading the Scriptures were enjoined by 
 ecclesiastical authority, we should, doubtless, consider it 
 as still more strange. Even this, however, is done in 
 the case now under consideration. For the eighteenth 
 canon of the Church of England contains the following 
 injunction : " When, in the time of divine service, the 
 Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence 
 shall be done by all persons present, as it hath been 
 accustomed." 
 
 This practice of bowing at the name of Jesus was 
 never heard of in the Christian Church, so far as is now 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. ] 37 
 
 recollected, until the fifteenth century. Some trace it 
 to the Papal reign of Gregory X., in the thirteenth 
 century. It may possibly have existed then; but the 
 earliest authoritative injunction of it that is remembered, 
 is that of the Council of Basil, in 1 435. The deplorable 
 state of the Church at that time, both in respect to 
 superstition and profligacy, will not furnish, it is 
 presumed, a very strong recommendation of a rite 
 which then took its rise. A more w r orthy origin of 
 it is unknown. 
 
 As to the practice of praying toward the east, and that 
 of wearing in the reading desk, or during the prayers, a 
 white surplice, they are too inconsiderable to be made 
 the subjects of particular discussion. Nevertheless, as 
 this manual is intended to give a comprehensive view 
 of the points in which we differ from surrounding deno- 
 minations, it may not be amiss to say, in passing, that 
 both the practices last mentioned were borrowed from 
 the Pagans. And although plausible reasons soon began 
 to be urged in their favour, reasons which were made to 
 wear a Christian aspect, yet their heathen origin is un- 
 questionable. True, there is no sin in them. They are 
 little things — too little to be formally animadverted upon. 
 Yet they are among the things which we think it our 
 duty to reject. And when asked, as we sometimes are, 
 why we do not adopt them, we have only to say, that 
 our desire is to keep as closely as we can to " the sim- 
 plicity that is in Christ;" that to indulge superstition in 
 trivial things, is as really censurable in principle, as in 
 things of more importance; and that " the beginning of 
 evil is like the letting out of water." And especially 
 when we recollect, that three centuries have not 
 elapsed since some of these very things were made 
 terms of communion in the land of our fathers; and 
 some of the most pious and venerable men that ever 
 lived in that land were fined, imprisoned, and ejected 
 from office, because, according to the popular language 
 of that day, they " scrupled the habits," or the pre- 
 scribed dress, we shall see the evil of tampering with 
 uncommanded rites. 
 
138 THE WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 SECTION IX. WE REJECT THE READING OF APOCRYPHAL 
 
 BOOKS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP. 
 
 The Church of Rome considers a number of the books 
 of the Apocrypha as canonical; that is, as belonging to 
 the inspired canon, and as of equal authority with 
 any of the books of the Old or New Testament; and 
 accordingly orders them to be read in her public 
 assemblies, just as the inspired Scriptures. Protestants, 
 with one voice, deny that the Apocryphal books make 
 any part of the sacred canon, or form any part of the 
 infallible rule of faith and practice. 
 
 In the Church of England, however, large portions of 
 the Apocryphal books are read in her public assemblies, 
 and appealed to as if they were canonical books. It is 
 true, the Church, in her sixth article, declares that these 
 books are not appealed to as any part of the rule of 
 faith; and they are not read on Sundays. But on holy- 
 days they are read continually. 
 
 The Episcopal Church in this country has adopted the 
 same practice, under the same restrictions. 
 
 Presbyterians object to this practice, and refuse to 
 adopt it, for the following reasons : — 
 
 1. Because they are persuaded that nothing ought 
 to be read under the name of Holy Scripture, but that 
 which is regarded as the inspired Word of God. To do 
 this, is to depart from an important Protestant principle, 
 and open the door for endless abuse. 
 
 2. Because those Apocryphal books, out of which the 
 lessons referred to are taken, evidently contain some 
 false doctrines, some mis-statements, and not a few things 
 adapted to promote ridicule rather than edification. 
 
 3. Notwithstanding, in the sixth article of the Church 
 of England, it is expressly stated that these Apocryphal 
 books are not read as any part of the rule of faith, still 
 in her Homilies they are spoken of in language of a very 
 different aspect. Baruch is cited as the Prophet Baruch, 
 and his writing is called the Word of the Lord to the 
 Jews. The book of Tobit is expressly ascribed to the 
 Holy Ghost, in the most unequivocal terms, as follows : 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 139 
 
 — " The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost also teach in 
 sundry places of the Scriptures, saying, ' Mercifulness 
 and alms-giving purgeth from all sins, and delivereth 
 from death, and suffereth not the soul to come into 
 darkness,'' ike. (See Homily against Disobedience and 
 Wilful Rebellion, part i., p. 475 ; and Homily on Alms- 
 deeds, part ii., p. 328.) Surely, if " the Holy Ghost 
 teacheth" what is written in this book, it is an inspired 
 book, and ought to be considered as a part of the " rule 
 of faith." It is worthy of notice here, that the Article 
 and Homilies here quoted, make a part of the formu- 
 laries of the Episcopal Church in the United States, as 
 well as in that of England. 
 
 4. The practice of reading these lessons in public 
 worship, from writings acknowledged not to be canonical, 
 and from writings which contain much exceptionable 
 matter, was early protested against by many of the most 
 learned and pious dignitaries, and other divines of the 
 Church of England, and has been, at different times, 
 ever since, matter of regret and complaint among the most 
 valuable members of that body; but in spite of these 
 remonstrances and petitions, it has been maintained to 
 the present day. This fact shows, in a strong light, the 
 mischief of commencing an erroneous practice, and how 
 difficult it is to get rid of any thing of this kind, when it 
 is able to plead established custom in its support.* 
 
 * It is to be feared that, so far from discontinuing, there is a revived 
 feeling in behalf of these heretical books. The Rev. Mr. Melville of 
 London, hitherto reputed not only as an evangelical, but eminently 
 evangelical minister, when restored to his people, after illness which 
 had, for a season, laid him aside from duty, publicly recommended 
 the reading of the Apocrypha to his flock, and complained of its 
 books being too " much neglected," — as if such works could be too 
 much disowned. How pleasing must such language as this be to the 
 Church of Rome ! — L. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Such are the considerations which satisfy Presbyterians 
 that their doctrine, their ecclesiastical order, and their 
 worship, are truly primitive and scriptural. We con- 
 demn not our neighbours. To their own Master they 
 stand or fall. Our only object in what has been said, 
 is, to " render a reason" for our own belief and practice. 
 The names of other denominations would not have 
 been so much as mentioned, or alluded to, in the fore- 
 going statements, had it been possible, without doing 
 so, to exhibit our own peculiarities, and to show where- 
 in and why we differ from some of our sister Churches. 
 But firmly believing that all the leading features of the 
 Presbyterian system are more in accordance with the 
 Word of God, and with the usage of the purest and best 
 ages of the Christian Church, than any other, we feel 
 bound to maintain them, to teach them to our children, 
 and to bear testimony in their favour before the world. 
 We deny to none, who hold fast the essentials of our 
 holy religion, the name of Christian Churches. It is 
 enough for us to know that we adhere to " the simpli- 
 city that is in Christ" — that we walk in the footsteps of 
 the primitive Christians. We forbid none who profess 
 to cast out devils, " because they follow not with us." 
 Let them do all the good they can in their own way. 
 We claim the same privilege : and only beg to be per- 
 mitted, with the Bible in our hands, to ascertain " what 
 saith the Scripture," and how apostles and martyrs glori- 
 
CONCLUSION. 141 
 
 fied God. We " call no man master; one is our master, 
 even Christ." And, therefore, throughout the foregoing 
 pages, our primary appeal has been to his Word, the 
 great statute-book of his kingdom. However plausible 
 in theory, or attractive in practice, any rite or ceremony 
 may appear, we dare not adopt it, unless we find some 
 warrant for it in the only infallible guide of the Church. 
 If, then, Presbyterianism, in all its essential features, is 
 plainly found in the Word of God; if it maintains, 
 throughout, the great representative principle which 
 pervades the kingdom of God; if it guards more per- 
 fectly than any other system against clerical assumption 
 and tyranny, on the one hand, and against popular ex- 
 citement and violence on the other; if it provides, in 
 itself, for complete concert in action, without the 
 necessity of resorting to extra voluntary associations; if 
 it furnishes the best means for maintaining pure and 
 energetic discipline, and bringing the whole Church, in 
 doubtful and difficult cases, to give a calm and equitable 
 judgment; and if it present the most effectual means of 
 purging out error, and correcting abuses; then, surely, 
 we have no small evidence that it is from the God of 
 truth and order, and ought to be maintained in all the 
 Churches. 
 
 Let it never be forgotten, however, that as Presby- 
 terianism, in all its leading features, was, undoubtedly, 
 the primitive and apostolic model of the Church; so, 
 in order to the maintenance and execution of this system 
 to the best advantage, there must be a large portion of 
 the primitive and apostolic spirit reigning, in the Church. 
 No sooner did Christians lose the spirit of the first and 
 purest age, than they began to depart from the simpli- 
 city of Christ's institutions. Having less spirituality to 
 present, they thought to compensate for this defect by 
 outward show and ceremonial. Uncommanded rites 
 and forms were multiplied, for the purpose of attracting 
 both Jews and Pagans into the Church. Purity of 
 doctrine gave way to the speculations of philosophy. 
 Purity of discipline became unpopular, and yielded to 
 the laxity of luxuriance and fashionable life. Prelacy, 
 
142 CONCLUSION. 
 
 as we have seen in a former chapter, gradually crept 
 into the Church; and with it many inventions of men, 
 to allure and beguile those who had lost all relish for 
 primitive simplicity. 
 
 Now, just so far as we retain the simple devoted spirit 
 of the apostolic age, we shall love, retain, and honour 
 Preshyterianism. Those who possess most of this spirit 
 will be most friendly to this system. But just in pro- 
 portion as that spirit declines, Presbyterian doctrines 
 will be thought too rigid; Presbyterian worship will 
 appear too simple and naked; and Presbyterian disci- 
 pline will be regarded as too unaccommodating and 
 austere. Let Presbyterians, then, learn a lesson of 
 wisdom from this consideration. Let them remember 
 that their system will never appear so well, or work so 
 well, as in the midst of simple, primitive, and devoted 
 piety. This is its genial soil. As long as such a soil is 
 furnished, it will grow. When such a soil is not fur- 
 nished, it will still live, and do better than any other 
 system on the whole; but its highest glory will have 
 departed, and something else will begin to be thought 
 desirable by the votaries of worldly indulgence and 
 worldly splendour. The friends of our beloved Church 
 ought to know, and lay to heart, that their happiness 
 and their strength consist in cordial and diligent ad- 
 herence to that vital principle, the language of which is, 
 " None of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to 
 himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord, 
 or whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we 
 live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord's." 
 
 I cannot better conclude the editing of this admirable 
 little work, than by exhorting Presbyterians, from the 
 views and arguments which have been presented, to be 
 well assured of the validity of all the ordinances of the 
 Presbyterian Church — to keep their minds quite at ease 
 amid all the arrogant assumptions and uncharitable in- 
 sinuations of the pretended apostolic school; and, at the 
 
CONCLUSION. J 43 
 
 same time, to cherish no spirit of unchurching; retaliation 
 towards any of their Prelatical brethren. The Presby- 
 terian Church has always been kind and charitable to 
 others, sometimes almost to a fault. The Church of 
 Scotland never denied the Christianity of the Church of 
 England, nor the validity of her ordinances. She has, 
 by leading men, again and again acknowledged her; and 
 she has no disposition now to quarrel. In harmony 
 with these views, the Church of Scotland contributed 
 frequently and largely in behalf of particular congrega- 
 tions of Lutherans, both in this country and in America, 
 when suffering under any calamity ; and it is but the 
 other day that not a few of her Church courts expressed 
 their deep sympathy, and sent relief to ministers of the 
 Established Church of Ireland, exposed to the violence 
 of Popery. 
 
 To use the language of Dr. Miller, addressing Pres- 
 byterians, " Be not moved when the zealous advocate 
 for the divine right of diocesan Episcopacy charges you 
 with schism for living out of the communion of their 
 Church, and denounces your ministry and ordinances as 
 invalid. After reading the foregoing sheets, I trust you 
 will be prepared to receive such charges and denuncia- 
 ciations with the same calm, dispassionate, conscious 
 superiority that you feel, when a partisan of the Papacy 
 denounces you for rejecting the supremacy of the Pope, 
 and questions the possibility of your salvation out of the 
 Church of Rome. No, brethren, be not alarmed ! 
 There is nothing in their claims to intimidate the most 
 tender conscience — nothing to excite a scruple in the 
 most cautious mind. Let them exhibit, and assert, and 
 reiterate, their exclusive pretensions, with all the confi- 
 dence of zeal, and with all the heat of disputation. Let 
 none of these things move you. You are already in the 
 bosom of a Church, as nearly conformed to apostolic 
 order as any upon earth. If the testimony of Scripture, 
 if the writings of the Fathers in the earliest and purest 
 age of the Church — if the weight of numbers, of piety, 
 and of learning, throughout the Protestant world — be ot 
 any value, they are clearly on our side. Every succes- 
 
144 CONCLUSION. 
 
 sive step that I take in this inquiry, impresses on my 
 mind a deeper conviction of the truth of my principles, 
 and of my obligation to bless God for casting my lot in 
 the Presbyterian Church." (Letters, p. 222.) Again : — 
 " But even toward the advocates of these (Prelatical 
 errors), guard against a spirit of acrimony or retaliation. 
 Compassionate their error. Pray without ceasing for 
 their illumination, and endeavour to win them by 
 the patient exercise of a kind, respectful, and fraternal 
 spirit. However the manifestation of such a spirit may 
 be received by them, it will promote your oicn comfort 
 and benefit both with God and man. No good effort 
 was ever lost. No holy temper was ever exercised 
 in vain." (/&., p. 50.) 
 
PART II. 
 
 THE CHARACTER AND ADVANTAGES OF 
 PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 BY THE REV. J. G. LORIMER. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 VIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF PRESBYTERIAN1SM 
 THROUGHOUT /THE WORLD. 
 
 Some Presbyterians, comparing the limited population 
 of Scotland with the far superior numbers of England, 
 may be apt to imagine that Presbyterianism is a very 
 limited form of ecclesiastical polity — that Presbyterians 
 are a small, as they often are a despised people. But 
 no idea can be more unfounded. To advert to a few 
 facts in this connection : — 
 
 The Church of Scotland, which is an Established 
 Presbyterian Church, has — exclusive of preaching sta- 
 tions, and in some quarters double churches — 1,282, or 
 nearly 1,300 congregations, and is rapidly increasing. 
 Above 200 additional places of worship have been pro- 
 jected in seven years, and 175 are built or building. 
 She has between 200 and 300 ministers or missionaries 
 settled in the colonies of Great Britain, and is yearly 
 adding to the number. During the last year, there 
 was an addition of 1 7. Her labours in the cause of 
 Sabbath observance, education, the conversion of the 
 Jews, and of the heathen, as well as special revivals 
 in particular parishes, indicate growing progress and 
 strength. It may be added, that intelligent attachment 
 to her principles and constitution as a Presbyterian 
 Church, is decidedly on the increase among her office- 
 bearers and members. In addition to the above, there 
 are 500 Presbyterian congregations in Scotland, not 
 in connection with the Church — making together 1,800. 
 
148 VIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OP 
 
 It is believed, that since recent discussions connected 
 with doctrine in one of the bodies, there has been a 
 revival of Presbyterian attachment. These Churches 
 have also a considerable number of ministers and mis- 
 sionaries in different parts of the British dominions 
 abroad. In the meantime, the Episcopal congregations 
 of Scotland are about 80; and the Independents, 
 deducting their vacancies, have little more. There 
 are also some smaller divisions, as of Baptists, who are 
 congregational in their views of Church government; but 
 the whole combined constitute but a very limited 
 number. As nearly as can be ascertained, the different 
 branches of Presbyterians in Scotland have, during the 
 last ten years, increased by above 270 congregations; 
 while, in the same period, the Episcopalians have added 
 14 to their number — little more than one a-year, and 
 not one-half the number of congregations which the 
 Presbyterians have in the same period collected in 
 England; the Independents, 23; and the Roman 
 Catholics, 1 9. This indicates the decided and growing 
 Presbyterianism of Scotland with the increase of her 
 people, and the vanity of any attempt to thrust an 
 opposite form of ecclesiastical government and worship 
 on her national acceptance. 
 
 The above was written five years ago. Since then, 
 as all intelligent men know, a vast ecclesiastical change 
 has come over Scotland. Dissenting bodies may remain 
 substantially the same, Prelatical Episcopacy has, per- 
 haps, among them, made the largest progress; but an 
 entire Church has separated from the National Estab- 
 lishment, or rather the old Church of Scotland has 
 withdrawn from the State, leaving another body in 
 possession of the civil emoluments; — I, of course, refer 
 to the Free Church of Scotland, but shall not here enter 
 further into its state or character than to record that in 
 less than four years it numbers 672 ministers, 710 
 congregations, 110 stations, waiting for pastors; that, 
 besides, it possesses a College in Edinburgh, where 
 philosophy and theology are taught by seven professors 
 of the highest reputation, and that the students of 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. 1 49 
 
 theology proper numbered last year nearly 200 — a 
 greater number, it is believed, than was to be found, at 
 the same time, in the four national universities of Scot- 
 land; that all the missionary undertakings of the 
 Church continue in full force — nay, are largely extended 
 since the Disruption, the entire body of missionaries hav- 
 ing cast in their lot with the Free Church; and that the 
 whole sum raised by the adherents of the Free Church, 
 during the three years, for their various objects, home and 
 foreign, amount to the astonishing sum of £1,149,000. 
 It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to state what is the 
 precise proportion, in point of numbers, between the 
 Establishment and the Free Church, nor is it necessary 
 to the objects of this chapter. With the exception of 
 from 70 to 100 places of worship which, during the 
 pendency of a suit, remain in the hands of the Free 
 Church, the whole external material of the Establish- 
 ment at home remains as before; but this would prove 
 a very delusive index of numbers or strength. Judging 
 from the facts, that in all the towns of Scotland, with 
 few exceptions, the great mass of those who formerly 
 belonged to the Establishment now belong to the Free 
 Church, at least of those who showed any interest in 
 religion; that this is true universally of the Highlands 
 and Islands; that even the rural parishes of the south are 
 much divided between the two Churches; and that there 
 is not, perhaps, a single district of Scotland of which it 
 could be said that the people are warmly attached to 
 the Establishment; — considering, also, the small com- 
 parative collections for missionary objects at home or 
 abroad (though relatively a far larger proportion of the 
 wealthier class belong to the Establishment than to the 
 Free Church), and how large a share of these is 
 devoted to the upholding of chapels which formerly 
 supported themselves, and could point to flourishing 
 congregations, while not a few places of worship have 
 been entirely shut up : taking all these things into 
 account, it cannot be questioned that the Establishment 
 retains but a small proportion of the people of Scotland, 
 and that its reduced numbers would be still more 
 
1 50 VIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF 
 
 apparent if jealousy of the progress of the Free Church 
 in some quarters had not induced those who were not 
 long ago sworn foes of the Establishment, now to show 
 it favour — not, it is apprehended, from love to it, but 
 unprovoked dislike to a formidable rival. In regard to 
 the Colonies, a decided majority of the ministers and 
 the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people have 
 sided with the Free Church. In Canada a Free Pres- 
 byterian College has been set up, which in this, its 
 second year, numbers 40 young men looking forward to 
 the colonial ministry — a number several times greater 
 than was enjoyed by the College of the Establishment 
 in its greatest prosperity, previous to the Disruption. 
 
 As the Free Church of Scotland is thoroughly Pres- 
 byterian in organization and spirit, more so than when 
 connected with the State; as it is able freely to develop all 
 the resources of that divine form of government, without 
 hindrance or restraint; and as, in spite of all hostility, 
 secret and open, its public reputation is high and its 
 energy undoubted ; so there can be little question that 
 its progress has imparted a powerful impulse to Pres- 
 byterian principles in Scotland, and even propagated 
 them in other lands. But we must return to the object 
 more immediately in hand. 
 
 Crossing the Irish Channel, we find the Presbyterian 
 Church of Ireland. It has more than 500 congregations. 
 During the last twelve years, it has increased by 120, 
 and is rising from year to year, by 10 congregations. 
 Already it divides the Protestant population of Ireland, 
 and is reviving not only in numbers, but in purity, and 
 educational zeal, and missionary spirit. It is also rising 
 in attachment to the Presbyterian system. According 
 to still more recent information (1847), from an intelli- 
 gent minister of the body, it appears that the ministers 
 now number 495, having increased G5 within the last 
 five years; that there are 83 licentiates, in addition, 
 preaching the gospel; and not loss than 230 young men 
 educating for the Christian ministry. Through the 
 bequest of a minister's widow (amounting to £20,000), 
 the Church is about to found a regular Presbyterian 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. 151 
 
 college for the training of her young men. The Go- 
 vernment have, meanwhile, made an arrangement by 
 which they endow 8 or 10 professors, to be solely and 
 entirely under the jurisdiction of the Church, without 
 any control from the Government. Greater efforts than 
 iny which had heretofore been made are in progress 
 o wards the evangelization of the Roman Catholic popu- 
 ation. During the last five years a fund, named the 
 Bicentenary Fund, has been raised by the Presbyterian 
 Church, amounting to £16,000, for the service of the 
 gospel in the south and west of Ireland. In the same 
 period nearly 100 additional schools have been opened 
 for teaching the people to read, in their native language, 
 the Word of God; while, within the last year, 10 mis- 
 sionaries have been set apart for the same work. 
 
 Turning to England — the very head- quarters of 
 Prelacy. — we find the Presbyterian Church reviving. 
 Owing to not acting on an organized system, and other 
 causes, the ancient Presbyterians of England, who once 
 constituted a half of the English Church, had sunk 
 into Congregationalism, yea, heresy. But Presbytery, 
 and that in strict organization, is making decided pro- 
 gress. It now numbers, in its different branches, above 
 160 congregations, many of them the growth of the 
 last ten years. It is understood, also, that there is an 
 increasing conviction among pious and intelligent men 
 in the south, both in the Establishment and among 
 the Congregationalists and Methodists, that an adop- 
 tion of some of the leading principles of Presbytery 
 is essential to meet the defects of their own systems 
 of ecclesiastical government. 
 
 The great event of the Disruption of the Scottish 
 Establishment has exerted a powerful influence on the 
 Presbyterian Church in England. In addition to the 
 above information, I have now to state (1847) that 
 the Church no longer claims the character of being a 
 mere branch of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland 
 located in England; that, on the contrary, it has as- 
 sumed a distinct footing as well as name. According to 
 the roll of its ministry in 1845, it numbered 110 
 
152 VIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OP 
 
 ministers. Twenty-two of its congregations have been 
 formed within these few years, entirely new. In addi- 
 tion, there are seven congregations which separated from 
 places of worship held by the Scottish Establishment, and 
 have built places of worship for themselves. A college 
 has been instituted in the metropolis, under able pro- 
 fessors,attendedby between twenty and thirty young men, 
 looking forward to the ministry. In short, there is 
 reason to believe that the prospects of Presbytery in 
 England are more favourable than they have been for 
 generations. Owing to the wonderful providence of God 
 in connection with the residence of groups of Scottish 
 and Irish Presbyterians in all the larger towns of Eng- 
 land, the elements of Presbyterian congregations are now 
 almost everywhere to be met with. 
 
 In addition to those above described, the Calvinistic 
 Methodists may be enumerated. They prevail in Wales, 
 numbering, according to the most recent information, 750 
 places of worship, 122 stated, 298 occasional preachers, 
 besides 1,772 elders and deacons. They are of suffi- 
 cient importance to have a theological institution for 
 the due training of their young men for the office 
 of the ministry. In 1844, the communicants amounted 
 to nearly 60,000. 
 
 If, from the British Isles, we pass to Holland, the 
 asylum of the suffering in days of persecution, we be- 
 hold an Established Presbyterian Church, with 1,450 
 ministers, and a Presbyterian population of 1,500,000. 
 Of these, 500,000 are communicants. The places of 
 worship are multiplied according to the increase of the 
 population. While there is a growth in numbers, what 
 is far better, there is a growth in evangelical piety. 
 The hatred of Popery, and the missionary spirit which 
 have appeared in fresh vigour of late years, indicate 
 favourable progress. 
 
 France could once boast of a Presbyterian Church of 
 2,000 congregations. It is well known to what pro- 
 tracted and merciless persecution she was subjected — a 
 persecution which slew the servants of God by tens of 
 thousands, and drove more than a million to foreign 
 
PRESBYTERIANJSM THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. 153 
 
 shores — in not a few cases, to plant Presbyterian 
 Churches in the American wilderness. Never was a 
 Church more fearfully oppressed. This Church of 
 many martyrs still survives, having 400 congregations 
 belonging to the Reformed as distinguished from the 
 Lutherans, who have about 200 — together, the charge 
 of nearly 2,000,000 of professed Protestants. There is 
 a rapid and extensive revival, in numbers and spirit, 
 conspicuous throughout France. 
 
 In Switzerland the Established Church is also Pres- 
 byterian. The population of the country amounts to 
 above 2,000,000, and the great mass of the people 
 belong to the National Church. Its ministers are esti- 
 mated at from 800 to 1,000. It is well-known that a 
 remarkable revival of true religion has appeared of 
 recent years in many of the Protestant cantons. Along 
 with this has arisen a growing attachment to the 
 ancient constitution and discipline of the Church. 
 " The History of the Reformation," by D'Aubigne, a 
 work which seems destined to give an impulse to the 
 cause of religion, not only in Switzerland, but through- 
 out the world, is the work of a Presbyterian minister in 
 Geneva. 
 
 Though the Swiss Church must be classed with 
 Presbyterianism, as nearer to it than to either of the 
 opposite forms of government, yet it will be remem- 
 bered that its Presbyterian organization, like that of 
 most of the Protestant Churches of the Continent, is 
 very imperfect, and that much of the moral and reli- 
 gious evil under which the Churches labour is attribut- 
 able to this defect. In judging of the character of 
 Presbytery by the character of countries, it is neces- 
 sary to bear this in mind, else that form of government 
 may be charged with defects and positive evils which 
 do not belong to it — but which are the consequences of 
 its absence. The Church of the Canton de Vaud has 
 all along been Presbyterian; but it was not till the 
 noble Disruption of 1845, and the erection of the Free 
 Church there, that ruling elders, an essential part of 
 the Presbyterianconstitution, were elected and called 
 
154 VIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF 
 
 to the exercise of their important functions. As in 
 Scotland so in Switzerland, the Disruption has given a 
 fresh impulse to Presbytery, in its real nature, and not 
 its mere name. 
 
 The remains of the long persecuted "Waldenses, like 
 their fathers, are Presbyterians. They have 13 pastors 
 among 22,000 people, and are rising in their religious 
 character and zeal. With them the office of ruling 
 elder is in exercise. 
 
 Nay, a Protestant and Presbyterian Church, including, 
 of Reformed and Lutheran, 1,900 ministers, is to be 
 found in Hungary among a population of nearly 
 2,000,000. Here, as in most Prelatic Churches, there 
 is a loud call for the Spirit of revival ; but there is 
 the organization of Presbyterianism and faint symptoms 
 of life. 
 
 In Germany it is difficult to ascertain the proportion 
 of the Protestant population which may be accounted 
 Reformed, as distinguished from Lutheran; but both 
 Churches may fairly be reckoned in this enumeration 
 as Presbyterian, inasmuch as the Lutherans do not 
 hold the doctrine of " apostolic Episcopal succession," 
 and have superintendents only from human expediency. 
 The great Reformer, whose name they bear, maintained 
 from Scripture that presbyter and bishop are identical, 
 and that all pastors are equal in office. This is the 
 grand point of distinction between Presbytery and Epis- 
 copacy. The body, too, which, according to recent 
 arrangements, manages the affairs of the Evangelical 
 Church of Prussia (the most important of the German 
 Protestants), is an ecclesiastical Synod or General 
 Assembly. The revival of evangelical religion in this 
 country, of late years, has been conspicuous. One-third 
 part of the ministry in Berlin, the Prussian capital, is 
 evangelical ; and there are few of the many Protestant 
 universities of Germany, where several of the professors 
 are not men of the same sentiment and character. The 
 new evangelical seceders from Rome, under Mr. Czerski, 
 have adopted the Presbyterian form of government, and 
 though bribed to_receive Prelacy, have nobly declined. 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM THROUGHOUT THE WORLD- 155 
 
 With regard to the northern kingdoms of Norway, 
 Denmark, and Sweden, though not claiming any un- 
 broken Prelatic succession, on the contrary, holding 
 only Presbyterian ordination, they may perhaps be 
 reckoned as, de facto, Episcopalian in ecclesiastical con- 
 stitution. They are governed by bishops and arch- 
 bishops. Though among them there is evangelical 
 progress, it is slight; the reign of cold formahsm- 
 yvhere there is not heresy— it is understood, is stiU 
 wide-spread and desolating. 
 
 Crossing to the United States of America, we find 
 Presbyterianism in great strength. The States were 
 originally peopled to a large extent by emigrants from 
 England, Scotland, Ireland, Holland, France, and 
 German;. The greatest number were Presbyterian. 
 Twenty thousand Presbyterian Puritans emigrated Irom 
 England alone in a few years of the seventeenth century. 
 We need not wonder, therefore, to learn that the 
 different religious bodies which may be classed under 
 the head of Presbyterian, form, according to the most 
 recent statistics, 5,344 ministers to 7,1 46 churches 
 These constitute a large proportion of the whole ministry 
 and congregations of the United States. As a proof ot 
 progress? it may be mentioned that in 1789, when the 
 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church was^s* 
 regularly organized (having subsisted under the form ot 
 a Synod before), there were only 177 'ministers among 
 419-congregations. In 1839, being fifty years, the year 
 of jubilee, there were in the same body 2,225 ministers. 
 and 2,807 congregations ; in other words, m fifty years 
 it had multiplied by eleven times. 
 
 Of late years the progress has, if possible been still 
 more remarkable. A question of doctrine which would 
 not have divided many Churches-which, in point ot 
 fact, does not (though the difference exists) lead lre- 
 latists or Congregationalists to separate mto distmct 
 Churches, was followed, and we humbly think nghtl> 
 followed, by separation in the Presbyterian Church of 
 America. Sucn is the homage which Presbytery ft* 
 herself bound to pay to divine truth,, in its less obvious 
 
1.5G VIEW OF TIIE PRESENT STATE OF 
 
 forms. The separation took place in 1838; and what 
 were its effects ? Did it scatter the Church into weak- 
 ness and decay? So far from it, that by 1843 both 
 divisions had immensely increased, so as to hold out 
 the prospect in a few years of each reaching the strength 
 which both enjoyed previous to the separation. At pre- 
 sent there cannot be fewer than 3,000 ordained ministers, 
 4,000 churches, and 800 licentiates and candidates for 
 the ministry, in these two divisions of Presbytery. The 
 progress is particularly marked in the last item, giving 
 promise of rapid enlargement in the future. Such, 
 with the divine blessing, is the expansive power of 
 Presbytery. Of course, the entire bodies holding Pres- 
 byterian principles make an immense addition to these 
 large numbers. "With the exception of the Presbyterian 
 Church proper, I am not aware that, on the American 
 field, Churches under other forms of government can 
 point to the same rapidity of progress. 
 
 The Methodists and Moravians, constituting honoured 
 and useful Churches, both in Europe and in the New 
 World, do not seem to admit of being precisely classed 
 under any of the great divisions of ecclesiastical govern- 
 ment. Some points they hold in common with Presby- 
 terians, others with the opponents of Presbytery; but it 
 is well known that both disallow the exclusive claims of 
 Prelacy, and boast only of Presbyterian ordination. 
 
 From the rapid sketch which has been given, it is 
 obvious that Presbyterians are not — as some are apt to 
 imagine — a small isolated party; that, on the contrary, 
 they are great in numbers, and in the general intelli- 
 gence, morality, and religion of the countries which they 
 occupy. They are vastly more numerous than Episco- 
 palian Protestants, or the Congregationalists of the Old 
 and New Worlds combined. Moreover, it appears that 
 they are not withering into decay before the formidable 
 pretensions of modern Episcopacy to an exclusive 
 apostolic origin; but are growing rapidly, perhaps more 
 rapidly than many, in numbers, and, with the revival 
 of evangelical zeal and liberality, are growing also in 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. 157 
 
 warm attachment to the principles, constitution, and 
 forms of the Presbyterian Church. There is, then, this 
 consolation for Presbyterians, that if they are in error, 
 they are in error with more than half of Protestant 
 Christendom, and with nations of highest reputation in 
 the world. This should save them from the contempt 
 with which they are often spoken of by parties who, 
 comparatively speaking, can boast of a mere handful, 
 and these without any superiority in mind, morals, or 
 religion to their neighbours. We may safely say, that 
 there is no chance of Presbyterians or their principles 
 dying out. 
 
 The above numbers, and any others which may yet 
 be adduced, are given on the authority of the most 
 recent and accredited documents to which I have had 
 access — generally those of the religious bodies themselves. 
 I am persuaded that any inaccuracy is immaterial. On 
 such questions a close approximation to the truth is all 
 that can be looked for. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE MAIN- 
 TENANCE OF SOUND DOCTRINE. 
 
 There is nothing more important than sound doctrine. 
 It is another name for the revealed truth of God, and 
 is essential to salvation. Whatever, then, is fitted to 
 protect and maintain its purity, is most important. 
 This is one of the great uses of Church government, 
 order, and discipline. Now, we hold that Presbytery, 
 as proved by history, is more favourable than other 
 ecclesiastical systems to this grand end. By sound 
 doctrine I understand what is popularly called Cal- 
 vinistic Evangelical Theology — the system of truths 
 embodied in all the Confessions of Faith of the Churches 
 of the Reformation. It is not contended that any form 
 of Church government, whether Presbyterian, Pre- 
 latic, or Congregational, is able infallibly to keep a 
 Church, from generation to generation, in the unbroken 
 possession of pure doctrine — a stranger to error, whether 
 among ofhce-bearers or members. No. As if to show 
 forth the depravity of man, and the necessity of the 
 perpetual teaching of the Holy Spirit, to uphold the 
 truths which the Scriptures reveal, God has allowed 
 degeneracy and heresy to appear in Churches under all 
 forms of ecclesiastical constitution. No one has any 
 ground for boasting over a brother in another commu- 
 nion; on the contrary, all have ground for humiliation 
 in regard to the Church of which they are members. 
 But, with these abatements, some kinds of Church 
 
MAINTENANCE OF SOUND DOCTRINE. 159 
 
 polity are better fitted to maintain the purity of truth 
 than others — to exclude the erroneous, and to spread 
 revival after decay. I hold that Presbytery, fully 
 organized, and in active operation, enjoys these advan- 
 tages over its rivals. 
 
 It is important to remember, that there is no tenet or 
 practice of Presbyterianism which is calculated to pervert 
 sound doctrine. Prelacy, by extravagantly magnifying 
 the exclusive power of the bishop in ordination, is apt to 
 disparage the peculiar truths of the Gospel; in short, it 
 is fitted to put things out of their proper place. An 
 order of men raised above their brethren, though these 
 brethren be as well educated as they — invested, more- 
 over, with great power, and generally wealth — naturally 
 come to attach undue importance to their services, and 
 to claim for them a mysterious apostolic charm. This 
 immediately affects, in the eye of multitudes, the rela- 
 tive importance of what are called the doctrines of 
 evangelical religion. Under Prelacy, then, there is an 
 open door into defection, and thence to error, which is 
 its near neighbour. Witness the superstition and self- 
 righteousness associated with the highest notions of 
 Prelacy proclaimed in the history of the Church of 
 Rome, and in the sentiments of not a few of the new 
 school of the Church of England. 
 
 On the other hand, in the perpetual tendency to 
 division and subdivision under Independency, which 
 admits of no courts of review and final determination, 
 there is a serious bias to error. Divisions and heresies 
 are generally associated together; and for this reason, 
 that when men separate, they feel constrained to state 
 some plausible ground for it; and, as this is often 
 difficult, they create grounds. This cannot be done 
 without forcing into error. Hence the many errors 
 which appeared among the English Sectaries or Inde- 
 pendents in the seventeenth century, and among various 
 branches of Baptists in the United States at the present 
 day, which are Congregational in their form of Church 
 polity. Presbytery is happily free from both dangers. 
 Supposing a Presbyterian Church to receive the v truth 
 
160 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE 
 
 at first, and to have fixed standards, as all such Churches 
 have (while many Congregationalists have them not), 
 there is no doctrine which she holds, that, by swelling 
 out of its proper proportion, is fitted to subvert the great 
 doctrines of evangelical religion; and, on the other 
 hand, there are such protection against division, and 
 power to exclude unsound doctrine in its very first 
 manifestations, that she is safe against evils to which 
 other Churches are exposed. 
 
 These views are supported by facts. While Prelacy 
 in the Church of Rome sowed the seeds of so many 
 serious errors, the witnessing Waldensian Church, which 
 was and is Presbyterian, maintained for ages sound 
 Calvinistic doctrine before the Reformer bearing the name 
 was born. The Church of Scotland, also, another Presby- 
 terian Church, in the middle of the seventeenth century, 
 was enabled to maintain sound doctrine in her borders 
 against great dangers. When England was overspread 
 with the errors of the Sectaries, comparatively speaking, 
 these errors were unknown in Scotland. This is testified 
 by history. Fergusson of Kilwinning, an eminent 
 minister, writing in 1052, says: " So long as Presby- 
 terian government stood in its integrity, we might, in 
 the Lord's strength, have defied the devil to have 
 brought error into Scotland." Speaking of a matter of 
 fact well known to him, living at the time, he says: 
 " In the Church of England, Presbytery could not be 
 set up; Independency was pleaded for and practised; 
 and what has come of it ? Satan has vomited out a 
 flood of errors ; that there were never more, nor these 
 more gross, in any time of the Christian world. Yea, 
 all the rotten graves of old heresy are digged up, and now 
 avowed — Socinianism, in denying Christ's righteousness 
 in the matter of justification — Anabaptism, in denying 
 the baptism of infants — Arianism, in denying the Tri- 
 nity — and many other such like; yea, there are some 
 errors that were never heard of before — some affirming 
 that there is no Church that they can join with, 
 and therefore they turn Seekers — some are above all 
 preaching, prayer, and ordinances; and all these are the 
 
MAINTENANCE OF SOUND DOCTRINE. 1C1 
 
 fruits of Independency. Again, look on the fruits of 
 the Presbyterian government in Scotland, where it has 
 been in vigour: God has made it a hammer for the 
 battering down of the beginnings of error, so that these 
 twelve years by-past, not any one error has come to 
 any strength; and this, all under God, from Presby- 
 terian government being his institution/' {Refutation, 
 p. 59, &c.) We have, to the same purpose, a striking 
 testimony from Principal Baillie, who lived at the period 
 of which he writes. The facts to which he appeals are 
 clear and comprehensive in their bearing : — 
 
 " By this kind of government (Presbyterian), other 
 Reformed Churches have, with ease, kept themselves 
 pure and clean of all heresies and schisms; not only 
 Scotland, Switzerland, and divers parts of Germany, but 
 France itself — which, to this day, was never blessed with 
 any assistance of the secular arm — by this spiritual and 
 divine adminicle alone, have kept themselves safe from 
 the irruption of all erroneous spirits. I confess that 
 Holland has been a cage to these unclean birds; but the 
 reason is evident. Her civil state there, walking in the 
 corrupt principles of carnal policy, which cannot be 
 blessed with final success, impedes the exercise of Church 
 discipline in its most principal parts. These last forty 
 years the land has not been permitted to enjoy more 
 General Assemblies than one; and how great service 
 that one did towards the purging of the much cor- 
 rupted Church, and calming the greatly disturbed state, 
 all their friends in Europe see and congratulate, while 
 their foes did grieve and envy. It is not prophecy, but 
 a rational prediction, bottomed on reasons and multi- 
 plied experience — let England once be countenanced by 
 her superior powers, to enjoy the just and necessary 
 liberty of consistories (kirk-sessions) for congregations, 
 and presbyteries for counties, synods for larger shires, 
 and national assemblies for the whole land, as Scotland 
 has long possessed, by the unanimous consent of king 
 and parliament, without the least prejudice to the civil 
 state, but to the evident and confessed benefit thereof; 
 or as the first Protestants in France, by the concession 
 
162 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE 
 
 of a Popish state and king, have enjoyed all these, as 
 piritual courts, the last eighty years and above; — put 
 .hese holy and divine institutions in the hands of the 
 Church of England, by the blessing of God thereupon, 
 the sore and great evil of so many heresies and schisms 
 shall quickly be cured, -which now not only troubles the 
 peace and welfare, but hazards the very existence, of 
 Church and kingdom. Without this mean, the state 
 will weary itself in vain about the cure of such spiritual 
 diseases." (Dissuasive, p. 8.) 
 
 Coming down to a later day, I might appeal to 
 the history of the Presbyterian Church in America, as 
 warranting the same conclusions. Holding by the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith, it has, from its 
 foundation down to the present time, maintained, with 
 slight exceptions, an honourable reputation for ortho- 
 doxy. Any insidious admixture of error is of recent 
 manifestation, and originated in too liberal a minis- 
 terial communion with Congregationalists, who did not 
 subscribe the same standards. It is apparent from 
 " Mather's Magnolia" &c, that those of the Puritans 
 who had gone out as Congregationalists to New Eng- 
 land, became, in the working of their Church govern- 
 ment, more and more Presbyterian. A leading and 
 essential part of Presbytery which they adopted, was the 
 court of authoritative review; and the happy fruit of 
 this is apparent in the fact, that, in the State of Con- 
 necticut, the first symptoms of Socinianism were 
 checked. Hence there is only one Socinian congre- 
 gation in that large State — a striking contrast to the 
 adjoining State of Massachusetts, where, among the 
 Congregationalists, Church courts, reproached by So- 
 cinians, were allowed to go into disuse. The consequence 
 is, that there there are considerably more than 100 
 Socinian places of worship. This interesting and in- 
 tructive fact is given on the authority of the grandson 
 >f Jonathan Edwards, by Dr. Lang, in his Religion of 
 America, p. 61. 
 
 And this leads to the explanation of an objection, 
 f Presbyterianism be such a safeguard to doctrine, why, 
 
MAINTENANCE OF SOUND DOCTRINE 1 63 
 
 it may be asked, have so many Presbyterian Churches 
 become heretical ? My answer is, that, in proportion, 
 there have not been so many of them, or for so long a 
 period, unsound, as other Churches; and 'where they 
 have become unsound, it has been in a great measure 
 owing to a previous relaxation, if not abandonment, of 
 Presbyterian Church government. The Confession of 
 Faith of Presbyterian Churches, it will be admitted, 
 contains a fuller and stronger exposition of doctrine 
 than that of Congregational or Prelatical Churches, at 
 least in this country and in America. This is a 
 favourable sign; and if we recall the actual character of 
 Churches as unsound, surely Prelacy has no ground of 
 boasting over Presbytery. How unsound the Church 
 of Rome, if, indeed, she deserves the name of a Church ! 
 How unsound the Episcopal Churches of Denmark, 
 Sweden, Norway — how much have all been benumbed 
 by Neology ! How unsound is the Church of England, 
 in her different divisions, at the present day — withering 
 under the consuming power of semi-Popery ! How 
 unsound is the Episcopal Church of America, nearly 
 equally divided by the same heresy ! Nor has Congre- 
 gationalism any reason to triumph. Wherever avowed 
 Socinianism appears, whether in Britain or America, it 
 is almost wholly in the Congregational form. It may 
 not, at the present moment, be very extensive in 
 Britain; but it has been in other days. Considerable 
 bodies of Baptists, too, in the United States, are more 
 or less under its influence, and that of kindred errors. 
 On the other hand, it is only in some parts of the 
 Continent that Presbyterianism is seen in union with 
 very serious heresy; and that heresy is on the decline. 
 Though still, unhappily, powerful, it is, moreover, where 
 true Presbytery is least understood. 
 
 This brings me to notice, that it was the relaxation 
 of Presbyterian Church government among Presbyterians 
 which chiefly led to the heresies which have at any time 
 invaded their borders. Socinianism has sadly infected 
 the Presbyterian Church of Geneva; but it was not till 
 the subscription to an orthodox standard — one of the 
 
1G4 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE 
 
 indispensable parts of Presbyterian polity — was aban- 
 doned. The same fatal error infected the Church of 
 France; but it was not till relentless persecution had, in 
 a great measure, broken up the Church government, 
 and prevented the meetings of courts of review, which 
 might have checked the heresy — and, indeed, till the 
 whole Church was laid waste, and its most valuable 
 members slain or driven into exile. Socinianism in- 
 fected the congregations of the Presbyterian Puritans of 
 England; but it was not till they had dropped any Pres- 
 byterial organization which they possessed, and had 
 become Congregationalists, and therefore without power 
 to depose a heretical brother, or to cut off a heretical 
 congregation. So, when unsound doctrine prevailed 
 in the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, low and relaxed 
 views of Church government also prevailed. 
 
 The same remark applies to the Church of Scotland. 
 The period in her history when she was most unsound, 
 was from the middle to the end of last century. And 
 when were the spirit and practice of Presbyterianism 
 more in abeyance ? Practically, and especially so far as 
 doctrine was concerned, a great body of the ministers 
 had become Independents. They had neither kirk- 
 sessions nor presbyterial visitations. 
 
 In harmony with these views of the superior advan- 
 tages of Presbytery as a protection against heresy, it 
 may be added, that, where sound doctrine revives, it 
 revives more rapidly in a Prysbyterian than in a 
 Prelatical or Congregational Church. The reason is 
 obvious. There is a much more natural and easy com- 
 munication of favourable influence in the one case than 
 in the other. No new or artificial means need to be got 
 up for the revival. Presbytery already supplies a full 
 organization; good men necessarily meet in Church 
 courts, and encourage each other. Hence, under God's 
 Spirit, the rapidity and extent of Presbyterian revivals. 
 Witness the improvement in the Presbyterian Churches 
 of Scotland, Ireland, the United States, France, Swit- 
 zerland, and even Germany. Where a decided majority 
 has not been already attained, there is a rapid tending 
 
MAINTENANCE OF SOUND DOCTRINE. 165 
 
 towards it. Compare this with the Church of Eng- 
 land, whose evangelical ministers are, with all their 
 progress, still very inconsiderable in number, and now 
 in danger of being thrown back by the new heresy, 
 or, rather, the old apostasy revived. Compare it 
 also with the Congregational Churches of Britain and 
 America, which, where not declining, do not, either in 
 the past or the present, indicate, for the most part, 
 the same rapid revival. Hence it appears, alike from 
 the very constitution of the Presbyterian Church and 
 the facts of history, that there are, proportionally, 
 fewer temptations to unsound doctrine, greater faci- 
 lities for checking it when it arises, a more speedy 
 revival out of it where it has prevailed, in the Presby- 
 terian than in the Prelatic or Congregational Churches ; 
 and is not this an important argument in behalf of 
 Presbytery, and no indistinct intimation that it is from 
 God? 
 
 The experience of the last few years, since the above 
 was first published, amply confirms the views embodied. 
 Popish, in other words, false doctrine, has been spreading 
 with fearful rapidity, in the Prelatic Churches of Eng- 
 land and America in the meantime; but there has 
 been no checking of the evil in the way of discipline — 
 or, at least, no checking which deserves the name, 
 indeed, scarcely any attempt at it. The greatest relief 
 to the Church of England has proceeded from the 
 spontaneous withdrawal of many of her ministers and 
 members into the Church of Rome. Is this the proper 
 position of a Church of Christ — to trust to the common 
 honesty of the heretic? Where the need for the 
 appointment of the ordinance of discipline at all, if 
 this be sufficient ? Is it not to be feared, too, in such 
 cases, that while a quicker conscience leads some to 
 withdraw, a much larger body who have less courage, 
 or less moral sensibility, will remain behind ? 
 
 With regard, again, to Congregationalism, it is not 
 unknown that some leading men of the body in Eng- 
 land are infected, to say the least, with the semi- 
 Pelagian heresy. No discipline has been exercised 
 
 M 
 
166 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE, ETC. 
 
 upon them — no public testimony lifted up against their 
 errors. Is it said that, from the constitution of Inde- 
 pendency, no discipline can be employed ? Then, this 
 is admitting the inadequacy of such a form of govern- 
 ment to protect against error, the very point for which 
 we contend. But, to the honour of Scotch Inde- 
 pendency, there has recently been a decided condem- 
 nation of the heresy in question. To what is the 
 difference between Scotland and England, in this 
 respect, owing ? Is it any disparagement of orthodox 
 Scottish Congregationalism to say that it is the better of 
 the near neighbourhood of Presbytery? The Free 
 Church has had one case of this kind before her courts, 
 which she decided by deposition. The United Seces- 
 sion has had several, which she has settled by separation 
 from her pale. It is matter of joy that Independents, 
 even at the expense of their denominational consistency, 
 pursue a similar course ; but all this serves to establish 
 the truth of the title of this chapter. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANJSM FAVOURABLE TO UNITY AND 
 PEACE. 
 
 Next to sound doctrine, there is nothing more im- 
 portant to a Church than union and peace in itself, and 
 with other Churches. These are right in themselves — a 
 source of strength to the Church of Christ — a great 
 recommendation of religion to the world — and a mean 
 of advancing its progress. Now, the Preshyterian 
 form of Church government and worship eminently 
 conduces to these ends. This was to be expected. If 
 it be the friend of sound doctrine, it must also be of the 
 peace which is based on it. There is nothing incon- 
 sistent with unity in Presbytery. It holds no doctrine 
 which excludes evangelical Christians from its pale, and 
 so turns the Church into a schismatic — a maker of 
 schisms. It admits of easy expansion; and there is 
 nothing in its organization to stir up dispeace within 
 itself: it binds all the members closely together. This 
 is one of the grand charms of Presbytery. It presents 
 a vivid idea of the united Church of Christ. The 
 humblest member, who feels in any religious matter 
 aggrieved, or who has a good suggestion to bring for* 
 ward, has the power, by appeal or petition, to have his 
 case of suggestion submitted to the whole Church, 
 through its representative courts, and to obtain the 
 interest and sympathy, it may be judgment, of the 
 entire Christian body with which he is connected. In 
 Presbytery all the parts are mutually dependent. No 
 
168 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO 
 
 one can say, " I have no need of thee/' There is a 
 beautiful gradation of courts. Every one who is a 
 member of the Church may justly feel that he is not 
 isolated — that through his representatives, he is con- 
 nected with the whole. By bringing the ministers and 
 elders frequently together, too, in ecclesiastical courts, 
 upon a footing of peifect equality, not only are dividing 
 jealousies prevented, but a spirit of love and co-opera- 
 tion is fostered, and the whole bears the aspect of a 
 large and well-regulated family. Accordingly, such 
 have been the tendency and the working of Presbytery 
 wherever it has been fully organized, and no accidental 
 disturbing influences have been present. Some, indeed, 
 judging of Presbytery solely by warm discussions, which 
 occasionally take place in Church courts, are ready to 
 imagine that it must be injurious to peace even where 
 it does not break up unity. But it is well to remember, 
 that, in an ordinary state of things, it is but a small 
 part of the business of Church courts which can occa- 
 sion any serious difference of opinion — that the great 
 mass of business connected with the government and 
 order of the Church is conducted with such har- 
 mony, and so much as a matter of routine, that it never 
 can meet the public eye in the form of discussion. It 
 is well, also, to bear in mind, that a discussion, it may 
 be a warm one, where great principles are involved, is 
 not an unmitigated evil; that it tends to enlighten the 
 mind of the Church, and to guide it aright; while it is 
 almost inseparable from the advantages of free discussion, 
 whether in Church or State. Moreover, it should be 
 remembered that there may be, yea, there certainly is, 
 as much division of opinion among office-bearers in the 
 Church, under Prelatical or Congregational rule, as in 
 Presbyterian courts. The only difference is, that the 
 public organized courts of the one afford facilities for 
 division of opinion being known, which do not hold in 
 the other cases. Facts, however, which occasionally 
 transpire, clearly show that there may be, and often is, 
 as real discord between a prelate and his clergy, and 
 among the members of Congregational Churches, as can 
 
UNITY AND PEACE. 169 
 
 with any truth be alleged to obtain among the ministers 
 and elders of the Presbyterian Church assembled in her 
 public courts. Presbyterian Churches can point to as 
 many years of unbroken quiet and steady enlargement 
 as any other Christian body. 
 
 I may here refer to a few testimonies regarding the 
 Church of Scotland. The Corpus Confess. Fidei, p. 6., 
 thus speaks :— " It is the rare privilege of the Church 
 of Scotland, in which respect her name is famous even 
 among strangers, that, for the space of fifty-four years 
 without schism, not to speak of heresy, she has held 
 fast unity with purity of doctrine. The greatest aid to 
 this unity, through the mercy of God, was, that with 
 the doctrine of Christ, the apostolic discipline, as pre- 
 scribed in the Word of God, was gradually received, 
 and the whole government of the Church was arranged 
 as nearly as possible according to this discipline. By 
 this means all the seeds of schism and error, as soon as 
 they began to bud or show themselves, were smothered 
 and rooted out." 
 
 Writing of the Church of Scotland under the Com- 
 monwealth, Kirkton, a most interesting contemporary 
 historian, says of the period when the greatest division 
 which, perhaps, ever appeared in the Church, under the 
 influence of evangelical and Presbyterian principles 
 prevailed:—" The division of the Church betwixt 
 Protesters and Resolutionists continued for six or 
 seven years with far more heat than became them, and 
 errors in some places infected some few; yet were all 
 these losses inconsiderable in regard to the great success 
 the Word preached had in sanctifying the nation; and 
 I verily believe there were more souls concerted to 
 Christ in that short period of time, than in any period 
 since the Reformation, though of triple the duration. 
 Nor was there ever greater plenty and purity of the 
 means of grace than was in their time." (P. 55.) 
 Again, writing more comprehensively, he says of the 
 Church as a whole :— " Lastly, the unity of the Church 
 of Scotland was unparalleled; for whereas all other 
 Churches were troubled with division and error, there 
 
170 PRESBVTER1ANISM FAVOURABLE TO 
 
 was never in Scotland one minister censured for error, 
 save only Mr. John Hepburn (who held that the soul 
 slept till the resurrection of the body) ; nor ever any 
 schism in the Church of Scotland, except concerning 
 the introduction of bishops ; for all the time the true 
 government of the Church stood in it." (Secret 
 History, p. 28.) 
 
 But, more than this, it is plain from the nature of the 
 case, as well as history, that neither Congregationalism 
 nor Prelacy are, in principle, favourable to Church 
 unity and peace. The unfavourable tendency may be 
 controlled by peculiar or adventitious causes, but the 
 tendency itself is adverse. Congregationalism gives all 
 the members, young and old, male and female, equal 
 power to speak, and vote, and determine, the questions 
 which may be brought before the Church. Is this 
 friendly to unity ? Let the endless divisions and sub- 
 divisions of small parties among the Independents and 
 Baptists, created by separations, decide. The divisions 
 among the English Independents in the time of the 
 Commonwealth, and the numerous sects, particularly 
 among the Baptists at the present day, testify to the 
 same unhappy tendency.* 
 
 * Were it necessary, it would be easy to quote many striking facts 
 illustrative of the endless divisions of the sectaries during the Com- 
 monwealth. No wonder that the Presbyterians generally were 
 opposed to toleration, when it involved a license of so many blas- 
 phemies and immoralities, under the name of religion. Edwards, 
 in his " Gangrena," and Prynn in his pamphlets, preserve a singular 
 catalogue. Bishop Hall complained that 180 new, many of them 
 dangerous and blasphemous, opinions were broached and defended 
 in England; and that, in London and its suburbs alone, there were 
 eighty congregations of sectaries, preached to by cobblers, tailors, 
 feltmakers, grooms, &c. Speaking of the sectaries generally, he 
 says: " One allows community of wives — another, divorce on slight 
 occasions; one is a Hunter — another a Seeker — another a Shaker; 
 one disparages Scripture — another denies the immortality of the 
 soul — a third, the resurrection of the body; one spits on the doctrine 
 of the Trinity — and the other denies Christ's divinity; one gave 
 himself out for God — another, Christ— and another, the Virgin 
 Mary; and others taught, the more sin the more grace." (Jones'' 
 L,h and Times of Hall,?. 392.) 
 
 It is to the honour of Scotland, and the superior intelligence 
 which her Presbyterian Church secured, that the early sectaries, 
 within her borders, were few and free from extravagance as com- 
 pared with England; and they seem soon to ifave disappeared, at 
 
UNITY AND PEACE. 171 
 
 Then, supposing individual congregations were in no 
 danger of division from within, still there is no union 
 among the different Churches. They are truly inde- 
 pendent of each other. Officially they know nothing 
 of each other's state, and can minister no counsel or 
 relief. The grievous inconveniences and evils of this 
 state of things have led, especially of late years, to 
 provincial associations, and still larger unions, among 
 persons holding Congregational views; but so far as 
 they have done so, and that successfully, so far must 
 they be held as departing from the strict principles of 
 Independency, and as availing themselves, without 
 acknowledgment, of the advantages of Presbyterian 
 Church government. Of course, it is contended in such 
 cases, that the unions referred to are merely optional 
 and advisory, not authoritative; but, at least, the 
 expedient shows the felt disadvantages of the Congrega- 
 tional system ; and though there may be no promise of 
 compliance where men seek advice, it is generally 
 with the intention of following what is suggested. 
 Apart from this, to continue asking advice is un- 
 reasonable. 
 
 With regard, again, to Prelacy, in connection with 
 union and peace, it is well known that these are often 
 pleaded as its great recommendations. No idea, how- 
 ever, can be more unfounded. The extravagant fictions 
 as to apostolic succession, and kindred points, would 
 prevent the Church of' Rome, even were she otherwise 
 disposed, from recognising the Christianity of Protestant 
 Churches, and holding communion with them, supposing 
 them to be willing to recognise and hold fellowship with 
 her. The same schismatical views, entertained by so 
 large, and, it is to be feared, growing number in the 
 Episcopal Churches of England and America, destroy 
 every thing like a well-founded claim to union on the 
 
 least they made no progress from the days of the Commonwealth. 
 Modern Congregational views, which, it is to be remembered, in- 
 volve no extravagance of sentiment or practice, are of very recent 
 date in Scotland— within the memory of many of the existing 
 generation. This is an indirect testimony to Presbyterian govern- 
 ment. 
 
172 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO 
 
 part of these Churches; so far from being friends of 
 union, as is alleged, they are its greatest enemies. If 
 their principles be fairly carried out, not only will they 
 prevent any union with Churches which disown the 
 pretended apostolic succession, but they will go to 
 expel the Evangelical party from their own com- 
 munion, because they do not hold them. Nothing 
 can be more disquieting and disuniting than the Prelatic 
 notions of apostolic succession. Apart from every 
 thing else, this may well condemn them. They would 
 keep good men in perpetual anxiety as to the validity 
 of their ministerial title. When it is demonstrable that 
 a single break or false link in the chain would, in the 
 course of two hundred years, involve the entire ministry 
 of such a body as the Church of England in infirmity and 
 illegality, who but the most credulous could feel secure? 
 And as the Reformers had no bishop, and could not 
 transmit what they did not receive, where would be 
 the title or stability of any Church of the Reforma- 
 tion ? Are the men or the Church which advocate 
 such notions on the side of peace and unity, whether 
 for themselves or others ? More than this, even though 
 there were no exclusive apostolic claims, still, the 
 very constitution of Prelacy tends to division. The 
 granting to one man, not better educated, more 
 learned or wise than his brethren, such immense 
 power as Prelacy implies, must, as human nature is 
 constituted, create jealousies and envies which tend to 
 separation, while the pride and ambition which great, 
 and, it may be, suddenly acquired power begets, tend 
 to the same result. They lead to the harsh treatment 
 of others, or such views of self-importance as induce 
 men to tamper with received doctrines and institutions, 
 for the sake of obtaining a name for themselves. This 
 conducts to new errors or superstitions, which, in their 
 turn, produce sects and parties in the Church, These 
 views are strongly confirmed by the facts of history. 
 Many have imagined that Prelacy is well fitted to 
 prevent schism, and that this, indeed, was the origin of 
 the office of diocesan bishop when first instituted. That 
 
UNITY AND PEACE. 173 
 
 this was alleged maybe true; but very different was the 
 real source of the office. The desire of pre-eminence of 
 the ministers of large town congregations over rural 
 brethren who laboured in smaller spheres dependent on 
 the greater, is much nearer the truth (vide Dr. Owen's 
 Inquiry, passim, pp. 25-27); and then, so far from 
 keeping out schism, the bishops, when they were intro- 
 duced, were the very parties who originated most of the 
 heresies and errors which created serious and lasting 
 divisions. As is justly remarked by Owen, the first 
 attempt to corrupt and to divide a Church from within, 
 was in the Church of Jerusalem, by Thebulis, because 
 Simon Cleopas was chosen bishop and he was refused. 
 (Euseb., lib. iv., ch. 21.) Here was the work of a 
 bishop ! So of other and more important cases. Victor 
 of Rome, and Polycrates of Ephesus, were the authors 
 of the great schism about the celebration of Easter. 
 Stephen of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage, of the 
 schism regarding the rebaptizing of the lapsed. Paulus, 
 bishop of Samosata, originated the Saiuosatasan heresy. 
 Donatus, that of the Donatists, because Sicilianus 
 was preferred to him ; Macedonius of Constantinople, 
 that of the heresy which bears his name. So of 
 Nestorius of the same city, the Nestorian heresy ; 
 Arius, of the heresy which spread so widely ; and many 
 others too tedious to name. And these were not trifling 
 errors; not a few of them were most serious, subverting 
 the very foundations of revealed religion. As Sutlivius 
 testifies and proves, " all the blackest schisms and most 
 pestilent heresies had bishops for their authors." 
 {Jameson's Querela, p. 19.) They were either authors 
 or abettors. In many cases, had it not been for them, 
 the errors must have perished. Of what schisms and 
 heresies has not the Pope of Rome been the originator 
 in successive ages, and yet he is the leading prelate, 
 without whose aid the modern Anglican school cannot 
 make out their Christian genealogy ! Descending from 
 earlier times, I might refer to the period stretching between 
 a.d. 8 1 5 and 1 072— a period of one hundred andfifty years, 
 when such were the contests and the heresies in thePrela- 
 
] 74 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO 
 
 tical Church, that it was necessary to call 260 councils to 
 endeavour to settle controversies, and obtain peace ! 
 At the same time, the official life of a pope did not 
 exceed between two and three years ! Do these things 
 look like union and peace ? And yet Prelacy was at 
 its height. 
 
 Coming down to modern days, do we find that Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Churches are most eminent for unity 
 and quiet ? Supposing these to be always desirable, 
 and the evidence of spiritual life, what says the history 
 of the Church of England ? Has she had longer in- 
 tervals of scriptural peace than the Presbyterian Church ? 
 Has she not always had keen parties within her own 
 bosom — parties w T ho occasionally break out with great 
 severity, as in the middle of the seventeenth, the 
 beginning of the eighteenth, and now in the early part 
 of the nineteenth centuries ? Was it unity or peace 
 which she communicated to Scotland, when she endea- 
 voured to set up her forms in this land ? Was it not 
 rather the most persecuting schism? Have not the 
 most unsound doctrines appeared within her pale, under 
 the very eye of her prelates, without any discipline to 
 preserve her purity? Has there not been on the one 
 hand, the grossest enthusiasm, both in former and 
 present times — Bourignonism, &c, in the one, and 
 modern pretensions to the gift of tongues in the other? 
 Was there not also Socinianism, when 250 ministers, in 
 1772, petitioned to be released from signing the Articles 
 as the confession of their faith? Is there not semi- 
 Popery now, and has any minister been deposed for any 
 of these, as in the Church of Scotland for much less ? 
 
 What, too, is the amount of unity of which the Church 
 can boast in the people legally placed under her care, 
 whether in England or in Ireland? It might be 
 expected that a Prelatic Church, if Prelacy be the grand 
 source and bond of union, should, upon the whole, have 
 a religiously united nation under her. Not to speak of 
 Ireland — where, in spite of the healing power of Pre- 
 lacy, one-half the Protestant population belongs to 
 another communion — what is the state of England, 
 
UNITY AND PEACE. 175 
 
 where Prelacy is so powerful ? Is it harmonious and 
 one ? Far from it. Perhaps there is no country where 
 the same advantages have been enjoyed, in which greater 
 division prevails. The Church of England has some 
 10,000 or 12,000 congregations; those not belong- 
 ing to her communion, and disowning Prelacy, have 
 some 7,000 or 8,000 : of course, many are small. How 
 striking the contrast in Scotland ! Though when tried 
 by the question of Church and State, there are many 
 Dissenters, when tried by the question of Church 
 government, there is almost universal harmony. There 
 may be 80 Episcopalian congregations (out of the 900 
 which Prelacy once claimed as her own), and as many 
 Congregationalists; but almost all the remainder, now 
 above 1,800, are Presbyterian — with the Free Church 
 addition, a'much larger number. 
 
 A few facts may be noticed in this connection, not 
 usually adverted to, but fitted to correct misapprehen- 
 sions, and honour Presbytery. According to the late 
 census, the population of Presbyterian Scotland is about 
 one-sixth of that of Episcopalian England and Wales. 
 Hence, if the countries were the same in point of religious 
 divisions on Church government, Scotland should have 
 a sixth of the parties which divide England. The result 
 is widely different; much more creditable to the reli- 
 gious unity of Scotland, and the strength of Presbytery 
 over a nation. The Congregationalists of England and 
 Wales are estimated to have 1,600 congregations. If 
 the same division of opinion on Church government 
 prevailed in Scotland, proportionally, there should be 
 nearly 270 Independent congregations. There are only 
 105, and 21 of these are reported as vacant. 
 
 The Baptists of England and Wales are rated at 1,520. 
 If the same proportion held in Scotland, there should be 
 much the same number — 270 congregations; instead of 
 which, there are 58. 
 
 The Wesleyan Methodists have, in England and 
 Wales, above 1,100 preachers, and about 330,000 
 members. In the same proportion in Scotland, there 
 should have been about 200 preachers, and 55,000 
 
17(> PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO 
 
 members; instead of which, there are only 30 preachers, 
 and 3,700 members. 
 
 The Roman Catholics have 561 priests in England 
 and "Wales, and 18 convents. Were Scotland equally 
 divided, or did it equally favour the same soul-destroying 
 system, it should have had 93 priests, and three con- 
 vents. It has 80 of the one, and one of the other; and 
 that though old Popery has held some parts of the 
 Highlands and Islands as its ancient seat, undisturbed 
 by the Reformation, and though near neighbourhood to 
 Popish Ireland has, in later days, given it superior 
 facilities, which have not been unimproved, for invading 
 the Scottish shores. 
 
 I have not been able precisely to ascertain the numbers 
 of the Socinian body in England and Wales. Probably 
 they may count 300 congregations. According to this 
 proportion, Scotland should have 50 ; but so sound has 
 Presbytery kept the country, that she has not five. 
 
 Whether, then, does Prelacy or Presbytery conduce 
 more to union and peace among Christians? There 
 may be peace among the semi-Prelatic Churches of 
 Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. But before any 
 thing can be gathered from this, it will be necessary to 
 determine whether the peace be not, to a great extent, 
 the peace of spiritual death ; whether division of opinion 
 in the form of separation from the Established Churches, 
 to any considerable extent, be not forbidden and punish- 
 able ; and whether the moral results wrought out in the 
 nation under this system be not its impressive condem- 
 nation. It appears from indubitable official statistics, 
 that Sweden has a larger amount of crime than -any 
 State in Europe. (Vide Leungs Tour, 1838.) 
 
 Let no Episcopalian, then, taunt Presbyterian Scotland 
 with religious division. On the most important points 
 of doctrine and government, perhaps she is the most 
 united country in Protestant Christendom — such is the 
 admirable operation of Presbytery as a whole. 
 
 In farther illustration of the views contained in this 
 chapter, it may be noted that, so far from proving the 
 friends of religious unity, whether in doctrine or obser- 
 
UNITY AND PEACE. 177 
 
 vance, several of the present prelates of the Church of 
 England have been the patrons of the most divisive 
 opinions and practices. Though members of a small 
 body of rulers, one (the Bishop of Durham) has pub- 
 lished, and never recalled, the most dangerous views on 
 the Canon of Scripture — views fitted to furnish the 
 infidel with ready weapons; another (the Bishop of 
 Exeter) has framed a net-work of questions for the 
 sake of enforcing the belief and inculcation of baptismal 
 regeneration in all the parishes of his diocese, to 
 the express exclusion of all other views; while a third 
 (the Archbishop of Dublin) has given expression to 
 the most erroneous opinions in regard to the obligation 
 of the Sabbath — opinions in the face of the doctrine 
 and service-book of his own Church. Here are three 
 prelates, all alive at the same moment, teaching the 
 most serious error, without any real check or counter- 
 active — one diocese independent of another. Are there 
 any tendencies against unity under Presbyterian rule 
 for one moment to be compared with this ? 
 
 Then, again, in the small communion of the Scottish 
 Episcopal Church, what a display has there been of 
 late years of discord, both as to doctrine and discipline ! 
 Excommunications have been fulminated by bishops — 
 separation after separation has taken place of minister 
 and congregation — English and Irish prelates have been 
 invoked, and expressed their opinions and wishes all 
 in vain — the war has been waged for years, and is not 
 yet over; and all this has occurred in a body which 
 gloried in its quietness and unity ! What does this 
 show but the fragile nature of Prelatic peace ? It may 
 be affirmed, with truth, that a larger amount of division 
 has been discovered in a shorter time by this very 
 limited communion than by considerable Presbyterian 
 Churches. 
 
 And this brings me to notice in contrast, at the 
 same period, the unity of the Free Church of Scotland. 
 Though there were circumstances which one before- 
 hand might have imagined w r ould have led to dispeace 
 in this Church, yet, by the grace of God, it was en- 
 
178 PRESBYTERIAN ISM FAVOURABLE, ETC. 
 
 abled to triumph over them. The most memorable 
 unanimity has characterized all its proceedings, and yet 
 this has not been brought about by the suppression of 
 discussion, or holding different opinions in abeyance. 
 No; there has been the utmost freedom of opinion, and 
 full use made of it. Under God, the harmony has been 
 owing to perfect unanimity of doctrinal sentiment, 
 combined with a free Presbyterian organization. At 
 what period in her history has Prelacy been able to 
 point to a large Church entirely at one in doctrine, 
 discipline, government, and worship? Perhaps the 
 present Episcopal Church of America is the best ex- 
 ample to which an admirer of Prelacy could point; but, 
 not to speak of growing and fundamental differences 
 among the clergy — such differences as stretch between 
 Popery and Evangelism — what is the testimony of 
 Bishop Hopkins of Vermont, so recently as 1844 ? In 
 his " Letters on the Novelties which Disturb our Peace" 
 he tells us that, in spite of all the Articles and Canons, 
 there is no standard of unity between the different 
 dioceses, no general regulation; that the decision of one 
 bishop is weakened by the non-agreement of others; 
 and that one of the effects of the disunion is, that 
 aggrieved parties betake themselves to the public press 
 in self-defence — a course which only aggravates the 
 evil. So unsatisfactory is the state of internal regula- 
 tion in the Church that the necessity of instituting a 
 censorship of the Episcopal press is mooted; and the 
 writer, who is a respectable Evangelical man, is driven 
 to the conclusion that, in the government of the Church) 
 " the distinct approbation of our laity" is indispensable, 
 at least, offers the most likely remedy — in other words, 
 he is driven to Presbyterian ground. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE CULTIVA- 
 TION OF KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING. 
 
 The present is a day when almost all denominations of 
 Christians are taking steps, if this has not previously 
 heen done, for raising up a well educated, if possible, a 
 learned ministry. In these circumstances, it may not 
 be amiss to advert to the established character of Pres- 
 byterian Churches in this respect. They have ever been 
 the warm friends of a well qualified ministry. When 
 w r e speak of learning for the pastors of the Church, we 
 do not mean a mere acquaintance with what may have 
 been thought and written by others in every department 
 of knowledge. There is much of this knowledge, which, 
 to a minister of the gospel, is useless, burdening his 
 memory without any corresponding good, and prevent- 
 ing the free exercise of his judgment. In this class 
 may be comprehended very enlarged and minute clas- 
 sical and mathematical attainments, and a laborious 
 acquaintance with ancient history and antiquities. No 
 doubt, these are advantageous in their own place; but 
 where possessed to the neglect or exclusion of other 
 and more important branches, they are a hindrance 
 rather than a help. What should be chiefly valued 
 and sought in connection with ministerial education, 
 is a competent share of the knowledge referred to, 
 with an ample measure of all that bears directly or 
 indirectly on the elucidation of the Scriptures in all 
 their parts, together with whatever is fitted to interest 
 
180 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO 
 
 and impress the conscience of a congregation. Tried 
 by this standard, how uninformed would many other- 
 wise learned men be found — men familiarly acquainted 
 with the Classics and the Fathers, but who scarcely 
 know Theology or Church history, or the writings of 
 the Reformers. 
 
 Now, the Presbyterian Church has ever encouraged 
 the cultivation of sound learning on the part of her mi- 
 nisters — not everything which bears the name, but what 
 is truly useful. She has been the great patron of widely 
 diffused knowledge among the body of her people, set- 
 ting up elementary and grammar schools wherever she 
 had the opportunity. This necessarily requires a supe- 
 rior education on the part of her clergy. They could 
 not otherwise be qualified to instruct those whom she 
 places, with awakened intelligence, under their care. 
 Besides, there is nothing ceremonious or gaudy in the 
 Presbyterian form of worship. However scriptural, to 
 the eye of many it will seem naked : this, rendering the 
 hearers more dependent on the minister, makes it the 
 more indispensable that he should be a well-educated, 
 well-informed man, who can bring out of his treasures 
 things new and old. The fact, too, of her ministers 
 being raised, through the intervention of Church courts, 
 above the influence of the humblest of the flock, removes 
 them from the temptation of sinking ministerial qualifi- 
 cation. Owing to these, and other circumstances, we 
 would expect that the Presbyterian Church should be 
 the friend of ministerial learning ; and We are not dis- 
 appointed. 
 
 To ascend no higher than the Reformation, we uni- 
 formly find colleges, professors, literature, and learning, 
 in connection with the Presbyterian Church. So it was 
 in Switzerland, France, Holland, Germany, Scotland. 
 The acquirements of the professors and ministers, always 
 respectable, were often pre-eminent. In point of mere 
 scholarship, not to speak of learning and ability, it will 
 not be easy, in any age, to find superiors to Calvin, Beza, 
 Melancthon, Melville, and, in subsequent times, Blondel, 
 Bochart, Chamier, Spanheim, the Turretines, Pictet, 
 
CULTIVATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING. 181 
 
 Calderwood, Boyd, Cameron, Salmasius, Diodati, Mes- 
 trezat, Rutherford, Baillie, Gillespie, and a multitude of 
 others. Their works testify to their knowledge and 
 learning. How striking the contrast between the pre- 
 lates of the Popish Council of Trent and the Protestant 
 Reformers ! Though the council was so important, and 
 lasted so long, yet the most learned man among the 
 members, Cajetan, did not know a word of Hebrew, 
 while very many of his coadjutors were as ignorant of 
 Greek as they were rude and unmannerly to each other. 
 How different were the attainments of the Presbyterian 
 Reformers ! John Knox and Christopher Goodmen, two 
 Scotch Presbyterians, w r ith others, were translators, at 
 Geneva, of the Bible into English; a version dedicated to 
 Queen Elizabeth, long esteemed, and extensively surviv- 
 ing in the present version, after the lapse of nearly three 
 hundred years. In England, among the Presbyterian 
 Puritans, there were many of surpassing acquirements 
 — Poole, Bates, Flavel, Charnock, Howe, &c. I might 
 fill sheets with the mere names of distinguished minis- 
 ters and professors, in the Presbyterian Churches, in the 
 sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, men who 
 were eminent among their contemporaries for learning. 
 While Cartwright, the father of the Puritans, was 
 employed in 1618, by the government of the kingdom, 
 to answer the notes of the Popish version of the Scrip- 
 tures, brought out at Rheims, and money w r as advanced 
 from the public purse to defray the expense, the in- 
 heritors of his principles, at a later period of the century, 
 produced those books which have ever since been the 
 great staple of popular and practical theology — the uni- 
 versal reading among serious minds in England, Scot- 
 land, and America. Who needs to be reminded that 
 the Owens, and the Baxters, the Alleines, the Flavels, 
 the Charnocks, the Howes, whose works, with those of 
 many kindred spirits, have been honoured to transmit 
 evangelical religion from generation to generation, were 
 in principle Presbyterian? Coming down to modern 
 times again, I think it may be safely said, that the Pres- 
 byterian Church (to take Scotland for an example) has 
 
 N 
 
182 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE 
 
 never been involved in any controversy, metaphysical or 
 theological — whether affecting doctrine or Church go- 
 vernment — the integrity of the Word of God, the Head- 
 ship of Christ over the nations and over the Church — 
 without having a sufficient number of men to maintain 
 the truth with all adequate argument and learning. 
 ; To look at the matter in another light, how ample is 
 the provision which is made in many Presbyterian 
 Churches for the education of young men for the minis- 
 try! Not to refer to the colleges of Holland, from 
 whence, in former times, such an array of learned theo- 
 logy was wont to issue — what provision is there in Ger- 
 many and the United States, in the present clay, for 
 theological literature and teaching! The universities of 
 Protestant Germany are well known for their numbers, 
 the full complement of professors and students, the pro- 
 tracted course of study, their immense libraries, the 
 works of theological literature and learning which, from 
 time to time, are sent forth. And with regard to the 
 Presbyterian Church of the United States, it has, 
 throughout all its history, been a zealous advocate of a 
 well-educated ministry. The Rev. Dr. Hodge, its pre- 
 sent historian, states, that so early as 1 783, the question 
 was raised before the General Assembly, " Whether a 
 person without a liberal education might be taken on 
 trials, or licensed to preach the gospel?" and it was 
 decided in the negative. Two years after, the same 
 question came up in a different form, in connection with 
 a revival of religion, when there was an earnest call for 
 a great number of ministers; still the Church decided, 
 by a large majority, against any departure from an esta- 
 blished curriculum of study; and it is worthy of notice, 
 that this was the occasion of the only division in the 
 Presbyterian Church, till recently — a division, not as to 
 doctrine, or discipline, or worship, but as to the pro- 
 priety, in all cases, of adhering to a fixed course of edu- 
 cation for candidates for the ministry, however other- 
 wise well qualified. This was the origin of the large 
 body which bears the name of the Cumberland Presby- 
 terians; and, to say the least, the decision was a doubt- 
 
CULTIVATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING 183 
 
 fill one; but few things can better proclaim the Church's 
 zeal for a well-educated ministry. She risked and en- 
 dured division in its behalf. Maintaining these prin- 
 ciples, we need not wonder to learn that the Presbyte- 
 rian Church, in its different branches, has not less than 
 18 theological colleges and institutions for the education 
 of young men ; and when it is remembered that, for the 
 most part, they reside within the walls, and that their 
 time is not occupied, and their attention distracted, by 
 "private teaching," the professional advantages are the 
 greater. It may be stated, as an interesting fact, in full 
 harmony with the character of the Presbyterian Church, 
 that dividing the 100 American collegiate institutions 
 which teach general literature and science among the 
 different religious denominations, it is found that the 
 Presbyterian Church can claim not less than 58, and 
 nearly 5,000 students, as connected with, or falling under 
 her influence. Tried in the same way, the Baptists, 
 who are Congregationalists, have 8, and the Episcopa- 
 lians 4. This is a much smaller proportional number 
 than the Presbyterians. The Congregationalists proper 
 have 9. (Vide " Universities" Encyclopaedia Britan- 
 nica.) Even in the new State of Missouri, on the edge 
 of the wilderness, the Presbyterians have set up a theo- 
 logical seminary for the education of theological students 
 in that State. Surely these facts amply show that, all 
 the world over, and in every age, there is not only no 
 indifference to learning — no favour for ignorance and 
 meagre attainments, in alliance with Presbytery — but 
 that the very opposite qualities belong to this branch of 
 the Christian Church — that she is distinguished among 
 others for her encouragement of sound, substantial, use- 
 ful acquirements in all her clergy. 
 
 With reference to the Churches brought into compa- 
 rison, I trust not invidiously, it is highly creditable to 
 the Congregationalists of Britain, that, in spite of various 
 disadvantages, they have pursued, and continue to pur- 
 sue, theological literature and learning with so much 
 success. The names of not a few authors whom they 
 claim, both in former and present times, it is impossible 
 
184 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE 
 
 not to honour. So far as I have been able to learn, the 
 English Congregationalists have at present 10 theologi- 
 cal seminaries, which educate about 160 students. The 
 young men are supported during the whole course, 
 which lasts for several years, and devote their time en- 
 tirely to study. The annual expense is very consider- 
 able, and its cheerful contribution most honourable to 
 the religious body, indicating, as it does, just views of 
 the importance of ministerial acquirement. The English 
 Baptists have five similar institutions, maintained at an 
 annual expense of nearly £6,000. And the Independent 
 body in Scotland have a similar seminary, where the 
 course is four years, and the annual expenditure £800. 
 Every enlightened and candid Christian must rejoice in 
 the spirit which such a provision proclaims. At the 
 same time, the system of Church polity is not friendly 
 to a superior style of theological acquirement as a whole, 
 nor is there nearly a sufficient number of educated young 
 men. Any man may step into the ministry with whose 
 preaching gifts the individual congregation with which 
 he is associated may happen to be satisfied; and hence 
 it is believed, that though, from what is expected in this 
 country, most Independents have received a liberal edu- 
 cation, there are many, and especially of their Baptist 
 brethren, who have been strangers to it. In the United 
 States of America, it is well known that a very large 
 proportion of the Baptist body pass under the name of 
 " an uneducated ministry." It is possible, that in the 
 particular circumstances in which many of them are 
 placed, it is better, for the sake of souls, that they do not 
 wait for a liberal education — that they are not so scru- 
 pulous as Presbyterians, but go forth to the desolations 
 of the South and West with such resources as are within 
 command. It is doubtful w T hether Popery, and many 
 other errors in these regions, can at present be met in 
 any other way. At the same time, there are very se- 
 rious dangers on the other side; and the history of 
 American revivals bears witness to their magnitude. 
 The Baptists, though numerically the largest body in 
 the United States (compared with any single Church), 
 
CULTIVATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING. 185 
 
 have only 7 seminaries for the instruction of young men 
 for the ministry — the Presbyterians, we have seen, 
 number 18. 
 
 After the facts which have been presented, so credit- 
 able to Presbyterianism both in the Old and New 
 Worlds, one would think there could be no room for 
 taunting its friends with indifference to literature and 
 learning. It is well known, however, that no Scotch- 
 man, especially in the present day of religious contro- 
 versy, can speak of these in presence of many members 
 of the Church of England, without being regarded with 
 great incredulity. We are told that the southern Esta- 
 blishment is the only Church which has any claim to 
 learning, and to speak of it in connection with another 
 Church, is pretension. Now, it is freely conceded that 
 Prelacy has often stood in alliance with learning. Some 
 out of the prodigious multitudes of the Romish priest- 
 hood, who have been notorious for ignorance, have been 
 men of high literary and theological acquirement. Look- 
 ing to a Protestant Establishment, perhaps, upon the 
 whole, there is nothing for which the Church of England 
 has been more known and justly distinguished, than 
 the number of learned men whom, from age to age, she 
 has produced, and whose works remain as monuments 
 of their ability. The writings of prelates have been 
 eminently useful in many all-important controversies. 
 But after cheerfully conceding this, it seems very doubt- 
 ful whether a Prelatic form of Church government has 
 anything to boast of on this account — whether the same 
 services to learning and theology might not have been 
 obtained without Prelacy. From the many admirable 
 works which have been prepared and sent forth from 
 beyond the walls of the Church of England, it would 
 seem that there is no necessary connection between them. 
 It is to be noticed, that the Church of England has not 
 a high standard of acquirement for candidates for orders ; 
 that her theological course at college is very meagre ; 
 that multitudes of her ministers have never been at 
 college at all ; that till lately, if not still, men could 
 come over from other professions, such as the army and 
 
186 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE 
 
 navy, and almost immediately be admitted to her pulpits 
 —it may be, ere long, raised to her Prelatical bench. This 
 does not discover a high idea of the claims of theological 
 literature and learning. There may have been an im- 
 provement of late years ; but so recently as 1820, all the 
 theological knowledge which was required at Cambridge 
 from candidates for the ministry was equally required 
 from other students — from the students of law or medi- 
 cine. Of the three professors of theology, neither the 
 Casuistical nor the Regius ever lectured; and the Margaret 
 professor only gave thirty lectures in sixteen years. The 
 Norrisian professor was the sole regular lecturer, and 
 his labours were limited to the evidences. The conse- 
 quence is, that of late the Church of England has pro- 
 duced few profound theologians — few r who are acknow- 
 ledged to be of this character by foreign nations. Pro- 
 fessor Tholuck of Halle notices the contrast in this 
 respect between the present day and the seventeenth cen- 
 tury, and the small number of British works of theological 
 erudition which now reach the Continent. Indeed, not 
 a few intelligent friends of the Church of England have 
 no hesitation in declaring that little progress has been 
 made by her sons, in theological literature, since the days 
 of Lowth and Horseley. 
 
 Comparisons are proverbially odious, and particularly 
 so as to the attainments of the ministers of different 
 Christian Churches. But, as has been already remarked, 
 the acquirements of Presbyterian pastors are often spoken 
 of disparagingly by the prouder sons of the southern 
 Establishment. In one of the most plausible defences 
 of Episcopacy,* the mere bishops of the Church of Eng- 
 land are represented as having done more for the vindi- 
 cation of sound doctrine than all the presbyters of all 
 other Christian communities united! It is not, then, in 
 the way of aggression, but defence, I remind the reader, 
 that if the prelates of England have been the advocates 
 of sound doctrine, very many of them have also been 
 the teachers of errors more or less baneful ; and that if 
 many of them have been eminent for learning (which is 
 * Sinclair's Dissertations, p. 156. 
 
CULTIVATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING. IS? 
 
 cheerfully conceded), there are not a few of the presby- 
 ters of the Continental Churches which, in this respect, 
 cannot be accounted inferior. The early presbyters of 
 the Churches of France, and Holland, and Geneva, were, 
 many of them, as their works attest, men of surpassing 
 attainment, equal to any prelates that England ever pro- 
 duced. It is not necessary to go farther than to so com- 
 mon a book as " Home's Introduction to the Scriptures," 
 to see in his Bibliography, or account of the works of 
 commentators on the Word of God, that the British and 
 foreign presbyters have no occasion to dread a compa- 
 rison with English prelates. The list is a long one, ex- 
 tending to a closely- printed volume, and we have no inten- 
 tion, even had we the ability, to enter into it ; but among 
 foreign Protestant critics and commentators, it may be 
 safely said, in addition to names already given, that 
 Tremellius and Junius, Drusius, Piscator, Lewis de 
 Dieu, Wetstein, V enema, Vitringa, Bengel, and the 
 authors of the foreign edition of the " Critici Sacri," 
 have no reason to be ashamed of any comparison which 
 may be instituted with other parties. Of the last im- 
 mense work, the mere supplement was the production 
 of 150 learned men, of whom Adam Clarke, a recent 
 commentator, by no means unfriendly to English pre- 
 lates, says, "Such a constellation of learned men can 
 scarcely be equalled in any age or country." ( Vide Ge- 
 neral Preface to his Commentary.) It may be noticed, 
 that the summary or synopsis of the book, in five folio 
 Latin volumes, the labour of ten years, was the work of 
 a Puritan and Presbyterian (Poole), and that this vast 
 depository of theological learning, together with several 
 others, was written and published, not when Prelacy 
 was honoured and triumphant, but when Presbytery was 
 the order of the day. It is a curious fact, that Walton's 
 Polyglot, in 6 vols, folio, and the British edition of the 
 " Critici Sacri," in 9 vols. — perhaps the two greatest 
 theological works — were prepared in the days of the 
 Commonwealth, and that Cromwell rendered essential 
 aid to the publication of the former. 
 
 An important list of Nonconformist commentators, 
 
1 88 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE 
 
 who could boast only of being presbyters, might be 
 given ; but their works are so popular and well known, 
 and have stood the test of generations so creditably, that 
 it is unnecessary. Let me only remind the men who 
 make an invidious boast of the literature and learning 
 of prelates, that in more modern days, and in all de- 
 partments of knowledge, the German scholars are con- 
 fessedly the foremost; so much so, that England is glad 
 to translate and copy from their works; and yet they 
 can boast of nothing higher, in point of orders, than the 
 presbyter. If the reader wishes the name of a foreign 
 presbyter whose services to the cause of Protestant 
 truth all will acknowledge, I may remind him of Daille, 
 a humble pastor of the Reformed Church of France. 
 What is the testimony which Bishop Hurd, in his Lec- 
 tures on Prophecy, bears to his learning and its fruits ? 
 " The inconvenience (of the Popish appeal to the fathers) 
 was sensibly felt by the Protestant world, and, after a 
 prodigious waste of industry and erudition, a learned 
 foreigner at length showed the inutility and the folly of 
 pursuing the contest any farther. In a well-considered 
 discourse ' On the use of the Fathers,' he clearly evinced 
 that their authority was much less than was generally 
 supposed, &c. This discovery had great effects. It 
 opened the eyes of the more candid and intelligent in- 
 quirers; and our incomparable Chillingworth, with 
 some others (Jeremy Taylor), took the advantage of 
 it to set the controversy with the Church of Rome once 
 more on its proper foot," &c. (P. 425.) Here is a credit- 
 able acknowledgment that the most important service 
 which has been rendered to the cause of the Reforma- 
 tion in modern times, was the deed not of a prelate, but 
 of a Presbyterian, treading, strange to say, the favourite 
 walk of the erudite in the Church of England — the 
 writings of the Fathers. 
 
 The same unfounded assertion of the superiority of 
 the learning of Prelacy could be met in other ways — a 
 comparison might be instituted between the bishops of 
 the Scottish Episcopal Church and their Presbyterian 
 brethren. It might be asked, if Prelacy be so favour- 
 
CULTIVATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING. 189 
 
 able, almost indispensable, to learning, how it happens 
 that not above two or three of this order can lay 
 claim, in the whole course of Scottish history (so far as 
 may be judged from their works), to pre-eminent acquire- 
 ments — to equal attainments with their leading Presby- 
 terian contemporaries? It might, for instance, be asked, 
 who of them, in point of scholarship or learning, can 
 compare with Andrew Melville ? but such comparisons 
 are painful, and we are glad to escape from them. We 
 conclude by reminding those who provoke these discus- 
 sions, that, admitting all their pretensions to be just, 
 there are other ways of showing a love of knowledge 
 besides the encouragement of learned books from the 
 Episcopal bench — that there are other ways of testing 
 the true operation of a religious system on a nation ; and 
 while the Registrar General's documents show, so recently 
 as 1 839, that out of 12 1,000 couples married in England, 
 above 40,000 men and 59,000 women could not sign 
 their own name — the humblest form of writing — Prelacy 
 has little to boast of in connection with the great inte- 
 rests of popular knowledge. She has still less, if that 
 be true which has repeatedly been stated, apparently 
 on good authority, and, so far as we know, never 
 contradicted, that the cathedral towns of England, in- 
 stead of being far superior to others in point of know- 
 ledge and its means, are, generally speaking, noted for 
 the reverse. It may seem scarcely credible, but it is 
 confidently stated, that at Oxford, the very seat of Pre- 
 lacy, while there are 400 spirit and public houses to a 
 population of 24,000, there is not one public reading 
 room for the middle and working classes, and not one 
 society for the improvement of the rising youth. 
 {Christian Witness, May, 1845.) 
 
 In comparing the Church of England with others, 
 such as Scotland, in point of ministerial acquirements, it 
 is necessary to remember the relative proportions of the 
 parties compared. It is estimated that some 15,000 
 persons are in orders in the Church of England. Though 
 many of them be not in actual employment, and cannot 
 be said to pursue their profession, yet they have been 
 
100 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE 
 
 educated more or less "with a view to it. It would be 
 strange if, in a free Protestant country, out of such a 
 mass as this, there were not many men of all acquire- 
 ments. The Church of Scotland has probably little 
 more than 1,500 men standing in the same circumstances. 
 It were unreasonable to expect the same result. More- 
 over, it is to be remembered that the clergy of the Church 
 of England are not only immensely more numerous, but 
 that they have peculiar facilities for prosecuting litera- 
 ture and learning in such a form as discovers itself in 
 books. A vast body are non-resident — have no cure, 
 or many cures — but do their parochial work by curates 
 — leaving them time, and, through pluralities and large 
 collegiate libraries, furnishing them with resources for 
 pursuing with effect any theological or other inquiry to 
 which they may be inclined. The extent to which such 
 facilities exist may, in part at least, be estimated from the 
 fact, given on the authority of Parliamentary returns, 
 that there are not less than 5,230 curates, on an average 
 salary of only £81 a-year — not a sum, surely, on which 
 a man can afford himself to become learned, however 
 much he may be the means of lightening the work, and 
 so contributing to the learning of others. The encour- 
 agements, too, to the acquisition and diffusion of knoAv- 
 ledge in connection with the universities, are immense. 
 I have seen it stated, on apparently good authority — that 
 of the Rev. Mr. Jones before the " British Association" 
 in 1838 — that besides a vast amount of patronage in a 
 variety of ways, 750 livings, the two great southern 
 universities have, together, nearly 1,000 fellowships, and 
 a revenue of nearly £324,000 a-year. What a prodi- 
 gious stimulus to study and learning ! "What a burning 
 reproach were it to any Church so situated if she did 
 not, from year to year, send forth a host of accomplished 
 scholars and theologians. The fellowships are almost 
 as numerous as the benefices of the Church of Scotland ; 
 and the revenue of the universities exceeds, by £100,000, 
 that of her entire ecclesiastical Establishment. What 
 wonder that a great deal of learning should be thrown 
 off in England every year ? The wonder would be were 
 
CULTIVATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING. 101 
 
 it otherwise. Wealth can always command learning. 
 The true way to compare the Church of Scotland with 
 that of England, in this matter, is, not to set a Church 
 of 1,200 against a Church of 12,000, but a Church of 
 1,200 in Scotland against 1,200 in England ; and even 
 with all the immense advantages for study of the English 
 university and ecclesiastical system, it is very doubtful 
 whether the superiority would be so manifest as many 
 imagine. If England were required, for every minister 
 of the Church of Scotland who has been distinguished 
 in any department of literature or theology, to produce 
 1 5 equally distinguished in the Church of England, can 
 any question how the balance would turn? Has she 15 
 metaphysicians like Reid ; 15 Biblical critics like Camp- 
 bell; 15 historians like Robertson; 15 philosophers and 
 theologians like Chalmers? Are her parochial clergy 
 superior in acquirement to the same class of men in 
 Scotland ? Let their published discourses testify. There 
 is nothing, then, in Prelacy, as a system, which is supe- 
 rior to Presbytery, as an encouragement to learning 
 among the ministers of the Church ; and, if w r e consider 
 which system has wrought best for the instruction of the 
 great mass of the people, surely there cannot be two 
 opinions among men acquainted with the facts. The ser- 
 vices of the Church of England, in connection with popu- 
 lar education, are but of yesterday — those of Scotland are 
 three hundred years old, and are daily growing in strength. 
 And, after all, what is it to have a few men profoundly 
 learned and accomplished, often in branches of no great 
 public utility, in the classics or mathematics, while the 
 great mass of society living under their shadow are 
 allowed to live and die, generation after generation, in 
 the most w r retched ignorance, unable to read in their 
 own language the wonderful works of God ? Nothing 
 can be more striking than the contrast between the 
 Church of England and the Church of Scotland, in their 
 treatment of the great cause of popular education at the 
 Reformation, and in subsequent times, down to a recent 
 date. 
 
 In confirmation of the statements made in this chap - 
 
192 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE 
 
 ter, we may subjoin one or two testimonies to ministerial 
 education among Presbyterians, from competent autho- 
 rities. These are fitted to show that the cultivation of 
 suitable acquirement in the pastor is no strange thing 
 in the annals of Presbytery — that in all periods, and in 
 all countries, it has been an object of anxious care. 
 
 Principal Rule, in his " Second Vindication" of the 
 Church of Scotland, published in 1691, speaking of the 
 period of the Revolution, says : " Our entrants into the 
 ministry are able to vie in learning with the Episcopalian 
 candidates, and are far before them. Some in the late 
 persecution, it is true, were forced to follow other em- 
 ployments for a livelihood. They have now resumed 
 their former studies, but they are not admitted without 
 giving good proof of a competency, at least in knowledge 
 of the Scriptures, and in the controversies of divinity." 
 The Principal states that, even in the knowledge of 
 languages, the Presbyterian students were not inferior — 
 that the friends of the Church made efforts for the ap- 
 pointment of suitable professors, skilled in Oriental 
 tongues. 
 
 Among the Presbyterians of Ireland, the spirit was 
 the same. In the Irish edition of Towgood's Letters, 
 it is stated that the Presbyterians always laboured that 
 all their ministers should possess a sufficient knowledge 
 of languages, science, and divinity, and that many re- 
 gulations were made for this purpose. In the days of 
 Charles II., philosophy was taught at Antrim and other 
 places, as well as theology, and repeatedly rules provid- 
 ing for an extended examination of candidates were 
 adopted. 
 
 With regard, again, to the Presbyterian Churches of 
 the Continent, we have the testimony of Bishop Burnet, 
 in the History of his Own Times. After spending some 
 time among them, he writes thus, in 1686: "I was 
 indeed amazed at the labours and learning of the minis- 
 ters among the Reformed. They understood the Scrip- 
 tures well in the original tongues. They had all the 
 points of controversy very ready, and did thoroughly un- 
 derstand the whole body of divinity. In many places 
 
CULTIVATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING. 193 
 
 they preached every day, and were almost constantly 
 employed in visiting their flock." 
 
 Surely a more beautiful testimony from a prelate to 
 Presbyterian ministers could not be rendered. Long 
 may the pastors of Presbyterian Churches be distinguished 
 for the qualities which drew forth the admiration of 
 Bishop Burnet! 
 
CHAPTER V, 
 PRESBYTERIAN1SM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 
 
 Few charges against Presbyterianism have been more 
 common than that it is inconsistent with monarchy, and 
 tends to civil insubordination and sedition. This is not 
 a matter of idle talk or surmise. It has been gravely 
 propounded in large books written against the govern- 
 ment of the Church of Scotland. It was a celebrated 
 maxim of James VI., " No bishop, no king;" and 
 when any one has, notwithstanding, spoken of the 
 loyalty of Presbyterians, it has been common to 
 point to the execution of Charles I. as conclusively 
 deciding the point of the rebellious character of Pres- 
 bytery. Now r , were this charge true, it would be a 
 serious drawback from the good qualities which we 
 have alleged in behalf of Presbyterian ism — it would go 
 far to neutralize them. Insubordination to civil autho- 
 rity is a very serious matter. Submission is expressly 
 required by God — on the ground not merely of social 
 expediency, but of solemn duty. We are to obey, 
 not in dread of punishment only, but for con- 
 science' sake. Christianity recognises and hallows the 
 • social bond of obedience. But the charge is not only 
 not true — it is, like many similar charges, the very 
 opposite of the truth. Christians might have been pre- 
 pared for it. In every age evangelical religion has 
 been charged with civil insubordination ; and as Pres- 
 byterian Christians have generally exhibited much of 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 195 
 
 the evangelical religion which existed in the world at 
 the time, and have, moreover, constitutionally presented 
 a strong front in its behalf, by means of their Church 
 courts, so the allegation has come to be peculiarly 
 charged upon them ; but it is the old allegation against 
 evangelical religion, and, whether directed against it or 
 against Presbyterianism, is utterly false. 
 
 I need not enter on the proof, from Scripture and 
 ecclesiastical history, that true religion has, in every 
 age, been accused of disloyalty and sedition; nor need 
 I refer to the satisfactory explanations which can be 
 given of the origin of the charge. It is, doubtless, 
 founded in the enmity of men to the truth — gospel, law, 
 and government of Christ. Ashamed to express this 
 in as many words, they veil their persecution "under 
 plausible pretexts, of which regard for social authority 
 is one of the most popular. The Apostle Peter (1 Epist. 
 ii. 15), when exhorting the Christians of early times to 
 be submissive to the civil magistrate (of course only in 
 lawful things), encouraged them to do so by the con- 
 sideration that thus they would " put to silence the 
 ignorance of foolish men " — implying that, even in his 
 day, there were many who charged them with being 
 rebels, and that it was only by well-doing that they could 
 hope to put down the calumny. 
 
 That Presbyterianism holds no connection with dis- 
 loyalty, is abundantly plain. There is nothing in its 
 distinguishing principles inconsistent with civil authority 
 in any form, whether monarchical or republican. Are 
 the office of ruling elder, courts of review, and the parity 
 of pastors in the Church, at war with kingly authority 
 and civil submission in the State ? Where is the point 
 of variance ? * If we look at the Confessions of Faith 
 
 * It was indeed a favourite sentiment of James VI., which he 
 exhort3 his son (in the Basilicon, lib. ii.) never to forget, that 
 " parity is the mother of confusion." But there is no proof of this, 
 or rather, there is ample evidence of the contrary. Prelacy 
 magnifies mere government much more than Presbytery. It con- 
 stitutes the bishop or governor the highest and most honoured 
 oflicer ; whereas Presbytery represents the preacher of the gospel as 
 fulfilling the most honourable part of the sacred calling. The latter, 
 
196 PRESBYTERIAN ISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 
 
 of Presbyterian Churches, we find them full of the 
 soundest sentiment in regard to the civil magistrate — 
 as full, if not fuller, than those of any other Church. 
 They call upon all the members to be submissive, not 
 merely to Christian but even to Heathen kings and 
 tyrants, such as Nero. It may not be amiss to notice 
 a few of these. 
 
 The Augustan, or German Confession, which is 
 the standard of a Presbyterian Church, saysj: " Christians 
 must necessarily obey the existing magistrates and laws, 
 save when they command to sin. Then they must 
 obey God rather than man." (Acts iv.) The French 
 Confession, the standard of a strictly Presbyterian 
 Church, runs in similar terms : " We maintain, then, 
 that we ought to obey laws and statutes, and pay 
 tribute, and bear other burdens, and undergo the yoke 
 with a good will, although the magistrates should be 
 infidels, provided God's sovereign authority remain 
 entire and inviolate." The Helvetic or Swiss Con- 
 fession, also thoroughly Presbyterian, bears : " As God 
 will work the safety of his people by the magistrate 
 whom he hath given to the world as a father, so all 
 subjects are commanded to acknowledge that benefit in 
 the magistrate. Let them honour and reverence the 
 magistrate as the minister of God — let them love and 
 assist him, and pray for him as their father. Let them 
 obey him in all his just and equitable commands ; let 
 them pay all imposts and tributes, and all other dues of 
 that kind faithfully and willingly; and if the public 
 safety of the country and justice require it, and the 
 magistrate undertake a war by necessity, let them also 
 
 therefore, one would think less likely to create confusion. Besides, 
 if parity he essentially the parent of disorder, what shall be thought 
 of the Houses of the British Parliament, which present the most 
 perfect picture of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 
 — complete parity with a speaker or moderator, who has no autho- 
 rity of superior rank, but merely of regulation, to which he has been 
 called by his brethren ? Is Parliamentary parity, then, the source of 
 confusion ? What, too, shall be thought of the Houses of Convo- 
 cation in the Church of England, and similar courts in the Scottish 
 Episcopal Church, in which there are important elements of parity. 
 Are they, too, " the mothers of confusion ? " 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 19? 
 
 lay down their lives, and spill their blood for the good 
 of the public and of the magistrate, and that in the 
 name of God, willingly, valiantly, cheerfully; for he that 
 opposeth himself to the magistrate provoketh the heavy 
 wrath of God upon himself." The Saxon Confession 
 might be added to the same purpose. The Bohemian 
 runs in these terms : u Let all and every one yield 
 subjection, in all things that are no ways contrary to 
 God, unto the higher power, first to the king's majesty, 
 and next to all magistrates and those that are in autho- 
 rity in what offices soever they are placed, whether the 
 men be good or bad, as also to all their deputies and 
 officers; and let them defer to them all honour, and 
 perform all things which are due to them by right ; let 
 them pay unto them also the homage, imposts, tribute, 
 and the like, which they are obliged to pay and per- 
 form." The Waldensian Confession, which dates so 
 far back as 1120, says: " We ought to honour the 
 secular powers by submission, ready obedience, and 
 paying of tribute." The sentiment of all the Scottish 
 Confessions is well known — that of Westminster is 
 conveyed in these words : " It is the duty of people to 
 pray for magistrates, to honour their persons, to pay 
 them tribute and other dues; to obey their lawful com- 
 mands, and to be subject to their authority for con- 
 science' sake. Infidelity or difference in religion doth 
 not make void the magistrate's just and legal autho- 
 rity, nor free the people from their due obedience to 
 him, from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempt," 
 &c. 
 
 Such are the views of the leading Presbyterian Con- 
 fessions on civil obedience; and what can be more en- 
 tirely loyal? The very men, such as Luther, Calvin, 
 Zuingle, whom Papists have accused of propagating 
 seditious principles, were the thorough approvers, if not 
 the actual w r riters, of the very Confessions from which 
 we have been quoting. And in accordance with these 
 articles of faith, how eminent have the Presbyterian 
 Churches ever been for loyalty ! Though shamefully 
 persecuted in Piedmont, France, Holland, Germany, 
 
198 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 
 
 Scotland, &c, by Popish and other rulers, how submis- 
 sive have they been in all civil things! How did they 
 honour the civil magistrate in his own province, and 
 occasionally draw the admiration even of oppressive 
 masters, by their fidelity, industry, loyalty, and courage ! 
 A few cases may be referred to. The Waldenses, emi- 
 nently a nation of martyrs, are uniformly designated in 
 the royal edicts, " Our faithful subjects." It was long 
 before the dukes of Savoy could be prevailed upon by 
 Popish emissaries to persecute a people so remarkable 
 for their loyal attachment; and after persecution had 
 begun and ceased, repeatedly did the Popish rulers bear 
 witness to its generosity and strength. Similar was the 
 character of the French Protestants. For the first forty 
 years of their Reformation, though numerous and af- 
 flicted, they were so submissive that they were not even 
 brought into collision with secular power. On subse- 
 quent occasions they were repeatedly engaged in war; 
 but politics, not religion, was the chief source of the 
 contest, and in this they took a part with a large body 
 of their Roman Catholic countrymen. Nothing on this 
 point can be more appropriate than what is said in their 
 defence by James VI.* Writing in 1615, when France 
 was at peace, he says : " 1 never knew yet that the 
 French Protestants took arms against their king. In 
 the first troubles they stood only on their defence. Be- 
 fore they took arms, they were burned and massacred 
 everywhere; the quarrel did not begin for religion," 
 &c. " It shall not be found that they made any other 
 war. Nay, is it not true that Henry III. sent armies 
 against, to destroy them, and yet they ran to his help as 
 soon as they saw him in danger? Is it not true that 
 they saved his life at Tours, and delivered him from 
 extreme peril? Is it not true that they never forsook 
 either him or his successor in the midst of the revolt 
 and rebellion of most part of his kingdom, raised by the 
 pope and the greater part of his clergy? Is it not true 
 that they have assisted him in all his battles, and helped 
 much to raise the crown again, which was ready to fall ? " 
 
 * In his Right of Kings, p. 14. 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 199 
 
 It is well known how much Henry IV. was indebted to 
 his Protestant and Presbyterian subjects, and that the 
 edict of Nantes was intended as a reward for their loyal 
 adherence. In 1617, Louis XIII., in a letter to their 
 ecclesiastical synod, testified to their past " fidelity and 
 obedience;" and his son, Louis XI V., repeatedly em- 
 ployed the same language. Indeed, he in a great mea- 
 sure owed his crown to their exertions, and acknowledged 
 that they had given proof " of their fidelity and zeal for 
 his service beyond all that could be imagined, and con- 
 tributed in all things to the welfare and advantage of his 
 affairs." The Edinburgh Christian Instructor of 1813, 
 vindicating the loyalty of Presbyterians against the in- 
 sinuations of an English assailant, thus characterizes 
 the loyalty of the French Presbyterians : " We request 
 the reviewers to look back to the history of the Re- 
 formed Churches in France, which were strictly Presby- 
 terian, and they will see there an exhibition of loyalty 
 which it has never been given to the Presbyterians (we 
 may add, much more the Prelatists) of any country to 
 display — of loyalty to despots who had no feeling of 
 kindness or pity to their subjects — of loyalty in the midst 
 of persecutions the most cruel and bloody to which men 
 were ever subjected — of loyalty which remained undi- 
 minished even after recourse to the sword had become 
 an act of necessity, and neither forgot itself in victory 
 nor was soured and alienated by defeat — of loyalty which 
 was rather to be blamed for its excess than doubted of 
 for its existence or sincerity, and which we are firmly 
 convinced would never have been carried to such a height 
 by the people either of England or Scotland. We refer 
 our readers to Laval, Beza, D'Aubigne, Mezeray, 
 Thuanus, and every writer, indeed, who has given an 
 account of the civil wars of France, with the exception 
 of a few Roman Catholics, whose religious prejudices led 
 them to indulge in misrepresentations which they had not 
 honesty enough to withhold." (P. 427.) Other illus- 
 trations might be given, but let these suffice. That 
 Presbyterians were reluctantly constrained occasionally 
 to resist the tyrannous exercise of civil power, invading 
 
200 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 
 
 the conscience and trampling on rights guaranteed by 
 oaths, is true; but this is no more than the British sove- 
 reigns, Elizabeth, James, and Charles I., by their own 
 example, in encouraging the subjects of foreign states to 
 rise against their sovereign, sanctioned, It is no more 
 than what the Church of England and the English 
 nation, under the rule of Prelacy, did, and justly did, in 
 the ever memorable Revolution of 1688. 
 
 The most popular and plausible charge against the 
 Presbyterians of the three kingdoms, is the giving up of 
 Charles I., as is alleged, for a bribe, and then putting 
 him to death. Now, admitting all this to be true, what 
 could be more unfair than to attempt to determine the 
 general character of an ecclesiastical system, in all ages, 
 from the conduct of a few adherents on a very sad, and 
 withal trying occasion in its history? But there is not 
 one word of truth in the charge. Though the king's 
 duplicity and cruelty were notorious — driving 20,000 of 
 his best subjects across the Atlantic, when it was a more 
 formidable matter to cross the ocean than it is now — yet 
 they endured with marvellous patience, and were con- 
 strained only by dire necessity to take up arms. To say 
 that they sold their king is a statement as anti-national 
 as ignorant. A sum of money, agreed upon years before, 
 for the support of the Scottish army, was paid four 
 months before there were any steps taken in regard to 
 the sovereign by the two nations; and the Presbyterians 
 of Scotland, England, and Ireland, remonstrated and 
 protested against the contemplated execution in the 
 strongest possible manner — in a stronger manner than 
 can be alleged of any other religious party. The real 
 authors of the king's death were his Prelatic counsellors. 
 The proximate were the Sectaries, who were as much 
 opposed to Presbytery as to Prelacy. As this baseless 
 calumny is still repeated, to the prejudice of Presbyte- 
 rianism, and is the only act having the air of plausibility 
 to those who will not examine and distinguish, it may 
 not be amiss to quote the words of fifty-seven learned 
 and godly Presbyterian ministers of London, in a remon- 
 strance which they gave in before the trial, and which 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 201 
 
 they presented at the hazard of their own safety. They 
 say : " We hold ourselves bound, in duty to God, religion, 
 the king, parliament, and kingdom, to profess before 
 God, angels, and men, that we verily believe what is 
 now so much feared to be in agitation — the taking away 
 of the life of the king in the present way of trial — is not 
 only not agreeable to any word of God, the principles of 
 the Protestant religion (never yet stained with the least 
 drop of the blood of a king), or the fundamental consti- 
 tution of the kingdom: but contrary to them, as also to 
 the oath of allegiance, the protestation of May 5, 1641, 
 and the solemn league and covenant ; from all which 
 engagements we know not of any power on earth able to 
 absolve us or others." 
 
 Such was the Presbyterian protest against the trial or 
 sentence of Charles I. — a protest shared in by the whole 
 Presbyterian people of the three kingdoms; and well 
 was its sincerity proved by their immediately crowning 
 the monarch's son in Scotland as king; by refusing 
 publicly to pray for Cromwell, as protector, for years ; 
 and by an actual martyrdom into loyalty. Christopher 
 Love, an eminent Presbyterian minister of London, suf- 
 fered unto the death for no other reason than his attach- 
 ment to the family and rights of Charles II. Perhaps 
 those who will not be moved by any other authority, 
 may, on such a point as the death of the king, listen to 
 the opinion of Sir George M'Kenzie, the Lord Advocate 
 of Scotland, during the times of the persecution. Writ- 
 ing of the Presbyterians, he says: " Even our rebellious 
 countrymen delivered him (the king) only up to such of 
 our neighbour nation as did swear upon oath that they 
 should preserve him and his crown; and when they 
 found that these sectarians neither regarded their oath 
 nor their king, they raised an army immediately, to ex- 
 piate their crime. Nor wanted ever our nation (Scot- 
 land; an army, even under the usurpers, to appear for 
 the monarchy ; and from us, and encouraged by us, went 
 that army that restored our present king."* 
 
 If any farther evidence were needful, we might appeal 
 * Vindication of his Majesty's Government, 1683, p. 5. 
 
202 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 
 
 to Bishop Burnet, who, in the History of his Oxen Times, 
 testifies that the Presbyterians were much against the 
 king's death, fasting and praying for his preservation. 
 We might appeal also to Echard, Clarendon, Rapin, to 
 the fact that the Presbyterians accounted the charge a 
 slander, and indignantly resented it, appealing to Lord 
 Hollis, Richard Baxter, and many others then living, for 
 the truth of the contrary. But, perhaps, the reader may 
 wish to see the testimony of such a man as Principal 
 Rule. It is less accessible than the others, and was 
 given forth in 1 69 1 . Vindicating his calumniated coun- 
 try, he asks, " Did Scotland ever set up a common- 
 wealth, as England once did? It is known what they 
 adventured and suffered for the monarchy when England 
 abjured it. And what yielding was in Scotland to the 
 anti-monarchical way, was by force from England. And 
 it is known to all who lived in these days, that the Pres- 
 byterians did cleave more firmly to their banished king, 
 and prayed for him with more constancy and resolution, 
 than that party did who after appeared for Episcopacy." 
 In harmony with this, their London brethren, we are 
 informed by Palmer, in the Nonconformists' Memo- 
 rial, attended him on his restoration with their acclama- 
 tions, and, by the hands of old Mr. Jackson, presented 
 him with a richly-adorned Bible, which he (Charles II.) 
 told them would be the rule of his actions !" 
 
 Passing from the Presbyterians generally to those of 
 Scotland in particular, at a later day, can it be alleged 
 that it was for rebellion that they suffered? No doubt 
 this was the charge, just as it was the charge in the case 
 of the Old Testament prophets, and of our blessed Lord 
 and his apostles, and the primitive Christians. In none 
 of these instances were the parties ostensibly persecuted. 
 No; they only suffered for pretended sedition and re- 
 bellion. This has always been the course of the men of 
 the world. They shrink from appearing in the naked 
 character of persecutors. Bad as the world is, this 
 would defeat the object, and hence they dress up Chris- 
 tians in the skins of wild beasts, before they give them 
 to the lions. Though cowardly, this is the uniform 
 
PRESBYTER1ANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 203 
 
 practice. In the case of the Scottish sufferers, nothing 
 could be more shamefully false than the cry of rebel- 
 lion. I subjoin two or three sentences from dying 
 testimonies breathed forth by martyrs in passing into 
 eternity. 
 
 The Marquis op Argyle says: "I had no accession 
 to his late majesty's horrid and execrable murder, by 
 counsel, or knowledge of it, or any other manner of 
 way. And I pray the Lord preserve his majesty, and 
 to pour out his best blessing on his person and govern- 
 ment." 
 
 The Rev. James Guthrie says: " God is my record 
 that, for the things for which sentence of death has been 
 passed against me, I have a good conscience. I bless 
 God they are not matters of compliance with Sectaries, 
 or designs or practices against his majesty's person, or 
 government of his royal father. My heart, I bless God, 
 is conscious to no disloyalty — nay, loyal I have been, 
 and I commend it unto you to be loyal and obedient in 
 the Lord." 
 
 Lord Warriston says: " I am free, as I shall now 
 answer before God's tribunal, from any accession, by 
 counsel, or contrivance, or any other way, to his late 
 majesty's death, or to their making that change of go- 
 vernment; and I pray the Lord to preserve our present 
 king, his majesty, and to pour out His best blessings 
 upon his royal posterity." 
 
 Captain Arnot, with nine others who suffered with 
 him on the same day, said: " We are condemned by 
 men, and esteemed by many as rebels against the king, 
 whose authority we acknowledge; but this is our rejoic- 
 ing, the testimony of our conscience." 
 
 John Wilson said : " For my part, I pray that the 
 Lord may bless our king with blessings from heaven: 
 and I pray for all who are in authority under his ma- 
 jesty." 
 
 James Learmont says: " My dear friends, I give my 
 testimony against that calumny cast upon Presbyte- 
 rians, that they are seditious and disloyal persons, the 
 which assertion I do abhor; therefore I exhort all people 
 
204 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 
 
 that they will show loyalty to the king and all law- 
 ful magistrates, and all their just and lawful com- 
 mands. " 
 
 The Rev. John King says: "The Lord knows, who 
 is the searcher of hearts, that neither my design nor 
 practice was against his majesty's person and just govern- 
 ment, but I always intended to be loyal to lawful 
 authority in the Lord. I thank God that my heart does 
 not condemn me of any disloyalty. I have been loyal, 
 and do recommend it to all to be obedient to the higher 
 powers in the Lord." 
 
 Such was the loyal spirit of the Scottish Presbyterians 
 even in the most trying times, and such it has been in 
 every age. Apart from every thing else, the " Solemn 
 League and Covenant " which they had sworn, and which 
 so many now misunderstand and misrepresent, bound 
 them to loyalty more than others. Their subsequent 
 history has strikingly illustrated the same features of 
 character. The Rev. Mr. Williamson, one of the mi- 
 nisters of the West Kirk, Edinburgh, preaching before 
 the General Assembly, as moderator, in 1703, thus 
 expressed himself in regard to Presbyterian loyalty. He 
 was addressing an audience who were well able, from 
 their own experience, to judge of the accuracy of his 
 statements : " These fourteen years' experience may stop 
 the mouth of impudence itself respecting the peaceful- 
 ness of Presbytery. During one hundred years there has 
 not been such a long tract of tranquillity in Scotland. 
 Civil government has been advantageously managed in 
 several of the most eminent Reformed Churches (con- 
 temporaneously) with that discipline of Christ's house 
 for which we plead. None maintain more loyal prin- 
 ciples towards kings than Presbyterians, who think 
 themselves obliged to fear God and honour the king, and 
 to be always ready to obey him in the Lord. Many, if 
 not the greater part of the Episcopal clergy, would not 
 pray for the king, William." 
 
 Nor was there any diminution of Scottish loyalty at a 
 later day. In the rebellion of 1745, who were more 
 loyal or so loyal as the Presbyterians? The Duke of 
 
PRESBYTER I ANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 205 
 
 Cumberland, the commander of the king's troops, speak- 
 ing of the clergy of the Church of Scotland, declared, 
 " I owe it in justice to them to say, that, upon all occa- 
 sions, I have received from them professions of the most 
 inviolable attachment to his majesty's person and govern- 
 ment, and have always found them ready and forward 
 to act in their several stations in all such affairs as they 
 could be useful in, though often to their own great 
 hazard." (Quoted in Ton-good's Letters, 15th edition, 
 p. 221.) 
 
 It may be less known, but it is not less honourable to 
 Presbytery, that the Rev. Adam Gibb, a Presbyterian 
 minister of Edinburgh, though a seceder from the Na- 
 tional Establishment, raised not less than three companies 
 of volunteers, mainly from his own congregation, to quell 
 the rebellion ; and so impressed was the government of 
 the day with his services, and those of his brother mi- 
 nister, the Rev. Ralph Erskine, that they warmly ac- 
 knowledged them in a letter of thanks. It may be 
 added that, at the present moment, a far larger propor- 
 tion of the British army is composed of Scottish Pres- 
 byterians, according to the general population of the 
 nation, than of English or Irish. "Whatever explanation 
 may be given of the fact, it certainly does not counte- 
 nance the idea of any alliance between disloyalty and 
 Presbytery, at least the rulers of the British nation have 
 not, from observation, been led to detect any such rela- 
 tionship. 
 
 The same spirit has ever been manifested by the 
 Presbyterians of Ireland. They may, in common with 
 the vast body of the intelligence and piety of Britain, 
 have concurred with the Parliament in the early and 
 necessary resistance to royal tyranny; but when faction 
 in the army began to pervert a cause which was good, 
 and indicate a disposition to subvert all royal authority, 
 with their brethren throughout Great Britain, they took 
 part with the monarch, and nobly stood by his cause. 
 Though treated with great ingratitude, they used all the 
 influence with the leaders in the army which they could 
 command, to persuade them to be loyal to the king and 
 
206' PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 
 
 spare his life; read official "declarations" from their 
 pulpits against the anti-monarchical principles which the 
 perversity and duplicity of the king's counsellors were 
 the grand means of creating and spreading; prayed for 
 the king's son; maintained his cause in Ulster; and 
 warned the people against his enemies, and that at a 
 time when the whole province was in the power of the 
 army. Nay, more, not a few of them suffered for their 
 loyalty. Their influence was such, that the council of 
 war passed an act of banishment against them, and, but 
 for an accident, many would have been transported 
 beyond the seas. As it was, they were deprived by 
 Cromwell of the tithes which they had enjoyed, and a 
 small precarious provision was substituted, the better to 
 break down their principles. I need not say that they 
 have been loyal ever since. In the Popish rebellion of 
 1799, they stood true to the old character of Pres- 
 bytery, and to their country. The Synod of Ulster had, 
 upon a review of the whole proceedings, reason to record, 
 " That the general condition of its members and proba- 
 tioners was conformable to order and good government 
 in the late afflicting circumstances of the country." Only 
 a very few members of the Presbyterian Church had 
 proved disloyal, and the ecclesiastical courts subjected 
 them to discipline on this account. It is notorious that 
 the Irish Presbyterians continue pre-eminent for their 
 loyalty, and that, at the present moment, they form a 
 chief safeguard of the integrity of the British empire in 
 the sister island. 
 
 The same holds true of evangelical Presbyterianism 
 wherever, in the providence of God, it has been planted. 
 In 1775, the year before the declaration of American 
 independence, it appears, from Hodge's History of the 
 Presbyterian Church of America, that the Synods of 
 New York and Philadelphia addressed a pastoral letter 
 to the Churches under their authority, in which the fol- 
 lowing statement occurs : " In carrying on this impor- 
 tant struggle, let every opportunity be taken to express 
 your attachment and respect to our sovereign, King 
 George III., and to the Revolution principles by which 
 
PRESBYTERIAN ISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 207 
 
 his august family were seated on the British throne. 
 We recommend, indeed, not only allegiance to him from 
 principle and duty, as the first magistrate of the empire, 
 but esteem and reverence for the person of the prince 
 who has merited well of his subjects on many accounts, 
 and who has probably been misled into his late and pre- 
 sent measures by those about him. Neither have we 
 any doubt that they themselves have been, in a great 
 degree, deceived by false representations from interested 
 persons residing in America. It gives us the greatest 
 pleasure to say, from our own certain knowledge of all 
 belonging to our communion, and from the best means 
 of information of far the greatest part of all denomina- 
 tions in this country, that the present opposition to the 
 measures of administration does not in the least arise 
 from disaffection to the king, or a desire of separation 
 from the parent state. "We are happy in being able, 
 with truth, to affirm, that no part of America would 
 either have approved or permitted such insults as have 
 been offered to the sovereign in Great Britain. We ex- 
 hort you, therefore, to continue in the same disposition, 
 and not to suffer oppression, or injury itself, to provoke you 
 to anything which may seem to betray contrary sentiments. 
 Let it ever appear that you only desire the preservation 
 and security of those rights which belong to you as free- 
 men and Britons, and that reconciliation upon these 
 terms is your most ardent desire." What could breathe 
 a spirit of more enlightened loyalty, blended with just 
 sentiments of freedom, than these pastoral counsels? 
 In perfect harmony with them, it deserves to be recorded, 
 to the honour of the Presbyterian Church in the Canadas 
 at the present day, that, though smarting from what 
 might have provoked against British rule, its office- 
 bearers and members were among the warmest and most 
 useful friends of British authority in the recent rebellion; 
 that not one of their number was found in the ranks 
 of disaffection ; and that their influence, physical as well 
 as moral, contributed, in an important degree, to the 
 speedy restoration of peace and order. 
 
 And now, shortly, to turn to other forms of Church 
 
208 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 
 
 government, I make no charge against modern Inde- 
 pendency. I believe it to be perfectly loyal, and that 
 there are as warm friends of the British constitution in 
 its ranks as in any other denomination. But it can 
 scarcely be doubted that their democratical form of 
 Church rule is more favourable to political democracy 
 than a more limited representative government ; and it 
 cannot be forgotten, that, with some exceptions, the In- 
 dependents were the great patrons of the anti-monarchi- 
 cal principles of the seventeenth century. It may be 
 stated that, among Evangelical Dissenters, the Metho- 
 dist body have ever been distinguished for their loyalty. 
 They occupy a central position between Prelacy and other 
 forms of Church government; though they did not appear 
 till several occasions of testing loyalty in this country were 
 over, yet it cannot be questioned that they would have 
 stood faithful had they been then in existence. George 
 Whitefield, in his " Letter to the Rev. Dr. Durell," on 
 the expulsion of six students from Oxford in 1768, in 
 the judgment of his biographer, the ablest of his pro- 
 ductions, says, referring to the examples of Christ and his 
 apostles, " Fain would the Methodists copy after such 
 gloriously divine examples; and, blessed be God! after 
 a trial of near forty years, upon the most severe scrutiny, 
 their loyalty cannot be justly so much as once called in 
 question ; for as they fear God, so they dearly love and 
 honour their king, their rightful sovereign King George, 
 and have been, and continue to be, steady, invariable 
 friends to the Protestant succession in the illustrious 
 house of Hanover." This is the more creditable when 
 it is remembered to what irritation and oppression they 
 were subjected, from various classes of their countrymen, 
 in the earlier periods of their history. In so far as Cal- 
 vinistic Methodism is Presbyterian, this form of govern- 
 ment is entitled to claim a share in the credit of its good 
 character. 
 
 With regard to Prelacy in connection with loyalty : 
 If loyalty consists in a blind worship of the reigning 
 sovereign, no matter what his character or his acts, how- 
 ever unconstitutional and tyrannical, there may not be 
 
PRESBYTERIAN ISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 209 
 
 much ground for calling in question its loyalty. It is 
 only in this sense that the maxim of James VI. is true, 
 " No bishop, no king" — rather, no tyrant. Understood 
 more constitutionally, Prelacy, however trustworthy now, 
 has not always been loyal. Is it necessary to say how 
 prelates, in days of Popery, stirred up disaffection in 
 kingdoms, both in Scotland and England; for example, 
 how Richard II. of the latter was robbed of his domi- 
 nion ; and how Parliament found it indispensable, in the 
 reign of Edward VI., to deprive them of their usurped 
 power over the crown? In the seventeenth century, who 
 were at the bottom of the civil troubles of the land ? 
 According to the testimony of candid Episcopalians 
 themselves, it was the Prelatic Laud and his party. He 
 dealt in gross encroachments on the consciences and 
 liberties of the people. In Scotland, again, in the suc- 
 ceeding century, who were the prime movers of the re- 
 bellions in behalf of the deposed house of Stuart? Did 
 they not consist of the Roman Catholics and nonjuring 
 Episcopalians— in other words, of a combination of Pre- 
 latists? 
 
 A few facts may be stated in confirmation of these 
 views. Were it necessary, one might refer to the maxims 
 and proceedings of the Jesuits — a powerful order in a 
 Prelatic Church — so dangerous to thrones that they have 
 been repeatedly suppressed even in Roman Catholic 
 countries; but it would be unfair to Protestants to com- 
 pare them with such a body. To turn, however, to a 
 party who make a boast of their loyalty, and many of 
 whom were wont to be suspicious of that of their Pres- 
 byterian neighbours, I would ask, whether Scottish 
 Episcopacy has, in this respect, much to boast of? It 
 is notorious that a very large body of them — in short, 
 the party which did not conform to the Established 
 Church at the Revolution in 1688 — remained disaffected 
 to the present reigning family, and did not abandon that 
 disaffection till the death of Charles Edward Stuart, in 
 1788. In other words, this religious body lived in a 
 state of disaffection for one hundred years, till they could 
 keep it up no longer. Can a similar statement be made 
 
210 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 
 
 in regard to any other Christian Church? It appears 
 from the " Narrative of the Proceedings" of the Relief 
 Bill, in 1792, drawn up by one of the bishops, that the 
 bill was objected to in the House of Lords, on the score 
 of the former connection of the Episcopal clergy with 
 the Pretender. The preamble of the act refers to their 
 disaffection, and provides that the minister who omits 
 praying for the present royal family by name, shall, for 
 a second offence, be declared incapable of officiating for 
 three years. The Earl of Elgin, who spoke in favour of 
 the bill, went over the different penal enactments, and 
 showed that they were intended " to check the disaffec- 
 tion which was known to prevail, at the time they were 
 passed, among the Episcopalians in Scotland." The 
 bishop of St. David's, also a supporter, maintained, that 
 the refusal to pray for the royal family by name " stood 
 upon no better ground than that of gross and avowed 
 disaffection." It is an interesting fact, that the success 
 of the bill was, in a considerable degree, owing to the 
 friendly interposition of the Church of Scotland — to the 
 letters of Principal Robertson, Dr. Campbell, and Dr. 
 Gerard, to leading men in England; so that, in this way, 
 the Presbyterian Church had an opportunity of requiting 
 with kindness the harsh treatment which she had re- 
 ceived at the hands of Episcopacy at an earlier season. 
 Surely the members of this Church are not the parties 
 who should charge the Church of Scotland with disaffec- 
 tion or rebellion? That it may not be supposed I am 
 putting too strong an interpretation upon the Parliament- 
 ary proceedings in connection with Scottish Episcopacy, 
 I appeal to the statement of the Rev. Mr. Skinner, a 
 warm partisan. Writing of the Scottish Episcopal 
 Church, as it appeared in 1788, he says, that his father, 
 the bishop, " saw the considerations of State policy con- 
 straining the class of landed proprietors, whether peers 
 or commoners, and nearly all of the Episcopal persuasion 
 in public stations, to turn their backs upon the altar of 
 their native Church, that tlicy might support the throne of 
 their native land." * In other words, continued alle- 
 * Annals. 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 211 
 
 giance to their Church was not consistent with loyalty 
 to the throne of the realms! They abandoned the 
 Church, because they could not otherwise be loyal to their 
 king. When could this be alleged of the Scottish or 
 any other Presbyterian Church? 
 
 At the present day, I do not call in question the 
 loyalty of any evangelical party. All that I contend for 
 is, that Presbyterians are as loyal as any other — that 
 Scotland is as loyal as England — that, in times of national 
 danger, Presbyterians have contributed in as large pro- 
 portion, whether of money, or men, or courage, to the 
 defence of their country, as the members of any Prelatic 
 Church; in short, that there is nothing in Presbytery 
 inconsistent with enlightened loyalty. In addition to 
 this, looking to the history of the past, I humbly think 
 that Presbyterians are entitled to say that the form of 
 ecclesiastical government for which they contend has 
 been more frequently found in alliance with fervent 
 loyalty than other forms of rule. 
 
 It has often been alleged that Presbytery is republi- 
 can in its constitution, and that republican ideas and 
 feelings must be its fruit. Of course, as an objection, 
 this can be alleged with propriety only by Prelatists. 
 Congregationalists cannot urge it without laying them- 
 selves open to the more serious charge of democratic 
 tendency. But there is no force in the allegation of 
 which any Presbyterian has reason to be ashamed. In 
 so far as republicanism is identified with representative 
 government, Presbytery may be described as republican ; 
 just in the same sense all the leading councils of the 
 Christian Church ^ere republican, and the British con- 
 stitution embraces a large republican element, yea, the 
 governing one. Indeed, the first real illustrations of 
 representative government are to be found in the early 
 councils of the Church. The State here borrowed from 
 the Church, as Sir James M'Intosh substantially allows. 
 {History of England, p. 43.) There is nothing, how- 
 ever, in all this discreditable to Presbytery, but the re- 
 verse. History has amply and impressively shown that 
 its representative principles and courts can and do move 
 
2 1 2 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 
 
 on in harmony with the most devoted attachment to 
 monarchy — such attachment as has seldom been equalled, 
 certainly never surpassed, by religious bodies whose 
 ecclesiastical might be supposed to be more favourable 
 to their civil government. The truth is, that Presbyte- 
 rian Church government, drawn as it is from the Word 
 of God, is quite peculiar. It finds no exact parallel in 
 any form of civil rule ; while the democratic element may 
 be said to enter in the popular election by the members, 
 the republican in its representative councils, there 
 is a decided recognition of the aristocratic in the judgment 
 of qualification of members, and the power of license 
 and ordination, translation, deposition, &c. These 
 functions are inherent and permanent ; only those who 
 are in office can transmit office. Thus Presbytery stands 
 alone, and on the same ground on which it is charged 
 with republican tendency, it might be charged with the 
 opposite. There is no real force in either. Presbyte- 
 rianism is wide-spread. It needs to be able to live under 
 all forms of political government, and it is equally trust- 
 worthy under them all. Nor is this matter of wonder, 
 for if it be conducive, as we have shown, to the mainten- 
 ance of divine truth, Christian union, and ministerial 
 and popular education — then, by making men good 
 Christians, it must make them the best subjects. 
 
 The more frequent collisions which, in the history of 
 Scotland, have taken place between the civil and eccle- 
 siastical authorities, than between the same parties in 
 England, are not owing to any greater tendency to civil 
 insubordination in the one case over the other, but to 
 the fact of the greater prevalence of true religion in the 
 one country above the other, leading men to contend 
 for all that belongs to them as Christians. The pecu- 
 liarities of the union between Church and State in 
 Scotland, and the temptations of civil judges to put a 
 wrong interpretation upon statutes affecting the Church 
 of Scotland, from the vicinity of England, whose Esta- 
 blishment is regulated on opposite principles, explain 
 the difference still farther. It is certain that the doctrine 
 of the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ over the 
 
PRESBYTER IANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 213 
 
 Church and over the State — the great doctrine which 
 has given rise to so much recent discussion — not only has 
 not the most remote relationship to rebellion, but holds 
 such a connection with civil allegiance that the British 
 Crown never had in former times, as it has not now, 
 more devoted loyalists than the Presbyterians, who regard 
 that doctrine as vital and supreme. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO CIVIL AND 
 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 
 
 While Presbytery has ever, as we have seen, proved 
 herself the friend of loyalty, she has been not less cer- 
 tainly the friend of freedom, civil and religious. These, 
 so far from being inconsistent, are happily harmonious. 
 A man may love his sovereign, and love liberty, yet keep 
 both in their proper place. Indeed, this is the character 
 and attainment of all true Christians. Loyalty and liberty 
 are the fruit of living, evangelical religion. 
 
 It is not necessary to say any thing of the importance 
 of freedom. However frequently it may have been 
 abused to licentiousness, and accompanying tyranny — 
 whatever may have been the crimes which have been 
 perpetrated in its sacred name — there is no question that 
 there is such a thing as liberty, civil and religious, that 
 it is an inestimable ble^ & ing, and that it is inseparably 
 bound up with the interests of true religion, knowledge, 
 and civilization — in short, the welfare of man for time 
 and eternity. I rejoice in liberty, not merely for its own 
 sake, as ungodly men may rejoice in it, but chiefly as an 
 instrument of good to society, to the Church, and the 
 world; and because its opposite, especially where severe, 
 is deeply injurious to the character and progress, if not 
 to the existence, of that religion which is the handmaid 
 of human happiness. " True liberty," to adopt the de- 
 finition of a sound Calvinistic divine, " does not consist 
 in an inflammatory turbulence of conduct, in an unlimited 
 
PRESBYTERTANISM FAVOURABLE, ETC. 215 
 
 indecency of speech, or a blind attachment to party, but 
 in the legal safety and good order of each for the advan- 
 tage of the whole. It does not consist in licentiousness, 
 or the power of doing evil with impunity, but the pri- 
 vilege of doing all the good we can, and enjoying, with- 
 out molestation or fear, as much personal happiness as 
 is consistent with the written law of God, the unwritten 
 law of conscience, and the welfare of society at large." * 
 Liberty, as thus defined, is not understood or appreciated 
 by man in his natural state of depravity. Enlightened 
 reason may approve of it when stated; and the constitu- 
 tion of one political system, apart from the knowledge 
 of true religion, may, from various causes, approach 
 nearer to it than others; but man's narrow views and 
 selfish passions, particularly his love of power, and want 
 of regard for, and confidence in, his neighbour, will pre- 
 vent him ever realizing the freedom which has been de- 
 scribed. True religion, however, directly leads to it. 
 It cultivates intellect, and so makes the man thoughtful 
 — enlightens his conscience, and so gives peace and guid- 
 ance — represses his selfishness, while it teaches self- 
 denial, and a kind regard to the rights, privileges, and 
 happiness of others. Thus it both makes men capable 
 of freedom for themselves, and disposes them to concede 
 freedom to others At the same time, it renders them 
 objects of public confidence. These are the very ele 
 ments of liberty; and without them, whatever may be 
 the vauntings of philosophers or political orators, freedom 
 can exist only in name. It will not reach the mass of 
 the people, and it will be in great danger of perishing, 
 even when attained. 
 
 Now, Presbyterianism, as a scriptural form of true 
 religion, and an efficient dispenser of its knowledge and 
 blessings, is, and must be, a friend of Freedom. Accord- 
 ingly, all history testifies to this truth. Without inter- 
 fering with the particular form of civil government under 
 which men live, it makes them both good rulers and 
 good subjects; the result of which is, the greatest amount 
 of happiness to individuals consistent with the order and 
 * Toplady's Works, p. 394. 
 
216 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO 
 
 good of the whole. It is well known, that in modern 
 Europe, the rise of freedom was contemporaneous with 
 the revival of Protestant evangelical religion. This was 
 the first thing to check, and ultimately subvert, the civil 
 and religious despotism of Popery. The reading of the 
 Word of God in the vernacular languages, and the oral 
 preaching of the Gospel, were far more powerful than 
 any other means. Some may ask, What is the connec- 
 tion between civil and religious freedom? They are 
 always seen together, flourishing or fading. It is not 
 difficult to trace the relationship. True religion calls 
 men to the exercise of private judgment on the most 
 momentous questions. It marks off a large field for 
 conscience, and declares, that into that field civil autho- 
 rity shall not enter, unless at the risk of being disobeyed. 
 It imparts a deep feeling of responsibility, and braces 
 men to endure the loss of all things sooner than relin- 
 quish their religious convictions. This state of things is 
 most favourable to the creation, growth, and diffusion of 
 civil liberty. Men have but to extend to the matters of 
 civil life the principles which they cherish in regard to 
 religion, and they are free. Besides, supremely valuing 
 their religion, they will naturally avail themselves of 
 civil rights and privileges, as a protection to the undis- 
 turbed exercise of faith and practice. In this way it is 
 easy to see how the religious principles of the Reforma- 
 tion directly conducted to civil freedom; and how mo- 
 dern Protestants are so deeply indebted to the sacrifices 
 and sufferings of their forefathers. These, whether im- 
 mediately successful at the time or not, argued the pre- 
 sence of principles and resolution which it were hopeless 
 to expect to put down. 
 
 Viewing the case historically, it is hardly necessary to 
 appeal to the services which Presbyterian Churches have 
 rendered, in different countries of Europe, to the cause 
 of religious, and so of civil freedom. Who can be igno- 
 rant of the struggles for liberty or independence, often 
 and largely at the price of blood, which were waged by 
 the Presbyterians of Piedmont, Switzerland, Holland, 
 France, Germany, Scotland, &c. ? Had it not been for 
 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 217 
 
 these — had the public mind not been roused upon a 
 question which involved the dearest interests, in all pro- 
 bability Popery would have been re-established univer- 
 sally, and with it the civil despotism. Hence it is appa- 
 rent, that Christian men, who are often by philosophers 
 denounced as enthusiasts and fanatics, were the real 
 parties, and not secular politicians, who wrought out 
 the liberties of Europe. They are the only men who will 
 persevere amid desperate sacrifices and hazards; and that 
 candid men of the world occasionally acknowledge. 
 
 The only ground of hesitation which any can feel in 
 awarding to evangelical Christians the title of the friends 
 and martyrs of freedom, is the practice of persecution 
 which has too frequently marked their proceedings. 
 Some may think this invalidates their claim, but we 
 humbly apprehend such an idea is a mistaken one. 
 That the Reformers, and even leading men of the Church 
 of a much later day, did not rightly, at least fully, un- 
 derstand the principles of religious toleration, may be 
 readily conceded. Brought up in the persecuting school 
 of the Church of Rome from the days of infancy, it 
 would have been strange if remains of error had not 
 clung to them, the more especially as their religious hap- 
 pened also to be their political opponents. It is granted 
 that all the Protestant Churches and leading denomina- 
 tions proved intolerant where they had the power — the 
 members of Prelatic, Presbyterian, and Congregational 
 Churches. But we would be guilty of gross injustice to 
 some, did we place all upon the same footing with the 
 Church of Rome, or even of some Protestant commu- 
 nions. With few exceptions, Presbyterians can plead 
 guiltless to bloody persecution. The religious wars of 
 France were, on the part of the Protestants, self-defensive; 
 and even the cruelties which took place in Holland 
 were in part of the same character. It is a just boast 
 of the Church of Scotland, that she never shed a drop 
 of human blood ; and the Presbyterians of England and 
 Ireland can rejoice in the same satisfaction. To com- 
 pare the doings of Presbyterians, then, with the Church 
 of Rome, the murderer of many millions of lives, or even 
 
218 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO 
 
 with the sad proceedings of the Church of England in 
 the South, and particularly in Scotland in the seventeenth 
 century, would be to compare things which do not ad- 
 mit of any reasonable comparison. Contrast would be 
 more appropriate. The English Presbyterians did, in- 
 deed, protest most solemnly against toleration and pre- 
 tended liberty of conscience; but what sort of toleration? 
 Toleration in the sense of encouragement to tenets and 
 practices, many of them abominable, blasphemous, and 
 destructive to society. * And with regard to the Scot- 
 tish Presbyterians, though, smarting under the memory 
 of intolerable wrongs, they may have occasionally treated 
 the Episcopal clergy with hard usage; yet, that there 
 was nothing worthy of the name of persecution, as it had 
 been practised in their country, may be gathered from 
 the following extracts from Episcopal writers themselves. 
 Dr. Edwards, an eminent divine of the Church of Eng- 
 land, at the period of the Union, said of the Church of 
 Scotland, " They have with the patience of confessors 
 and martyrs (and such a great number of them were) 
 borne the sufferings which the High Churchmen brought 
 upon them; and now, when they are able to retaliate, 
 they study not revenge, but let the world see that they 
 can forgive as well as suffer." This testimony was given 
 when the religious troubles of Scotland had scarcely sub- 
 sided. Similar is the statement of the present Scottish 
 Episcopal Bishop of Glasgow, w T hose strong prejudices 
 are not unknown. He acknowledges that the intolerance 
 of the Presbyterian Church seldom proceeded beyond the 
 theory of persecution, and except in civil war, w r as un- 
 stained with blood.t So far from being persecuted, two 
 hundred of the Episcopal clergy, at the Revolution of 
 1688, were allowed to retain their parishes; and of those 
 who were not comprehended, it is known that their 
 wants were often relieved by tbeir Presbyterian brethren; 
 while those who had good opportunities of knowledge 
 declare, that in the twenty-eight years of Prelatic perse- 
 cution, they cannot remember to have heard of a case 
 
 * Vide Edwards' Gangrena, passim; also, Ferguson's Refutation, 
 f History, &c, ii. 320. 
 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 219 
 
 where the suffeilng Presbyterian clergy received relief 
 from the clerical hands of Episcopacy. There is ample 
 evidence that the sufferings of the Episcopalians at the 
 Revolution were much exaggerated, and where real, 
 were inflicted, not by the Presbyterian Church, but by 
 lawless mobs. 
 
 Thus substantially cleared from the imputation of 
 persecution, how pleasing to contemplate Presbyterianism 
 as the friend of civil and religious freedom ! The charac- 
 ter originates in the true religion which she circulates, 
 and there is nothing in her peculiarities at war with it. 
 There is nought in the parity of ministers, or their free 
 election by the communicants — in the office of ruling 
 elder, and its popular mode of appointment — and in the 
 power of appeal, in cases of discipline or advice, from 
 court to court — unfavourable to true freedom, but the 
 reverse. Hence the whole history of Scottish Presbyte- 
 rianism is the history of freedom. When Presbytery 
 was depressed, freedom languished; when it revived, 
 freedom revived. Similar is the history of Ireland. One 
 of the most gallant deeds in her history — the mainten- 
 ance of Derry against the Popish forces, and with it the 
 maintenance of the Protestant liberties of the country, 
 if not of the three kingdoms — was the deed, in a chief 
 degree, of Irish Presbyterians. The person who opened 
 up the way to relief was a Presbyterian minister, and 
 nine-tenths of the defenders belonged to the same reli- 
 gious denomination. 
 
 A similar spirit animated the Presbyterians of the 
 United States. While devotedly loyal during the colo- 
 nial era, after the declaration of independence they 
 clung to the liberties of their country ; their ministers 
 were the first publicly to declare in behalf of the national 
 independence; and they did so at no small hazard. In 
 some cases their property was laid waste, their churches 
 burnt down, their ministers murdered ; still they vigor- 
 ously and successfully contended for the honour of their 
 country, and the rights of their countrymen. Nay, it is 
 understood that a Presbyterian minister from Scotland 
 ( Witherspoon) not only rallied the friends of American 
 
220 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO 
 
 freedom at a most critical moment when misgiving was 
 about to spoil all, but had a leading hand in the construc- 
 tion of the American constitution (he was for seven years 
 a member of Congress) — a constitution which, whatever 
 may be thought of it politically, every Christian must 
 rejoice in, inasmuch as under it a great nation has grown 
 up, destined, with the mother country, to spread the 
 blessings of evangelical religion to the ends of the earth. 
 Nor is it irrelevant here to remark, that the freedom, 
 civil and religious, with which the United States have 
 been blessed, and which they have been enabled hitherto 
 to maintain, has been owing, in great measure, to the large 
 amount of Presbyterianism which the country then em- 
 braced, and to which continual accessions have ever 
 since been made. The ample infusion of Dutch, French, 
 German, Irish, and Scottish Presbyterians, with their 
 sound intelligence, industrious habits, moral and religious 
 character, comprehending reverence for the Sabbath 
 among the most important virtues, has doubtless com- 
 municated a steadiness to the frame of government which 
 it would not otherwise have possessed — a stability which 
 favourably contrasts with the unsteadiness of other re- 
 publics, nominally under the same rule, but strangers to 
 the same religious faith. 
 
 Adverting for a moment to other kinds of Church 
 government, few, with the history of the world before 
 them, will think Prelacy entitled to rank among the 
 friends of freedom. In some countries, its injurious 
 tendencies have been in a great measure repressed by a 
 variety of causes; hence it has not prevented their free- 
 dom; but the natural operation is toward pride, ambition, 
 usurped power, exclusiveness — in other words, selfish 
 feelings, which lead to a disregard of what is due to 
 others, and naturally terminate in harshness, if not per- 
 secution. In the fourth and fifth centuries, after Pre- 
 lacy had begun to show itself in the Christian Church, 
 how much real persecution was there! Where prelates 
 did not persecute, how did they encourage the civil power 
 to do so ! In the after ages of the Papacy, what a fear- 
 ful manifestation was there of intense selfish power, de- 
 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 221 
 
 structive of every thing like freedom, sacred or secular! 
 In the Protestant Church of England, when was it that 
 liberty was trampled on ? Was it not when Prelacy, with 
 its exclusive pretensions, was predominant, particularly 
 in the reigns of James VI., Charles I., Charles II., and 
 James VII. ? And who was it that prostrated the 
 liberties of Scotland for twenty-eight years, before one 
 of the most atrocious tyrannies of modern times? Was 
 it not the English and Scottish prelates combined? It 
 is, well known that the Episcopal clergy were the most 
 violent abettors of the persecution of the evangelical 
 Methodists, when they first appeared in England, during 
 the last century. And it is not unknown that some of the 
 leading men of the new Anglican school, at the present 
 day, are already giving expression to sentiments respect- 
 ing Church power essentially intolerant. Individual pre- 
 lates, no doubt, may be referred to distinguished for their 
 love of freedom; but these are exceptions to the rule. 
 Liberty is no characteristic of the system. Even good men 
 — good before — have been spoiled by the Prelates' robes. 
 With regard to Congregationalism, it puts forth high 
 claims to liberty, and I have no hesitation in granting that 
 where evangelical, there is nothing in the system incon- 
 sistent with freedom, and that its adherents have been 
 warm advocates of liberty. But it has been a favourite 
 idea with many in this body, that there is something in 
 the Congregational system more favourable to sound 
 views of toleration, and so of religious liberty, than in 
 Prelacy or Presbytery. Along with this, it is generally 
 contended that the Independents were the first in modern 
 times to understand and practise toleration. Now, no- 
 thing can be more unfounded than such views. That 
 the rule of Cromwell, who may be regarded as the re- 
 presentative of the Independents, was vastly more tole- 
 rarit than that of his predecessor Charles I., or his suc- 
 cessor Charles II., — that, comparatively speaking, his 
 usurpation was an oasis in the wilderness of persecution, 
 may be true; but that there was no suffering on account 
 of religious opinions under his iron sceptre, is far wide 
 of the truth. The Episcopalians were not allowed to 
 
222 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO 
 
 use their liturgy under a penalty, and many of their 
 ministers were hardly dealt with. The Presbyterians of 
 Scotland, too, were not allowed freely to hold their 
 Church courts: these were sometimes broken up by mi- 
 litary; and we have seen that the Presbyterians of Ire- 
 land were exposed to banishment for loyalty to the mo- 
 narch. It is well known, likewise, that the Independents 
 who emigrated to America, visited, particularly upon the 
 Quakers, the most cruel inflictions, even to death. Sig- 
 natures, too, to au " Engagement," or covenant of the In- 
 dependents in England in 1 G50, were as really enforced as 
 ever were signatures to the Solemn League of the Presby- 
 terians; while the fearful inflictions of a few years in 
 America far exceeded, according to Dr. M'Crie, all that 
 could be alleged of the Presbyterian Church of England 
 or Scotland, from its foundation to the present day. * 
 
 The Congregationalists, then, have nothing in point 
 of practice of which to boast over their Presbyterian 
 
 * Had this little work not already exceeded the limits which were 
 originally intended, it would not be difficult to vindicate the Presby- 
 terians from any serious charge of persecution in connection with 
 the signing of the " Solemn League and Covenant," and kindred 
 points. It could be shown, from the testimony of such men as Hen- 
 derson, Dickson, Cant, and Lord Loudon, that parties were not forced 
 to take the covenant, or punished for refusal ; that any cases of this 
 kind were rare and unauthorized; that the league was most cordially 
 embraced, without any compulsion from Church or State, by the 
 great body of the nation; and that any undue influence was chiefly 
 employe 1 against the covenant. It could be shown, also, from the 
 exhortations of the Westminster Assembly, and the speeches of such 
 members as Coleman, Caryl, Palmer, Thorowgood, &c, that they 
 disapproved of the propagation of religion by force, and that it was 
 mainly the seditio-political, and not the erroneous-religious, against 
 which their exertions were directed, and which gave to their senti- 
 ments and proceedings the air of persecution. The case is correctly 
 stated by " the Reformed Presbytery" in their Explanation and 
 Defence of Terms of Communion in 1801. " If any otherwise peace- 
 able and inoffensive subjects in Church and State, had religious 
 scruples in their own mind, both the open doctrine and uniform 
 practice of our pious ancestors recommended all possible tenderness 
 in labouring to have them removed. But, on the other hand, when 
 cruel Popish factions, under the fair pretence of only claiming a 
 liberty to serve God in their own way, were plotting the utter ruin 
 of both Church and State, and seeking the overthrow of all laws, 
 human and divine, in such a case, indeed, they could not help think- 
 ing that salutary restraint and well-regulated coercion were indis- 
 pensably necessary. And what nation under heaven, properly con- 
 sulting her own safety and happiness in time of danger, would not 
 find it advisable to act on the same great principle ?" 
 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 223 
 
 brethren; and in regard to their earlier holding sound 
 theoretical views of toleration and religious liberty, the 
 same high historical authority shows that as correct 
 sentiments were entertained from a much earlier date hy 
 the Reformers and first Puritans, who were Presbyterian, 
 than by the Independents ; that soon after the Reforma- 
 tion, the same views were common among the Presbyte- 
 rians of Holland and France;* that it was not the 
 principles of the Sectaries, but of the Reformers and their 
 successors, which lay, and still lie, at the foundation of 
 British freedom ; that the writings of leading Indepen- 
 dents at the period referred to betray decided symptoms 
 of intolerance and persecution; and that it was the ex- 
 travagant and most injurious proceedings of many of 
 them which, by driving matters to extremities in Eng- 
 land, created a reaction, lost all the immense advantages 
 of a sound civil and ecclesiastical reformation, destroyed 
 the monarch, and recalled persecution with its horrors 
 and blood. While, then, the British Independents are 
 acquitted of any serious persecution, it cannot be con- 
 ceded to them that in this respect they are superior to 
 their Presbyterian brethren, and much less that there 
 was, or is, anything in their principles more favourable to 
 true and scriptural freedom. For the historical proof of 
 the latter points vide an admirable u Review of Orme's 
 Life of Owen by Dr. M'Crie," republished in the volume 
 of his "Miscellaneous Writings." — Edin. 1841. 
 
 Were it necessary to state anything farther in corro- 
 boration of the above views, we might appeal to the 
 preface to the important work, " Jus Divinum Regiminis 
 Ecclesiastici," by the London Presbyterian ministers, 
 where they ably vindicate themselves and the form of 
 Church government to which they were attached, both 
 in principle and practice, from the charge of " tyranniz- 
 
 * When the Scottish Episcopal clergy, after the Revolution of 
 1688, earnestly petitioned for a larger toleration than was considered 
 safe to grant, they pleaded the case of Presbyterian Holland as an 
 example of the safety and advantages of an unlimited toleration, 
 proved by experience. It may be noticed, as at once a curious and 
 interesting circumstance, indicative of the spirit of freedom, that 
 the Presbyterian Puritans of England were the first to abolish the 
 use of torture in judicial cases. (Edinburgh Review. 1828.) 
 
224 PRESBYTERIAN ISM FAVOURABLE, ETC. 
 
 ing over any." We might appeal to the fact that the 
 Independents did not press for religious toleration till 
 they saw that the Presbyterians were about to be esta- 
 blished; in short, that there was no enlightened principle 
 in their toleration, such as it was, but the factious desire 
 to disappoint a rival — while their specious conduct was 
 one of the influential causes in the restoration of 
 the civil and religious despotism of the Stuarts. But 
 we prefer to allow Richard Baxter, who lived among 
 them and knew their sentiments well, to describe their 
 character. " The poor Church of Christ," says he, " the 
 sober, sound, religious part, are like Christ that was 
 crucified between two malefactors. The profane and for- 
 mal persecutors on the one hand, and the fanatic dividing 
 sectaries on the other, have in all ages been grinding the 
 spiritual seed as the corn is ground between the mill- 
 stones; and, though their sins have ruined themselves 
 and us, and silenced so many hundreds of ministers, and 
 scattered the flocks, and made us the hatred and scorn of 
 the ungodly world, and a by-word and a desolation on 
 the earth, yet there are few of them that lament their 
 sin," &c, &c. Is it possible to suppose that these men were 
 the first discoverers of toleration, and the genuine friends 
 of freedom, civil or religious — the calumniators and ene- 
 mies of the most faithful servants of God — of such men 
 as Baxter, the apostle of peace and union? The sec- 
 taries, indeed, have got credit with various historical 
 writers for being the first in British history to understand 
 the principles of liberty, but the more the claim is exa- 
 mined, the less will the reader be disposed to allow it. 
 From accidental circumstances, their name has come to 
 be associated with the sacred cause; but this is all. They 
 were the instructors of Locke, the first great philoso- 
 phical writer on toleration. It is a hasty inference, 
 however, to conclude that it was from them exclusively 
 he derived his enlarged views of freedom. His first 
 Letter on toleration, which is considered by many the 
 most able and original of his writings, was composed not 
 among the Independents of England, but among the 
 Presbyterians of Holland — a country where full religious 
 toleration had been in exercise for generations. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO CATHOLIC 
 VIEWS OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 The quality of character here pointed at may be re- 
 garded as involved in those which precede. If Presby- 
 tery be favourable to the maintenance of sound doctrine, 
 knowledge, and freedom, it naturally allies itself with 
 enlarged views of the Christian Church, at least narrow 
 views of it are inconsistent with these. But the subject 
 at the present day is so important, that it deserves a sepa- 
 rate notice. I do not charge individual Christians, and 
 far less Churches, holding the opposite forms of Church 
 government, the Congregational and Prelatic, with bigotry 
 or uncharitableness. There may be countervailing in- 
 fluences, and multitudes of the actual members in both 
 cases, it is well known, are distinguished for as enlarged 
 views and warm-hearted liberality as any Presbyterian 
 can lay claim to; but reasoning on the tendencies of 
 religious systems — tendencies, too, whose operation is 
 borne out by facts — we believe it admits of proof that 
 Presbytery as a whole, and Presbyterian Churches in 
 point of fact, have proved more favourable to catholicity 
 than the opposite forms of ecclesiastical organization. 
 Presbyterian Churches have often been charged with an 
 exclusive and bigoted spirit, and we are far from deny- 
 ing their culpability in this respect. Where they have 
 consisted of small bodies, maintaining the character of 
 protesters testifying against the failures and sins of 
 
226 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO 
 
 others, there is no small danger of the indulgence of 
 such a spirit, while the very completeness of their orga- 
 nization and the publicity of their proceedings tend to 
 force that spirit upon public observation. Such a posi- 
 tion as that referred to has very frequently been the 
 position of Presbytery. It is the attitude of not a few 
 Presbyterian Churches at the present day, as it has been 
 for generations. In these circumstances, it is not won- 
 derful that many have come to associate illiberality with 
 Presbytery,though the associationis accidental, and much 
 more due to other bodies, which, however, owing to less 
 prominency of position, have escaped the imputation. 
 
 That Presbytery is propitious to enlarged views of 
 the Church of Christ, is, we humbly apprehend, unde- 
 niable. The members of the Church are taught to look 
 beyond their individual congregation — they are taught 
 that they form part of a great whole, consisting of many 
 congregations. Representatives of this large visible 
 Church regularly assemble from the most distant parts 
 of the country, for the management of its business, in 
 the sight of the members. These representatives, taken 
 as a whole, are little, if at all, raised in rank above the 
 members; hence there is no interruption to full sym- 
 pathy. They are also so numerous as to furnish a fair idea 
 to the mind of the collective Church. Can any one doubt 
 that such a system as this is far more favourable to catho- 
 lic views oi the Church of Christ in general, than a 
 Church consisting of a number of individual congregations 
 without any tie to, or necessary knowledge of, each other? 
 How great must be the tendency in these cases to limit 
 the view and interest to one's own congregation, as if it 
 were the only Church, and so to nurse a narrow and 
 exclusive spirit ! There is no tendency in the system to 
 carry the Christian out of the congregation in which he 
 worships — there are no regular courts of representatives 
 from a distance to remind him of the unity as well as 
 the extent of the Church. He may, and often is, a large- 
 minded Christian notwithstanding; but it is not in con- 
 sequence of the organization with which he is associated, 
 but in spite of it. So in regard to Prelacy. Here there 
 
CATHOLIC VIEWS OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 227 
 
 may be a sufficiently expanded and at the same time 
 united body, but the union is not visible nor frequently 
 and impressively exhibited. Twenty-six bishops spread 
 over such a country as England — not seen by the people 
 as Church rulers more frequently than once in three years 
 — often at far greater intervals — removed also above the 
 great mass of the people in rank — associated in the public 
 eye chiefly with temporal peers, transacting secular busi- 
 ness — can give the members of the Church of England a 
 very faint idea of the unity of the Church of Christ. Even 
 in the most favourable circumstances, though the rulers 
 stood on the same footing with their brethren of the Scottish 
 Prelacy, no one could allege that the relationship of 
 member and governor was such as to encourage the 
 feelings of expansion and catholicity. In point of fact, 
 there is great isolation in the congregations of the Epis- 
 copal Church; the ministers are to a large extent prac- 
 tically Independents. Neither they nor their flocks could 
 draw from the organization in which they stand the 
 ideas and impressions of a universal Church. There is 
 a want of close and intimate connection between gover- 
 nor and governed, congregation and congregation. Now, 
 it is from enlarged views of the particular Church with 
 which men are connected that their minds naturally 
 expand to other Churches, tili they are able to take in the 
 idea of the holy Church Catholic. "Wehold that here Pres- 
 bytery has a decided advantage. From its very constitu- 
 tion, easily and without effort, it trains men to large views 
 of the Church of Christ. 
 
 And the facts of history seem to bear out these 
 reasonings of principle. There is a wonderful and 
 delightful harmony in the Confessions of Faith of 
 the Churches of the Reformation on the subject of the 
 Church visible and universal. Substantially they speak 
 the same language. The predominant party in the Church 
 of England and Ireland might well be referred to the 
 19th article of their own Church, the Irish brethren to 
 the 13th chapter of the Confession drawn up by Ussher 
 — they could not find a stronger condemnation of their 
 prevailing spirit, nor a clearer testimony to the univer- 
 
228 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO 
 
 sality of the Church of Christ. But however correct 
 and excellent, these are short and general compared 
 with the statements of Presbyterian Churches on the 
 same subject. In the Confessions of Switzerland, 
 Bohemia, France, Belgium, Saxony, Scotland, there are 
 a fulness and a strength which we do not meet with in 
 the Confessions of Prelacy, though the sentiments be the 
 same. One feels, in reading them, that the view of catho- 
 licity had a firmer, or at least a warmer, hold on the 
 minds of the Presbyterian than of the Prelatic Re- 
 formers. And when we descend to subsequent times, the 
 proof in this respect of superiority becomes more visible. 
 It is well known, that from the days of Archbishop Laud, 
 in the middle of the seventeenth century, downwards to 
 the present time, there has always been a powerful party 
 in the Church of England, and now so numerous and 
 influential as to be well-nigh supreme, who make Prelacy 
 essential to the being of the Church of Christ. The 
 natural and the necessary inference from this, whether 
 men have the courage to draw it or not, is, that there is 
 no salvation beyond the pale of Prelatic organization. 
 The immediate effect of this, again, of course, is to create 
 and cherish the most narrow, illiberal, and God-dishon- 
 ouring view r s of the Church of Christ. For many years 
 there has been a corresponding and growing party in the 
 American Episcopal Church, not less exclusive; while 
 there is reason to fear that the small Episcopal Church 
 of Scotland is not free from a large admixture of the 
 same spirit. However we attempt to explain it, the fact 
 is indubitable, that in Scotland, England, and America, 
 (we may add the British Colonies), Prelacy is found in 
 combination with the most narrow and bigoted views of 
 the Church of Christ — views not only at war with the 
 Word of God, but the professed standards of the parties 
 themselves. Surely this indicates no small strength of 
 error. To say the least, there can be nothing in Prelacy 
 to counteract bigotry. But there is more than this; it 
 seems impossible to explain the universality of the expe- 
 rience, in circumstances so different, upon any other sup- 
 position than that Prelacy in itself is an active propa- 
 
CATHOLIC VIEWS OF THE CHURCH OP CHRIST. 220 
 
 gator of the narrow and anti- Christian views to which 
 we refer — that there is a congeniality between the system 
 and the fruit. Individual Presbyterians, and even 
 small Presbyterian Churches, may for a time have prac- 
 tically indulged in very contracted and unworthy notions 
 of the Church of Christ. But when was it ever heard 
 that large bodies of Presbyterians, almost entire Churches, 
 as matter of doctrinal faith, put Prelatists and Congrega- 
 tionalists beyond the pale of Christianity, or even made 
 the least approach to such a spirit and proceedings ? and 
 yet these are familiar on the part of Prelatists, as the 
 writings of leading men on both sides of the Atlantic 
 amply testify. 
 
 In regard to Congregationalism, it is no more than 
 justice to say, that while the absence of Confessions of 
 Faith in Independent Churches prevents us appealing in 
 the same certain manner to the professed views of the 
 body on the subject of the Church of Christ, there is 
 no reason to believe that any of them entertain ideas so 
 repulsive and extravagant as those of modern Prelacy. 
 Many of them may hold very narrow views of Church 
 fellowship, and the tendency of their organization may 
 be to isolation and exclusiveness in their general ideas of 
 the Church of Christ; but it would be doing a manifest 
 injustice to the large and excellent body of evangelical 
 Congregationalists, both in Britain and America, to class, 
 or even seem to class, them for a moment with the advo- 
 cates of High Church and pretended apostolic succession. 
 They can have little in common. 
 
 While the standards of Presbyterian Churches bear 
 witness to enlarged and catholic views of the Church of 
 Christ, we think that the facts of their history are in a 
 main degree in harmony with their professed creed. Of 
 course we speak of Churches only while they retain their 
 evangelical character. It is difficult to quote evidence 
 on such a subject; but in addition to the fact that the 
 "Westminster Confession of Faith — subscribed by most 
 Presbyterian Churches both in this country and the 
 United States — does not unchurch non-Presbyterians, 
 does not maintain that the ministry consists only of in- 
 Q 
 
230 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO 
 
 dividual s holding Presbyterian ordination, and draws a 
 clear distinction between the Presbyterian Church and 
 the Church universal — limiting the expression that there 
 is no salvation out of the Church to the latter ; contend- 
 ing, in short, for some government as essential to the 
 Church of Christ, but not restricting it to Presbytery. 
 In addition to these general grounds, we have such a 
 testimony to the Church of England from the commis- 
 sioners of the General Assembly of the Church of Scot- 
 land, assembled in London in 1644, as the following. 
 Speaking of the Church of England at the Reformation 
 and subsequently they say : " We do, upon very good 
 reasons, judge the Church of England in the midst of 
 her ceremonies to have been a true Church; and the 
 ministry thereof, notwithstanding the many blemishes 
 and corruptions cleaving unto it, to have been a true 
 ministry ; and shall never deny unto them that praise, 
 whether in debating controversies with Papists, or in 
 practical divinity for private Christians, which they do 
 most justly deserve. Upon the other part, we are neither 
 so ignorant nor so arrogant to ascribe to the Church of 
 Scotland such absolute purity and perfection as hath not 
 need, or cannot admit of, further reformation ; yet that 
 there is a wide difference between the one and the other, 
 acknowledged also in the common covenant, we bring two 
 famous witnesses from the Church of England to prove," 
 viz., Brightman and Cartwright. When it is remem- 
 bered what was the relation in which the Presby- 
 terian Church stood at that time to the Church of 
 England — how much the former had suffered, and 
 were about to suffer, from the friends of the latter, 
 the testimony is the more remarkable. It is sufficient 
 to show that the Scottish Church, even in the days of 
 the covenant, was not that exclusive and illiberal body 
 which many of the ill-informed imagine. In the same 
 spirit Robert Baillie, one of the commissioners, in his 
 book against Archbishop Laud, says : " With the Eng- 
 lish Church we have nought to do, but as with our most 
 dear and nearest sister. We wish them all happiness, 
 and that not only they, but all other Christian Churches, 
 
CATHOLIC VIEWS OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 231 
 
 this day were both almost and altogether such as we are, 
 except our afflictions. We hare no enemies there but 
 the Canterbury faction, no less heavy to her than to us." 
 (Ladensiam, &c, p. 97.) Surely there is nothing here 
 of the illiberal and the bigoted. And if we pass from 
 England to Scotland, in the very midst of the Prelatic 
 persecution, we hear a leading minister of the Church of 
 Scotland (Kirkton) speaking of the usurpers who had 
 seized the places of the ejected ministers, exclaim, " God 
 forbid that I should say the Lord had no interest among 
 them." 
 
 Coming down to our own day, and appealing to the 
 spirit of the Presbyterian Church with which I am best 
 acquainted, I might well ask whether the Free Church 
 of Scotland be exclusive or illiberal? From the peculiar 
 circumstances in the providence of God in which she 
 has been placed, the peculiar testimony which she has 
 been called upon to bear, she may have been exposed in 
 some quarters to the imputation of uncharitableness. 
 But what Church has shown a more cordial welcome to 
 other Churches ? Not only on the Bicentenary celebra- 
 tion of the Westminster Assembly was there a kindly 
 interchange of Christian sentiment and feeling among 
 bodies which had long been separate, but from year to 
 year leading ministers of Foreign Churches occupy a pro- 
 minent place at the meetings of her General Assembly, 
 and receive the most cordial proofs of co-operation 
 Regular correspondence is kept up by her with Chris- 
 tians abroad, while the recent movement in behalf of 
 greater union among all evangelical Christians, was it 
 not originated by, at least largely indebted for its impulse 
 to, her energy ? This augurs the more, as she is natu- 
 rally and justly jealous of any union which would 
 obscure the peculiar testimony which she has been 
 called to bear before the Churches and kingdoms of 
 Christendom. If suspicion and alienation prevail in any 
 quarter, it may be safely said that they do not lie with 
 her; and yet it would not have been strange, if, smarting 
 from injustice and reproach, she had stood aloof from 
 others. It is not only with Presbyterians that she readily 
 
232 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE, ETC. 
 
 co-operates : — the TVesleyan Methodists, differing from 
 her to some extent in doctrine as well as ecclesiastical 
 government, find in her a warm friend, and affectionately 
 reciprocate the regard. Can more, yea, can as much, 
 be alleged of Prelacy and Independency towards other 
 bodies, surveying their history and present relations as a 
 whole ? It is plain, then, that the tendencies of Presby- 
 tery are towards catholic views of the Church of Christ; 
 and in an age when narrow Popish views are rapidly 
 reviving, how important is it that we should be able to 
 make this statement ! 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE MAINTEN- 
 ANCE OF SCRIPT URAL PRINCIPLES AND PRIVILEGES 
 IN PEACEFUL AND ADVERSE TIMES. 
 
 It is a high recommendation of any system, whether 
 civil or ecclesiastical, that it is strong in its self- 
 preserving and self-diffusing power. What avails it 
 that a system be good, if it be destined soon to decay, 
 from the absence of the principle of perpetueition ? The 
 more excellent it is, in these circumstances its weakness 
 is the more to be regretted. Now, happily, such is not 
 the character of Presbyterianism. It is armed with the 
 principle of self-preservation, and hence is able to 
 maintain and diffuse whatever good qualities it possesses, 
 even in unpropitious times. 
 
 1. With regard to times of peace, it provides, in 
 its very constitution, for a warm sympathy, wise con- 
 sultation, and successful co-operation, among the office- 
 bearers of the Church. All know how much is gained 
 in the conduct of important business,* by a number of 
 intelligent men meeting together — consulting — throw- 
 ing out suggestions — comparing their ideas, and join- 
 ing in the execution of the same plans. In this way, 
 many good hints are given and received — incipient 
 misapprehensions corrected, and evils prevented. Thus, 
 too, younger and inexperienced men are encouraged by 
 older; and, where it is necessary to do what may be 
 delicate or unwelcome, the fact of a number doing 
 
234 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE 
 
 it together, takes off the difficulty from individuals. 
 Hence duty is discharged to the Church and to society, 
 which probably would otherwise be left undone. These 
 are great advantages in connection with Presbyterian 
 Church courts, which can scarcely be appreciated by 
 those who have not experienced them. They indeed 
 serve to strengthen the hands and encourage the 
 heart. How different the case of the man, probably 
 a young pastor, who is left, in addition to all the natural 
 difficulties of his office, to struggle with many adver- 
 sities, without an official friend with whom to confer, or 
 from whom to obtain sympathy and aid ! 
 
 Then there is the diffusive power of Presbytery. 
 Education, missions, and other plans of spiritual good, 
 are wrought out through the medium of the Church 
 herself. It is not necessary to form general associations, 
 composed of individuals who are friendly, of different 
 denominations, imperfectly known to each other, and 
 without any well-defined and satisfactory principles of 
 union. No ; the work naturally falls into the hands 
 of the Church courts, as the representatives and organs 
 of the whole body of members. This is the scriptural 
 mode; not, of course, excluding others where, from 
 particular circumstances, it is unattainable. A richer 
 blessing may therefore be expected to attend it; and, 
 moreover, it is a way safe from a variety of dangers to 
 which any other is exposed. Thus there is a provision 
 in the very constitution of Presbyterianism for its 
 perpetuity, and, with it, the truth of God, with all its 
 unspeakable blessings. Is it not an evil, when, before 
 a Church can proceed to the discharge of the plainest 
 and most imperative duty — that of the propagation of 
 the Gospel — it is necessary to go out of the Church 
 herself, and to get up some extraneous machinery, which 
 the parties themselves do not believe to be recognised 
 in the Word ? So much for the working of Presbytery 
 in peaceful times. 
 
 2. With regard to times of trial and danger — such 
 times as all Churches may sooner or later expect in one 
 form or another — how admirable is the defensive armour 
 
MAINTENANCE OF SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES, ETC. 235 
 
 which Presbyterianism throws around the truth of God, 
 and all the principles and constitution of the Christian 
 Church ! In such cases, with the Divine blessing, 
 safety and success depend upon promptitude and union 
 of operation. Without these all other means are vain. 
 Now Presbytery beautifully provides for them. Many 
 are apt to imagine, that, ^vhatever may be the good 
 qualities of this form of Church government in resisting 
 aggression, promptitude is not in the number. Now, 
 under reluctant or bad management, this may often 
 have been the case; but, in its own nature, there is 
 nothing inconsistent with rapid decision and action. 
 Take the constitution of the Church of Scotland, in 
 connection with a recent question, as an illustration. 
 A few years ago, the Church felt it to be her duty to 
 resist a proposed bill for the reform of the Universities, 
 which she believed would have been destructive to their 
 true character, and, through them, injurious to the 
 Church. Extraordinary meetings of Presbyteries and 
 Synods, and of the Commission of the General Assem- 
 bly, on a few days' notice, were called. The question 
 was discussed — the evils of the proposed measure 
 powerfully exposed; the result was, that the bill was 
 withdrawn by the Government. The truth is, that 
 nothing can be more flexible than the constitution of 
 the Church of Scotland. Of late years, previous to the 
 Disruption, every regular meeting of the Commission 
 was attended. This may be said to bring the supreme 
 court into play four times a-year. Besides, by a requi- 
 sition to the moderator, it may be called at any time 
 on a few days' intimati on. In this way the supreme 
 power is ever ready to act. What more could be 
 wished in the form of defence ? 
 
 Nor is promptitude of movement all. There is what 
 is not less essential, union — united resistance. It is, 
 not only a great advantage to a Church to be spread 
 over a whole country, so that every part can be touched 
 at once; it is still more important that the ministers 
 and elders are united together in presbyterial courts, 
 and these again in synods, so that there is an extensive 
 
236' PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE 
 
 organization, not hurriedly got up for the occasion, 
 but standing as a fixed and regular part of the eccle- 
 siastical machinery, ever ready to be called into play on 
 a few hours' notice. It is not easy to estimate* the 
 advantage which this gives for defence. Suppose that 
 any aggression were made upon the constitution of 
 Prelatical or Congregational Churches : they might be 
 trodden down, at least seriously damaged, before they 
 could muster strength to explain their cause to the 
 public, and defend themselves. An extensive organi- 
 zation would need to be prepared, and this demands 
 time: even where it exists, there might be a want of 
 understanding with, and confidence in, the members. The 
 movement, too, might be open to many misunderstand- 
 ings and misrepresentations. These evils are prevented 
 by regular Church courts. The defence comes naturally, 
 and it is immediate. It proceeds from a variety of 
 quarters at once. It is also effective, because the parties 
 fully understand each other. Through the organs of 
 the public press, too, they enjoy a ready and ascertained 
 mode of communicating with the community. It was 
 remarked in a recent controversy, in which the Church 
 of England felt a deep interest — in which, indeed, her 
 very existence as an Establishment was at stake — that 
 she was never able to gather up and present her strength. 
 The ministers of one diocese might be anxious to act, 
 but they were repressed by the coldness or want of 
 organization in the adjoining diocese. Hence nothing 
 was done by either. Meantime temporary advantages 
 were gained by their assailants from acting on Presby- 
 terian organization; this forming, however, no part of 
 the fixed constitution of their Churches, gradually fell 
 away. It is doubtless owing in part to this superior 
 Presbyterian organization, that any petitions to Parlia- 
 ment from this country, on great public questions, of 
 late years have, proportionally, so far surpassed those 
 of the Church of England. 
 
 Thus it is apparent that Presbytery is favourable to 
 the maintenance of scriptural principles, and the diffu- 
 sion of divine truth, generally, in times of trouble and 
 
MAINTENANCE OF SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES, ETC. 237 
 
 danger, as well as in days of peace. Any organization 
 which other Churches may get up for the accomplish- 
 ment of their objects, is but an approximation to the 
 Presbyterian — at best defective, and ever ready to fall 
 away. Their very creation is a testimony to the ad- 
 vantages of Presbyterian Church government. The 
 success of the struggles of the past was more owing to 
 its presence than many are perhaps aware; and the 
 struggles of the future, if successful, will, in all like- 
 lihood, be indebted, under God, to the same cause. 
 Such being the case, let all who have influence seek to 
 purify and strengthen the courts of the Presbyterian 
 Church yet more and more. Let them see to their 
 right constitution in the mode of appointment of office- 
 bearers; let them see that there is a full complement of 
 office-bearers — that these make it a matter of conscience 
 regularly to attend and to take their share in the 
 responsibility ; and lastly, let it be matter of care that 
 office-bearers conduct the business in such a spirit of 
 wisdom and meekness, as well as freedom and fidelity, 
 that none of that large class in all communities who are 
 determined in their judgment of the good or evil of a 
 system by the conduct of its administrators, may have 
 any occasion to find fault with Presbytery, but rather to 
 commend and to rejoice in it. 
 
 To escape, if possible, from the imputation of parti- 
 sanship in dealing with the delicacies involved in this 
 chapter, I am glad to have it in my power to appeal to 
 a witness who, from his known attachment to Episco- 
 pacy, will be regarded as sufficiently impartial when 
 pointing out its known and felt defects. The London 
 Record, which, perhaps more than any other religious 
 paper, may be considered as well acquainted with the 
 character of the evangelical party in the Church of 
 England, laments, under date 12th December 1845, the 
 timidity of the evangelical clergy of that Church; and 
 this as the effect of the system of which they form a part. 
 The editor speaks of the sad failure of all their efforts 
 against the evils and dangers of the times, attributes it 
 to a great deficiency of courage, and that again to the 
 
238 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE 
 
 position of the ministry being extremely unfavourable to 
 united and energetic action. He then goes on to say: 
 " The Episcopal form of government exercises unseen 
 an influence over the whole clerical body, perfectly 
 withering to independent and energetic action." After 
 referring to what " Presbyterianism had developed with 
 prodigious energy in the Free Church in Scotland," he 
 adds, " Our forces, though nominally united and appa- 
 rently serving under one banner, possess no power of 
 effective action against the master mischief of the age." 
 " The feebleness, and consequent incapacity to encounter 
 with success the torrent of evil, is mainly to be traced to 
 our Episcopal form of government, and very prominently 
 to the unscriptural influence which the bishops and 
 higher dignitaries of the Church exercise over the clergy 
 at large. It is held by multitudes of the evangelical 
 clergy as a duty (which is absolutely fatal to united and 
 energetic action) of going as far with the views and 
 wishes of their bishop as they possibly can, instead of 
 embracing and acting on an enlarged view of what the 
 circumstances of the Church require." 
 
 Without meaning to reflect for a moment on the cha- 
 racter of men, as a body, so estimable and laborious, it 
 is plain that they are the victims of their position; that, 
 from the power of circumstances, the result must sub- 
 stantially be what the Record describes. Nor is it limited 
 to the adherents of Episcopacy. Where the free Church 
 courts of Presbytery are abandoned, and Presbyterian 
 ministers practically become Independents, experience 
 proclaims that they lose the public spirit, and energy, and 
 united action for which their fathers were distinguished. 
 The intelligent student of Church history can mark a 
 loss of public spirit in the Presbyterian Churches of 
 France and Switzerland, when they lost their public 
 courts. The comparative narrowness of spirit and timi- 
 dity of action in Presbyterian ministers on the Conti- 
 nent, otherwise estimable, at the present time, may be 
 traced back to the same unhappy cause. 
 
 Let it not be supposed that there is any peculiarity in 
 the English soil or the English mind. It is the ecclesi- 
 
etc, 239 
 
 astical system which, in the course of one or two gene- 
 rations, imperceptibly but surely operating, moulds the 
 general character, and assimilates those who are under 
 its dominion to its own likeness. Presbytery had onee 
 its hold in England as well as in Scotland, and had it 
 been favoured with but fair play for a few years, no one 
 can tell how different might have been the condition and 
 prospects of that country at the present day from what 
 they are. It may seem like idle Presbyterian predilec- 
 tion, but as matter of serious belief we cordially adopt 
 the sentiment of a much-respected brother, well qualified, 
 from position as well as knowledge, to judge, when he 
 says: "While we rejoice unfeignedly in the successful 
 labours of Christian ministers in other communions, we 
 will not disguise our belief, that nothing can so effec- 
 tually meet the present crisis in English Christianity as 
 a revival of the Presbyterian polity and the Presbyterian 
 pastorate — that polity and pastorate which in ten years 
 did more to render England a religious people than all 
 the discursive efforts of different denominations since"* 
 
 * Rev. James Hamilton, Regent Square Church, London. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE FAVOURABLE OPERATION OF PRESBYTERIANISM 
 ILLUSTRATED IN THE FREE CHURCH MOVEMENT 
 OF SCOTLAND. 
 
 During the five years which have elapsed since the 
 publication of the former edition of this little work, there 
 has been marked changes in Christendom respecting 
 Church government, especially as regards Prelacy and 
 Presbytery. The Prelacy of the Church of Rome has 
 become more organized and active, and so far as the 
 State would allow, similar progress has characterized the 
 Prelacy of the Church of England, both at home and in 
 the colonies. It is true, that in reference to the latter, 
 there has been no improvement in real discipline. Mr. 
 Ward retained his fellowship three years unchallenged, 
 he himself tells us, after publicly declaring that he re- 
 nounced no one Romish doctrine in subscribing the 
 articles of the Church of England ; Dr. Pusey, after all 
 that has passed, continues to preach sermons which are 
 publicly described as " Popery all over " with the most 
 perfect impunity; and a curate at Leamington, for well- 
 nigh reviving the confessional, was simply told by the 
 diocesan, that he withdrew his liberty to labour in his 
 diocese, and that he hoped he would use more discretion 
 in the next diocese to which he might repair ! Though, 
 however, there be no improvement in the government of 
 the Church of England, it is quickened in its existing 
 powers, and particularly against evangelical religion. As 
 
FAVOURABLE OPERATION OP PRESBYTERIANISM. 241 
 
 Prelacy has become more active, so has Presbytery; in- 
 deed the one movement naturally leads to the other. 
 Without meaning the smallest disparagement to other 
 forms of ecclesiastical rule, we believe it may be affirmed 
 with truth, that Prelacy and Presbytery are the most 
 natural antagonists, and that the rise of Prelatic Popery 
 and High Churchism in England and elsewhere in these 
 latter days, is likely to lead to the revival of Presbyterian- 
 ism, as the most suitable opponent. Many who are non- 
 Presbyterian give credit to Presbytery as the best form of 
 government for warring with adverse civil power, and 
 imagine that it drew its origin from such a necessity in the 
 days of the Reformation. But, not to suggest that much 
 of the enmity to the truth and kingdom of Christ down 
 to the end is represented in the book of prophecy as pro- 
 ceeding from the rulers of this world, it may be remarked, 
 that if Presbyterian organization be a favourable one for 
 meeting the combined array of hostile civil governments, 
 for the same reason it must be well fitted for maintain- 
 ing the truth against the organization of Prelacy, whether 
 Popish or semi- Popish. These opponents require to be 
 met by easy combination and general and instantaneous 
 action, as well as the others ; and surely much more of 
 these is to be found in united Presbytery than in isolated 
 Congregationalism. 
 
 We know not whether it be owing to any felt 
 necessity of this kind, but, as compared with Con- 
 gregationalism, there has of late years been a decided 
 revival of the principles of Presbytery. The symptoms 
 of this revival may be traced, not only in the publication 
 of various important works, but in the improved strength 
 and spirit of not a few Presbyterian bodies, and in the 
 growing adoption, if not in words, yet in proceedings, of 
 Presbyterian principles by other bodies. Looking abroad, 
 we find the Free Church of the Canton de Yaud in the 
 act of organizing on thorough Presbyterian principles. 
 The Protestant Church of Prussia, also, in anxious 
 deliberation about an organization which shall bring 
 her still nearer to the Presbyterian model. Among 
 the evangelical ministers of Belgium and France, 
 
242 FAVOURABLE OPERATION OF PRESBYTERIANISM 
 
 whether connected with the National Church or not, 
 we find earnest inquiries and discussions about a right 
 system of Presbyterian Church government as loudly 
 called for by their necessities. We find the Presbyterian 
 Church of England so revived as to count six presby- 
 teries with numerous congregations, and surrounded with 
 applications for ministers which, at present, she cannot 
 meet. Meanwhile, she has for the first time started a 
 theological college, in favourable circumstances, and 
 with promising prospects. The Presbyterian Church 
 in Ireland, during the last five years, as we had occa 
 sion to notice, has made decided progress. In Scot- 
 land, again, there has been the Free Church move- 
 ment, which is thoroughly Presbyterian in its organi- 
 zation and spirit. Before alluding to it a little more 
 particularly, it may be noticed, in connection with the 
 Free Church at home, that there has been Presbyterian 
 progress in the colonies, and especially in Canada. 
 During the last few years, the congregations of both 
 have increased at once in numbers and spirit. In Scot- 
 land, two important Presbyterian Churches have in- 
 corporated. Besides traces of direct revival, other bodies, 
 non- Presbyterian, have, in a season of trial, been con- 
 strained to act upon Presbyterian principles. When 
 heresy lately appeared in Congregational Churches in 
 Scotland, the sound called the unsound to account, tried 
 them by an implied Confession of Faith, and separated 
 them from their fellowship; thus practically acting upon 
 principles inconsistent with strict Independency, but 
 fully recognised and daily acted upon by Presbytery. 
 In England, again, the leading and most influential organ 
 of Congregationalism has more than once declared that 
 the Independency for which it contendsisnotextreme; that 
 it would be well satisfied to see such a connection among 
 the Churches as to regulate the ordination, translation, 
 and deposition of pastors; apart from which a general sus- 
 tentation fund for the gospel ministry — an object not only 
 desirable, but in these days of advancing Popery urgently 
 needful — is believed to be impracticable. Here, again, is 
 a substantial recognition of Presbyterian organization. 
 
ILLUSTRATED IN THE FREE CIIURCII MOVEMENT. 243 
 
 But, we turn to the Free Church movement in Scot- 
 land, as eminently illustrative of the successful operation 
 of Presbytery. Whatever injury Presbyterianism as 
 connected with the Establishment may have sustained, 
 has been far more than counterbalanced by the display 
 of Presbyterian principles in this separate body. Nay, 
 that display has held up Presbytery in general, before 
 the Christian world, and proclaimed its advantages in a 
 manner almost unknown before, certainly unknown to 
 the present generation. u The Disruption of the Scot- 
 tish Church," remarked a friend from America, " was a 
 proud day for Presbytery;" and if the fidelity and sacri- 
 fices of that day were recommendatory of the form of 
 Church government under which the office-bearers and 
 members had been trained, the preparation which pre- 
 ceded and the proceedings which have followed, bear a 
 similar attestation. It was not the Presbyterian govern- 
 ment of the Church of Scotland which led to its Disrup- 
 tion in 1843. Ignorant and prejudiced men may allege 
 this ; but, in truth, the event was owing to civil courts 
 invading an old scriptural and civilly recognised consti- 
 tution; and the legislature of the land, instead of staying 
 the invasion, giving to it the seal of their sanction. 
 The Presbyterian organization, instead of creating, de- 
 layed the crisis, and gave public men full time for re- 
 consideration. It afforded facilities for everything being 
 done which could possibly be done by combination and 
 mutual representation to prevent the event; and when, 
 in the mysterious providence of God, tfce event could be 
 kept back no longer, the Presbyterian organization of 
 the Church furnished the most admirable preparation 
 for it. Though, for a short time before the Disruption 
 the preparation was withdrawn from the Church courts 
 where men were divided in opinion, still these courts 
 continued to afford means of public explanation and dis- 
 cussion which were highly beneficial to the friends of 
 the cause throughout the land; and the knowledge which 
 ministers and elders had of each other, as members of 
 the same Church courts, prepared them to act as one 
 man when the day of trial came. Familiar with meet- 
 
244 FAVOURABLE OPERATION OF PRESBYTERIANISM 
 
 ings and business, accustomed to confide in each other 
 and in leading men, readily communicating with every 
 part of the land, they could concentrate their whole 
 efforts at one moment. Under God, it was owing in a 
 large measure to their previous Presbyterian knowledge 
 and training, that ministers and elders were fitted for the 
 high duties to which they were called. 
 
 And what had been so useful before did not prove less 
 serviceable at the moment of movement. The Presbyte- 
 rian organization was immediately called into play. Mem- 
 bers of the different synods from the four quarters of Scot- 
 land, then present in Edinburgh, were asked to meet ac- 
 cording to their synods and make provision for religious 
 worship in their respective districts. This was promptly 
 done, and ere a few days had elapsed the ministers who 
 withdrew from the Establishment, with the addition of 
 probationers, had already their former or new spheres of 
 labour, and the Church, as a whole, went forward as 
 peacefully as if there had been no Disruption. The order 
 and ease with which from 800,000 to 1,000,000 of people 
 separated themselves from connection with the State, and 
 that in many cases in spite of intimidation, is one of the 
 most memorable events of modern history, and should 
 prove a great encouragement to all conscientious men 
 called to take a similar course. 
 
 And as Presbytery conduced largely to the success of 
 the event itself, so it formed a powerful help in all sub- 
 sequent proceedings. The principles of Presbyterianism 
 were severely trfed; but being the principles of the Word 
 of God, they stood the trial. A vast body of men had 
 to be elected to office in the Church — ministers, elders, 
 deacons ; but though the electors were generally new to 
 the duties, such is the happy action of Presbytery, where 
 truly free, and animated by an evangelical spirit, that 
 not a single case of disputed election has come before 
 the superior Church court. The unanimity here, as in 
 other departments, was universal; and yet it was not 
 blind, as occasional discussions served to show. 
 
 The usual impression in regard to Presbyterian Church 
 government, especially in quiet times, is, that it is slow 
 
ILLUSTRATED IN THE FREE CHURCH MOVEMENT. 245 
 
 and unelastic, that great evils are completed before the 
 counteracting machinery can be brought to bear upon 
 them. But the history of the Scottish Disruption has 
 shown that there is no inconsistency in Presbytery be- 
 tween the greatest activity and the greatest strength — 
 that the utmost flexibility is quite compatible with com- 
 bined and unbroken energy. It may be safely said that 
 no Prelacy, in the exercise of the most instantaneous 
 authority, has ever surpassed the rapidity and elasticity 
 of the Presbyterian movement. The Free Church was 
 like an army of high discipline, dealing in easy and united 
 action. 
 
 To estimate the relative advantages of different forms 
 of Church government, let the reader consider how Pre- 
 lacy and Independency would probably have wrought in 
 the same circumstances. Disruptions are like storms 
 which try the capabilities of vessels. It is true that 
 Prelacy and Independency have had little to do with 
 disruptions — that these are almost appropriate to Pres- 
 bytery. But suppose Prelacy were forced by con- 
 science to contemplate such an event, how serious would 
 be her disadvantages ! Many would be puzzled by the 
 primary difficulty, how they could act, suppose no pre- 
 late came out. Supposing this got over, what difficul- 
 ties, from unacquaintance one with another, with business, 
 with government, with the management of meetings! 
 what difficulties from the absence of confidence in them- 
 selves or each other, from jealousy of individuals, or from 
 habits of hitherto unthinking submission ! There can be 
 little question that difficulties of the nature referred to. 
 palsy not a few excellent ministers of the Church of 
 England, and prevent them seeing clearly the line of 
 duty at the present moment. 
 
 With regard, again, to Congregationalism, it is still 
 more difficult to fancy a separation from the State, 
 inasmuch as the absence of Confessions of Faith in 
 principle, and the very nature of the ecclesiastical 
 government, would almost prevent the possibility of 
 union between Church and State. But, supposing such 
 an event to take place, and to be followed by disruption, 
 
 R 
 
24«f> FAVOURABLE OPERATION OF PRESBYTERJANISM 
 
 in addition to several of the difficulties already stated, 
 there would be the great difficulty of the absence of com- 
 mon counsel and co-operation in such an authoritative 
 manner as to secure immediate and universal action; and, 
 besides, there would be the hazard of jealousy — of one 
 congregation thinking that another was taking too much 
 upon it, and impairing the rule of strict Independency. 
 
 It is easy, then, to see what advantages the previous 
 Presbyterian education and habits of the office-bearers 
 and members of the Free Church must have furnished 
 for the events of 1 843 and subsequent years. But if the 
 principles of Presbytery be thus useful for great emer- 
 gencies, is it to be supposed that they are prejudicial or 
 useless in the ordinary business of the Church of Christ 
 in peaceful times ? Surely not. Besides, the day in 
 which we live is not a day of peace, but of warfare, if not 
 with civil rulers, with an ecclesiastical enemy, who has 
 often proved too powerful for States — we mean the Papal 
 Antichrist. And surely the same qualities, habits, and 
 organization, which were so needful for the one conflict, 
 are not less necessary for a sustained and successful war- 
 fare in the other. 
 
 The distinctions in behalf of Presbytery to which 
 Ave have alluded are not matters of mere reasoning 
 
 o 
 
 or speculation. So recently as lust year, the orreat 
 majority of the faithful ministry of the Canton de Vaud 
 felt themselves constrained to withdraw from com- 
 munion with the Church of the State. Apart from the 
 fierce persecution which they had been called to endure, 
 what was the great barrier to the success of their 
 movement at first, and its progress afterwards? We have 
 their own repeated testimony for saying, that the great 
 loss was the absence of ruling elders — an essential part 
 of the Presbyterian system. The ministers, unaccustomed 
 to almost any work save the pastoral, were left standing 
 alone in the storm, like faithful presbyters of a Prelatic 
 Church, when they ought to have been surrounded 
 with vigorous auxiliaries. The pleasing prospect of 
 stability and progress which now opens up before them 
 in the midst of oppression, is drawn from the grow- 
 
ILLUSTRATED IN THE FREE CHURCH MOVEMENT. 247 
 
 ing Presbyterian organization which they are enabled 
 to set up, and which they hope to be able to maintain. 
 
 Presbytery, indeed, has its trials — we do not call 
 them disadvantages. In the popular constitution of its 
 courts, it is liable to the annoyance of an injudicious 
 mind, forcing on an unsuitable subject of discussion in 
 an unseasonable way. But this trial is inseparable from 
 freedom, whether civil or religious, and it is more appa- 
 rent than real. Truth in the end does not suffer by dis- 
 cussion. It is better to allow extreme views and feelings 
 to be expressed, and immediately met by just views, than, 
 by suppression, to allow them to fester into a secret 
 sore. Moreover, Presbyterian government, while it takes 
 for granted, and requires that men be judicious, naturally 
 educates them to this temper. There can belittle doubt 
 that the great Head of the Church designed all the gifts 
 and powers of his servants to be exercised ; and the ad- 
 ministration of the government of his Church is one of 
 the means of drawing these forth. 
 
 That it may not be imagined the views of this chapter, 
 in commendation of Presbytery, are the warm impressions 
 of a partisan, I beg to appeal to the testimony of an able 
 and impartial witness. Bishop Hughes, Roman Catholic 
 prelate of America, in his " Discussion" with the Rev. 
 Dr. Breckenridge of Baltimore, a minister of the Presby- 
 terian Church, speaking of the General Assembly of that 
 Church, says : " I must say, with every man acquainted 
 with the mode in which it is organized, that, for the pur- 
 poses of popular and political government, its structure is 
 little inferior to that of the Congress itself. In any 
 emergency which may arise, the General Assembly can 
 produce a uniformity among its adherents to the farthest 
 boundaries of the land. It acts on the principle of a 
 radiating centre, and is without an equal or a rival among 
 the other denominations in the country." (P. 86.) Of 
 course, a Presbyterian contends for a General Assembly 
 upon a far higher principle ; but the fact of its capacity 
 and power, as attested by an intelligent Romanist, is 
 worth noticing. With regard, again, to the actual result 
 of Presbyterian organization in Scotland during the late 
 
248 FAVOURABLE OPERATION OF PRESBYTERIANTSM. 
 
 eventful years, there is no one whose authority is so unex- 
 ceptionable as that of a distinguished leader, and all the 
 more that the testimony is given, not in self-praise, or in 
 praise of the Free Church, but when modestly repelling in- 
 jurious misrepresentations. The Rev. Dr. Candlish, in his 
 Letters to the Rev. Mr. Elliott, says: "We have made no 
 change in our constitution or manner of acting. We 
 have continued to transact the business of the Church, 
 both its domestic and its missionary business, precisely as 
 we were doing before. The Disruption did not cause 
 the very slightest interregnum or interval of anarchy — 
 no, not the interruption of a single hour; and ever since 
 that event the regular and orderly course of the admini- 
 stration of ecclesiastical affairs has been unbroken." (P. 
 20.) It is unnecessary to quote testimonies to the mar- 
 vellous attainments of various kinds which have been 
 achieved. Prelatists, and Congregationalists, and Wes- 
 leyans, have alike borne warm attestation to them, and 
 urged the example of the Free Presbyterian Church of 
 Scotland upon the members of their own communions. 
 
 From the whole, it is apparent that during the last 
 five years not only has nothing occurred, whether in 
 Scotland or elsewhere, disparaging to the cause of Pres- 
 bytery (the enslaving of the Presbyterian Establishment 
 by the civil power excepted), but that much has occurred 
 indicative of reviving interest and strength in its behalf, 
 both at home and abroad; — in short, that Presbytery 
 seems to be burnishing its old armour, and preparing for 
 the conflict with Popery in its most formidable retreats. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS IN BEHALF OF 
 PRESBYTERY. 
 
 Perhaps Presbyterians should decline to argue the question 
 of Church government or worship, or any other, on the ground 
 of human authority. Holding the principles which they do, 
 of the exclusive authority of the Word of God, they ought to 
 refuse to meet their opponents on an inferior footing. This 
 would be honouring to the Scriptures, and make a grand and 
 visible line of distinction between Presbyterians and many 
 of those who are ranged against their views. It would also 
 be perfectly fair, and tend to correct the abuses which are 
 connected with endless discussions about opinions which, 
 before they can have any binding force, must themselves be 
 tried and approved by the infallible standard of Heaven. 
 The homage paid to the Fathers and Tradition is one of the 
 causes of the revival of Popery in the Church of England, 
 which cannot be too much condemned. In the present state 
 of society, however, long accustomed to an opposite mode of 
 procedure, the declinature would be misunderstood. It would 
 be attributed to fear, and the advocates of rival forms of 
 polity would triumph. Many, too, would mistake their vaunt- 
 ing for confessed victory. Hence Presbyterians, however re- 
 luctantly, must encounter the Fathers. Though well satis- 
 fied of the scriptural ground of their system, and therefore 
 made up in their convictions, whatever may turn up in the 
 writings of men, whether for or against it; still, yet such is the 
 unhappy way in which these controversies have been con- 
 ducted, that they cannot avoid such a discussion as that to 
 which the reader's attention is now briefly solicited. 
 
 The early writers of the Christian Church, usually styled 
 the Fathers, however venerable for antiquity and piety, are, 
 for the most part, very unsatisfactory witnesses to any point. 
 
250 APPENDIX. 
 
 It is but fragments of their writings which have descended 
 to our day, some of them notoriously interpolated and cor- 
 rupted by later ages; others, detected forgeries. Then the 
 Fathers are by no means clear or discriminating in theii 
 views. On the most important doctrines of the Gospel they 
 are not a little vague and confused, and in regard to points 
 of Church government and order their character is the same. 
 They are often self-contradictory and puerile in their inter- 
 pretations of Scripture. Nay, as is justly remarked by the 
 Rev. Mr. Scott, the well-known commentator on the Bible, 
 they are often mistaken as to undeniable historical facts; 
 for instance, Irenaeus contended that Christ was crucified at 
 fifty years of age, and lived to old age, and that this was uni- 
 versal tradition ! In short, it seems to have been the inten- 
 tion of the great Head of the Church, that the fragments of 
 their works should be of such a character that no Christian 
 could be in any danger of idolizing or confounding them with 
 the writings of Inspiration; and yet this is the great error 
 into which multitudes have fallen, and continue to fall. 
 
 Instead of being fathers, in point of clearness, wisdom, and 
 strength, they are truly the children of the Christian Church, 
 as Daillie's work on the " Right Use of the Fathers" amply 
 shows. In addition to all this, it is to be borne in mind that 
 there is not a single authentic writing of the first three hun- 
 dred years which speaks directly and formally to the questions 
 in agitation ; any thing which occurs is incidental. What sad 
 disadvantages are these! Who, with any important interest at 
 stake, in daily life, would be willing to rest much upon the 
 testimony of such witnesses, especially when the testimony 
 is given casually and by the way; and when the age in which 
 they lived was one of notorious and growing declension in 
 matters which could not fail to affect their judgment ? To 
 render the writings of the Fathers of any use in the circum- 
 stances in which they appear, they would have needed to have 
 had every advantage of character and position. Instead of 
 this, they are destitute of all. No wonder, then, that many 
 Presbyterians should decline to descend to the discussion to 
 which they invite, as of very little value. But with all this 
 the reader will greatly mistake if he imagines, as many Pre- 
 latical writers would lead him to think, that Presbytery has 
 no countenance from early antiquity, and that its voice is clear 
 and unanimous in favour of Prelacy. The very opposite is 
 the truth. To one who has had any opportunity of examin- 
 ing the subject, nothing can seem more ludicrous than the 
 vauntings of the friends of Prelacy. Such is the force of 
 truth, that throughout all the dimness and imperfection of 
 
APPENDIX. 251 
 
 the fragmentary writings of the Fathers, the light of Presby- 
 tery shines at least with such clearness as to show the utter 
 fallacy of the opposite claims. 
 
 With the explanations which have been given as to the 
 character and value of the writings of the Fathers, and their 
 perfect impotence to affect the previous determination pro- 
 duced by the Word of God, let us, more as a matter of curio- 
 sity than in a more serious light, contemplate the testimony 
 of the leading Fathers of the first two, the purest centuries 
 — the remainder may be safely left to the learned and the 
 idle. Presbyterians have never shrunk fioin the argument 
 on this or on any other field. Most of the works which they 
 have published in defence of their views, and which, for talent 
 and learning, throw the Fathers into hopeless shade, deal 
 fully in testimonies from primitive antiquity. By some of 
 them, large volumes have been devoted to the discussion of 
 a particular point in ecclesiastical history; such as Forrester, 
 Rule, and Jameson, on the Bishop of the Cyprianic age. 
 Cyprian was bishop or minister of Carthage, but not appointed 
 to his office till nearly two hundred and fifty years from the 
 birth of Christ; yet these Presbyterian writers canvass and 
 explore his sentiments as if they were very gospel. This 
 shows how thorough and minute have been the ecclesiastical 
 inquiries of Presbyterianism. I aim at the merest outline of 
 the most importaut and earliest points. 
 
 In setting out on this inquiry, there is only one thing addi- 
 tional which it is essential to bear in mind, and that is the pre- 
 cise point which Episcopalians must prove from the Fathers. 
 It is nothing to show that the names of bishops, presbyters, and 
 deacons, occur in their writings. No one denies this; it proves 
 nothing. A Presbyterian, holding that bishops and pastors 
 are the same ; that Presbytery includes both teaching and 
 ruling elders; and that the deacon has the charge of the Chris- 
 tian poor and ecclesiastical finance as a permanent office in the 
 Church, lays his account with meeting with such names, and 
 deems them essential to the full proof of his system, so far as 
 Christian antiquity is concerned. The points which Prela- 
 tists must prove, and without which the whole appeal to anti- 
 quity is delusive, are — that the office of bishop is a distinct 
 office, inherently higher than that of presbyter; that presby- 
 ters, with a number of congregations, more or less numerous, 
 are subject to the authority of the bishop; that the bishop has 
 the sole power of ordination, and himself receives a new or 
 dination when raised to the bishopric; and that the whole 
 primitive Church regarded this kind of Episcopacy as of 
 divine ordination. In making the following quotations, let 
 
252 APPENDIX. 
 
 the reader judge whether these points are directly or indi- 
 rectly made out in behalf of Prelacy. 
 
 Clement of Rome, who lived thirty years after the death of 
 Peter and Paul, at the close of the first century, wrote a letter 
 to the Church of Corinth, in order to heal its divisions. Hav- 
 ing seen and conversed with the apostles, he is entitled to as 
 much, if not more, weight than most of the early writers. 
 Here are his strongest sentences on Church government : — 
 " The apostles going abroad, preaching through countries 
 and cities, appointed the first-fruits of their ministry to be 
 bishops and deacons." There is nothing in this inconsistent 
 with Presbytery : bishop, presbyter, and teaching elder, in the 
 view of Scripture, according to Presbyterians, mean the same 
 person. But there is a serious defect here, according to the 
 Prelatic theory; for there is no order of presbyters. Again : 
 " It would be no small sin in us should we cast off those from 
 their episcopate (or bishopric) who holily and without blame 
 fulfil the duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having 
 finished their course before these times, have obtained a per- 
 fect dissolution." " It is a shame," &c, " that the Church of 
 the Corinthians should, by one or two individuals, be led into 
 a sedition against its presbyters. Only let the flock of Christ be 
 in peace with the presbyters who are set over it," &c. " Submit 
 to your presbyters." The Church is represented as being sub- 
 jected, not to one, a prelate, but to many presbyters; and no 
 distinction is made between the offices of bishop and presbyter. 
 Had there been a single prelate at Corinth, ruling over all, 
 would Clement, writing on such a subject, have completely 
 overlooked him ? Surely not. 
 
 Hermas, at the time he wrote, resided at Rome, where the 
 preceding Clement was a minister. He refers particularly to 
 the Church there, and yet this is his language : " But thou 
 shalt read (the books) in this city, with the elders who pre- 
 side over the Church." This is quite Presbyterian language, 
 and the following words are not inconsistent : " The square 
 and white stones which agi'ee exactly in their joints, are the 
 apostles, and bishops, and doctors, and ministers, who, through 
 the mercy of God, have come in and governed," &c. There 
 is no trace of Prelacy here. The Churches are ruled by a 
 plurality of elders, or presbyters, who evidently are of the 
 same rank with bishops. There is nothing about superiority 
 or exclusive ordination. In the second quotation there seems 
 to be an accumulation of names describing the same persons. 
 
 Polycarp, bishop or pastor of Smyrna, comes next. Even 
 the word bishop — which, properly understood, is quite harm- 
 less — does not occur in his writings. He refers only to 
 
APPENDIX. 253 
 
 presbyters and deacons, which, however, embrace all that 
 Presbyterians contend for; the first being divisible into the 
 teaching and ruling presbyters. " It behoves yon," says he, 
 addressing the Philippians, " to abstain from these things, 
 being subject to presbyters and deacons, as to God and 
 Christ." It is plain that he contemplated no one above the 
 presbyter, as Episcopalians contend; for the Philippians are 
 to be subject to them as to God and Christ, who have none 
 above them. Moreover, Polycarp, as a bishop, is exhorted 
 by a contemporary Father to be formally accpiainted with 
 every member of his flock. How ? By cultivating acquaint- 
 ance only with the inferior clergy — the presbyters and the 
 deacons ? No ; but by acquainting himself with every one by 
 name, down to the servant maid; evidently showing that Poly- 
 carp. though a bishop, had no flock but a congregational one. 
 We now pass to Ignatius. Episcopalian writers found 
 largely upon him. They contend for every word as if it were 
 very gospel; and yet of the fifteen Letters attributed to him, 
 all scholars are now agreed that more than a half are gross 
 forgeries, written several centuries after the death of the 
 honoured martyr. One of the letters is a pretended one 
 from the Virgin Mary to Ignatius; of the remainder, learned 
 men are at a loss to determine how much is genuine, and 
 how much consists of corrupt interpolations — interpolations 
 intended to favour Prelacy. Jameson, through four sections 
 of his " Nazianzeni Querela," &c, discusses the weight due 
 to Ignatius' epistles, which, whether received or rejected, 
 must carry conviction to every candid mind. An Episcopa- 
 lian writer (Christian Observer, vol. ii. p. 710), by no means 
 disposed to underrate the early testimonies in behalf of his 
 own views, confesses that, on the point in dispute, Ignatius 
 is so unlike his brethren, a marshals the three orders of 
 bishops, priests, and deacons, with such unreasonable exact- 
 ness, and repeated and unfortunate anxiety," as to throw the 
 greatest suspicion over his testimony. He is like a witness 
 in a court of law, whose memory, as to remote and minute 
 circumstances, is so uncommonly exact, that the judge and 
 jury at once see that he is detailing a vamped up story of 
 recent invention. I might well dismiss Ignatius as a witness. 
 It would be foolish, at all events, to risk anything of impor- 
 tance upon the testimony of the epistles ascribed to him. 
 But there is more than this; the strongest passages which are 
 quoted, to say the least, have as much of a Presbyterian as 
 a Prelatic air. Thus, to the Church of Magnesia, he says : 
 " Seeing I have been judged worthy to see you, by Damas, 
 your most excellent bishop, and by your worthy presbyters, 
 
254 APPENDIX. 
 
 Bassus and Appollonius, and by my fellow-servant Sotio, the 
 deacon, I determined to write to you." Here, so far as 
 appears, there is nothing more than the minister, ruling pres- 
 byters or elders, and deacon of the Presbyterian Church. 
 The epistle takes for granted that the parties "come together 
 into the same place, have one common prayer, one supplica- 
 tion," which agrees much better with a congregational or 
 parochial minister than a diocesan bishop, who does not wor- 
 ship with all his clergy ; the presbyters, too, are always 
 represented as being present with their bishop, which accords 
 with Presbytery, but not with Episcopacy. 
 
 Again : '' Pie that is within the altar is pure; but he that 
 is without — that is, that does anything without the bishop, 
 and presbyters, and deacons — is not pure in his conscience." 
 There is not one word of bishops being of a distinct and 
 superior pastoral order, and being alone entitled to ordain; 
 and without these what is the real worth of Ignatius' 
 testimony to Prelatists ? Bishop Stillingfleet well says in 
 his ' Irenicum,' " — Of all the thirty-five testimonies pro- 
 duced out of Ignatius' epistles for Episcopacy, I can meet 
 with but one which is brought to prove the least semblance 
 of an institution of Christ for Episcopacy; and, if I be not 
 much deceived, the sense of that place is clearly mistaken.'' 
 The whole strain of the epistles shows, that the bishop of 
 whom they speak is not the diocesan bishop, but the con- 
 gregational bishop, or Presbyterian pastor. " If the prayer 
 of one or two have so much efficacy, how much more the 
 prayer of the bishop and the whole Church ?" Even sup- 
 posing that there were several distinct congregations at 
 Smyrna, with separate pastors, and that Ignatius is styled 
 the bishop of Smyrna, while the same title is not bestowed 
 upon others, this would by no means prove diocesan Epis- 
 copacy to be divine. Ignatius might only be the moderator of 
 the presbytery, the presiding head, through whom directions 
 to all the Churches in the bounds would naturally pass. This 
 would explain far stronger language than is to be found in 
 Ignatius, in perfect consistency with Presbyterian principle 
 and usage. 
 
 Passing over Papias, who, by the way, styles the apostles 
 presbyters, showing that that term marked no inferiority 
 of office to the bishop, we come to an important witness, 
 Ibenveus, who became a martyr about a.d. 202. There are 
 various passages — we select two : " "When we challenge 
 them (the heretics) to that apostolical tradition which is pre- 
 served in the Churches, through the succession of the presbyters, 
 they oppose the tradition, pretending that they are wiser, not 
 
APPENDIX. 255 
 
 only than the presbyters, but than the apostles." As;ain : 
 " Obey those presbyters in the Church who have the succes- 
 sion, as we have shown, from the apostles, who, with the succes- 
 sion of the episcopate, received the gift of truth, according to 
 the good pleasure of the Father." Irenams not only shows 
 plainly that the bishop and the presbyter are the same, attri- 
 buting the apostolic succession to both, and of equal value in 
 each, but he expressly says that the presbyters received the 
 succession of the episcopate from the apostles. What more 
 could a candid inquirer wish, to establish the operation of 
 Presbyterian principles in the days of Irenasus ? 
 
 Justin Martyr, who also lived in the second century, de- 
 scribes the usual service of Christian worship. In this he 
 speaks of the president as well as of the deacons. All allow 
 this president was the bishop; and if so, then every congre- 
 gation had its bishop. In other words, the office was congre- 
 gational, not diocesan. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived at the tlose of the 
 second century, a man of great learning, writes : " Just so 
 in the Church, the presbyters are intrusted with the dignified 
 ministry, the deacons with the sid>ordinate." Though but a 
 presbyter, he calls himself one of the " governors," which is 
 inconsistent with diocesan Episcopacy, and compares the 
 grades of Church officers with those of angels. Now there 
 are but two among the heavenly host, angels and archangels; 
 at least we do not read of others. 
 
 Were there room and occasion for it, and did we not wish 
 to confine the attention of the reader to the earliest testimo- 
 nies, we might appeal, in the third and fourth centuries, to 
 Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Hilary, Chrysostom, 
 and others, as bearing out distinctly the views which have 
 been already adduced from earlier antiquity. Several of 
 these, indeed, are quoted by Prelatic writers in their behalf, 
 but, I am satisfied, without reason. The language, taken as 
 a whole, and fairly interpreted, is decidedly Presbyterian. 
 The reader is referred, for farther information, to several 
 works quoted in the Appendix, particularly Rule, Forrester, 
 and Jameson. In the meantime, let me ask, Is there any 
 thing which has been brought forward which lends the slight- 
 est countenance to the idea that the bishop is a distinct and 
 superior order to that of presbyter; that he has many con- 
 gregations under him; that ordination is exclusively vested 
 in his hands; and that these things are so important, that 
 without them there cannot be a Christian Church ? Will any 
 allege that such is the testimony of one, and much less of all 
 the Christian Fathers; and yet without them what becomes 
 
256 APPENDIX. 
 
 of diocesan Episcopacy as at present contended for? It is 
 remarkable that, as there is no one in Scripture bearing the 
 name of bishop who is represented as performing an ordina- 
 tion singly, so there is no one in primitive antiquity who is re- 
 presented as executing this function, nor is there any instance, 
 in its records, of a presbyter receiving a new or second ordi- 
 nation when he became a bishop ; yet, if Prelacy were well 
 founded, this must have been of frequent occurrence. The 
 strong presumption founded on this, taken along with other 
 things, is, that Prelacy was an insidious corruption which 
 grew up in the Church. Were there space, this could be 
 shown in its different steps, as has been often done at great 
 length. I have room only to state a few presumptions, that 
 the bishop of the primitive Church was nothing more than 
 the parochial minister, for the following reasons : — 
 
 1. The large number of bishops who are represented as 
 attending early councils — six hundred or seven hundred 
 drawn from a space not much larger than a few of our largest 
 counties combined. It is absurd to imagine, especially with 
 the limited progress of Christianity, that these were all dio- 
 cesans, when there are only twenty-four persons bearing this 
 designation in Great Britain. 
 
 2. The small number of souls committed to the care of each 
 bishop. Often they lived in small villages near each other, 
 and could not possibly have the care of more than a few hun- 
 dreds, Gregory Thaumaturgus had only seventeen professors 
 of Christianity under his charge, and yet he was a bishop ! 
 
 3. It was common for the flock to meet together for the 
 election of the bishop, and he was ordained in their presence 
 — a fact utterly inconsistent with diocesan Episcopacy. 
 
 4. All the elders connected with a bishop are represented 
 as belonging to the same congregation with him, and sitting 
 with him when the congregation is convened for public wor- 
 ship — another fact equally inconsistent with it. 
 
 5. The early writers represent the bishop as living in the 
 same house with his presbyters or elders. Is this consistent 
 with the modern notion of the word Bishop ? And, 
 
 6. and lastly. The nature of the service which he is repre- 
 sented as performing leads" to the same conclusion. He is 
 not, like the modern bishop, only busy about the government 
 of the Church, the examination and ordination of young men 
 for the ministry, &c. On the contrary, he is represented as 
 regularly preaching and dispensing the sacraments, visiting 
 the sick, celebrating marriage; in short, discharging all the 
 usual functions of a parochial minister. 
 
 Such are the facts, and can any candid mind doubt what 
 
APPENDIX. 257 
 
 is the fair inference ? It is plain that the primitive bishop 
 was just the pastor of a single congregation; no other suppo- 
 sition will explain the facts. The elevation to which he after- 
 wards attained was, like the rise of Antichrist, by slow and 
 insidious degrees, and was, throughout, marked by unscriftural 
 usurpation. (For the above and similar facts, see the ad- 
 mirable Letters of Dr. Miller on the Christian Ministry 
 p. 130-134.) 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 
 
 It is pleasant to leave the Fathers, and turn to the great Re- 
 formers from Popery. One immediately feels that he is in 
 contact with a very different and far superior order of minds. 
 Instead of the puerile interpretations of Scripture which dis- 
 figure the pages of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,Clemens 
 Alexandrinus, Origen, and various others—interpretations 
 which place them beneath the humblest commentator of our 
 day — we meet with men whose interpretations, after the lapse 
 of three centuries, commend themselves to the judgment of 
 the most intelligent and able, so that they are glad to adopt 
 them as their own. And instead of discordant opinions — a 
 perfect chaos — even on such a vital doctrine as that of the 
 mode of a sinner's justification before God (witness many of 
 the sentiments to be found in Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, 
 Jerome, Cyprian), we find, and that without concert, the most 
 remarkable agreement, down to minute points, among the 
 Reformers, though living at a distance, and exercising the 
 most unfettered freedom of private judgment on the Scrip- 
 tures. The truth is, there is no comparison between the 
 parties, or rather there is the most striking contrast. Not 
 only were the great body of the Reformers men of gigantic 
 minds, but the Spirit of God seems to have been conferred 
 upon them in an eminent degree, at once to fit for the ardu- 
 ous trials which awaited them, and to guide them in drawing 
 up those articles of faith from the Word of God, and con- 
 structing that ecclesiastical platform from the same source, 
 which were destined to endure for many generations, and, it 
 may be, to affect the character of Christendom down to the 
 day of judgment. If ever there was a class of men entitled 
 to the deference, and even submission of posterity, the Re- 
 formers were the men; but they would be the first themselves 
 to disclaim it, as unscriptural and dangerous, and to direct 
 all disposed to worship them to the Word of God as the only 
 as well as the infallible standard of doctrine and practice. 
 It is marvellous how many Prelatical writers have deceived 
 
258 APPENDIX. 
 
 themselves, in regard to the sentiments of the Reformers on 
 Church government. While professedly holding their testi- 
 mony light, they have been at the same time most anxious to 
 show that it is in favour of Prelacy. According to a recent 
 writer, the whole of Christendom was Prelatic at the era of 
 the Reformation. The Reformers held the same views; reluc- 
 tantly departed from them, owing to the pressure of circum- 
 stances; and to the end entertained the highest veneration for 
 the Church of England. The plain truth of the matter is, 
 that Prelacy was not universal at the Reformation, except in 
 the apostate Church of Rome; that the faithful and only Pro- 
 testants, the Waldenses and Bohemians, were Presbyterians; 
 that the Reformers, from the very first, held clear and decided 
 views on the parity of pastors, and never abandoned them; 
 that any expressions, apparently inconsistent with this doc- 
 trine, particularly in Calvin, are incidental, and are very 
 obviously misunderstood — at war with the practice as well as 
 the published sentiments of the Reformers; and that the praise 
 of the Church of England chiefly consists of the recommen- 
 dation, that the early Puritans should abide in her com- 
 munion as a lawful communion, rather than separate at a 
 season when the Church of England was far nearer the Pres- 
 byterian Church than she is now, and when there was the 
 prospect of her becoming still nearer by their remaining 
 within her pale. Even supposing that the Reformers had, in 
 the first instance, been favourably disposed to Prelacy, it 
 would not have been wonderful. It was the form of govern- 
 ment to which they had all been accustomed, and their sub- 
 sequent change might justly have been attributed to deeper 
 Scripture study and more mature views. But the fact is, 
 that the great body of them, making the Word of God their 
 standard, started with Presbyterian sentiments from the very 
 outset. Nor was this owing to the absence of any occasion 
 for accurate study. On the contrary, investigation into such 
 points was forced upon them by the Popish controversy, in 
 which they were all engaged. What was the shortest way 
 to overthrow the proud pretensions of the See of Rome ? It 
 was by showing that all ministers were equal; mother words, 
 by establishing Presbyterian parity. There is no question 
 that the creating an inequality of ranks among the pastors ol 
 the Church — an inequality against which the cautions of oui 
 Lord were doubtles-s directed — lies at the root of the Papacy 
 Prelacy is as really a corruption as purgatory, or any other 
 invention of the Romish apostasy. Once admit inequality 
 where Christ has made none, and it is a mere accident if, in 
 the course of time, it does not become as extreme as between 
 
APPENDIX. 259 
 
 the curate and the pope. No wonder, then, that men so capa- 
 cious in mind, and so well read in the Scriptures and in anti- 
 quity as the Reformers, should disown the pretensions of Pre- 
 lacy. It would have been strange had it been otherwise. But 
 let us shortly turn to their testimony. 
 
 First of all, it is plain, from the testimony, not of enemies 
 or apostates, but of their own pastors, that the ancient Wal- 
 denses, who rise in point of origin as high as the seventh cen- 
 tury, if not earlier, and who, under different names, spread 
 themselves widely over Europe for ages, were Presbyterians. 
 Any bishops which they ever had in name were mere pres- 
 byters, and claimed no superiority of order or power. Pro- 
 fessor Raignolds, an eminent Episcopalian, in a well-known 
 letter to Sir F. Knolleys, declares that the Waldenses had 
 uniformly taught " that all pastors, whether styled bishops or 
 priests, have one and the same authority by the Word of 
 God;" and what is still better authority, the 31st Article of their 
 Confession of Faith bears, " It is necessary for the Church 
 to have pastors sufficiently learned, and exemplary in their 
 conduct, as well to preach God's Word as to administer the 
 sacraments and watch over the flock of Jesus Christ, together 
 with the elders and deacons, according to the rules of good 
 and holy Church discipline, and the practice of the primitive 
 Church." It is the glory of the Waldenses that, as a Church, 
 no human power could ever overcome them. The testimony 
 of living Episcopalians, who have resided among them, could 
 be appealed to in behalf of the Presbyterianism of the modern 
 witnesses of Piedmont. Not only their principles, but their 
 very forms, are almost identical with those of the Church of 
 Scotland. The increasing research of modern times is bring- 
 ing out their ancient Calvinism, and Presbyterianism, and 
 observance of infant baptism, in fresh lustre. (See Blair's 
 History, Appendix.) No assertion, then, can be more ignorant, 
 than that Presbytery originated with Calvin. The Walden- 
 ses had an organized and powerful Church many centuries 
 before he was born. 
 
 The next witness, in point of time, is John Wicklifff, 
 "the Morning Star of the Reformation." He flourished 
 about 1350. No one can doubt his testimony, and his wide- 
 spread followers doubtless imbibed his sentiments. " One 
 thing," says he, " I boldly assert, that in the primitive Church, 
 or in the time of the Apostle Paul, two orders of clergy were 
 thought sufficient, viz., priest and deacon; and I do also say, 
 that in the time of Paul a priest and a bishop were one and the 
 same." His followers could easily have had Prelatical ordi- 
 nation, but they preferred Presbyterian. 
 
2 GO APPENDIX. 
 
 Huss and Jerome of Prague come next. They were as 
 remarkable for their learning as scholars, as their devoted- 
 ness as martyrs. They held the same views as Wickliffe, and 
 particularly on Presbyterian parity. One of the solemn 
 charges brought against them by a Popish adversary, after- 
 wards Pius II., "as a pestiferous sect," was their holding 
 " no difference of order among those who bear the priestly 
 office." 
 
 The Bohemian Brethren or CnuRcn, who were the fol- 
 lowers of the martyrs, maintained the same views. They 
 drew their ministry from the Presbyterian Waldenses — had 
 the office of ruling elder in active operation among them — 
 contended that there is but one order of ministers by divine 
 right — that any grades in the ministry is mere matter of 
 human arrangement. Heylin, the chaplain of Laud, and the 
 bitterest of the opponents of Presbytery, admits (in his His- 
 tory, p. 409) that the Bohemian Church was Episcopal neither 
 in principle nor practice. 
 
 Luther, the most illustrious of all the Reformers, did not 
 differ from the faithful men who had preceded him. He and 
 his associates, it appears, from certain expressions, were so 
 anxious for the peaceful propagation of the Gospel, that they 
 would have borne with the Prelatic government which pre- 
 vailed, not as a thing of divine origin, but mere political ex- 
 pediency; and these expressions have been perverted by some 
 writers into a proof that the Reformer and his friends were 
 favourable to Episcopacy, as a divine institution. But nothing 
 can be wider of the truth. It is plain, from the writings of 
 Luther, his comments on texts of Scripture which involve 
 Church government, and an entire book which was written 
 against the bishops, that he held there was but one order of 
 teachers by divine right, and that every pastor of a congre- 
 gation is a bishop, and that Scripture recognises no other. 
 Commenting on the 20th of the Acts, he says : " You see 
 plainly that the apostle Paul calls those alone bishops who 
 preach the gospel to the people, and administer the sacra- 
 ments, as in our times parish ministers and preachers are wont 
 to do. These, therefore, though they preach the gospel in 
 small villages and hamlets, yet, as faithful ministers of the 
 Word, I believe, beyond all dotibt, possess of right the title and 
 the name of bishop." And the Reformer's practice corre- 
 sponded with his sentiments. He was himself ordained a pres- 
 byter at twenty-four years of age, and for thirty years ordained 
 many — yea, within a few days of his death, in the full prospect 
 of eternity (to use the language of biographers and associates), 
 " ordained two ministers of the Word of God after the apostles' 
 
APPENDIX. 2G1 
 
 manner." Of course, this would have been presumptuous sin, 
 according to the notions of Prelacy, which restrict ordination 
 to the diocesan bishop. It is true that Luther had, and his 
 followers, down to the present day, have had, no objections to 
 superintendents in the Church, or rather they prefer them; 
 but this is not on the ground of Scripture or antiquity, but 
 solely of human expediency. It is to be remembered, too, 
 that these superintendents are mere presbyters, can confer 
 only Presbyterian ordination, are responsible to their brethren, 
 and do not always enjoy the office for life. 
 
 On one occasion, 1.542, Luther, himself a simple presbyter, 
 at the request of the Elector of Saxony, consecrated Amsdorff 
 bishop of a diocese ! What inconsistency and folly, had he 
 believed in the bishop or prelate as a divine order, who alone 
 could ordain. (Vide Mosheim, vol. iv., p. 287.) In harmony 
 with these views, we find that Melancthon and other asso- 
 ciates entertained and acted on the same sentiments. From 
 the Augustan Confession — the Defence of that document by 
 Melancthon — the Articles of Smalcald in 1537, &c; in short, 
 the standards of the Lutheran Church, extracts are quoted 
 by Dr. Miller in his Letters (pp. 372, 373), all clearly and 
 triumphantly bearing out the conclusions which have been 
 stated. 
 
 Were it necessary, it would be easy to refer to a multitude 
 of distinguished Lutheran divines and writers, some contem- 
 poraneous with the Reformer, others subsequent to his day, 
 who held and proclaimed the same sentiments. Some w 7 ere 
 professors of divinity — others, themselves superintendents in 
 the Lutheran Church, such as Ursinus, Musculus, Balduin, 
 Deiterich, Hulsemau, Gehard, Budus, &c; but their testi- 
 mony is harmonious. These authorities are collected by Dr. 
 Miller in his sixth and eighth Letters; they need not here be 
 quoted. 
 
 Turning from the Lutheran Churches to those which more 
 expressly bear the name of Reformed, the testimony to Pres- 
 bytery becomes, if possible, more decided. Indeed, no one 
 who has carefully read the Confessions of Faith of the Saxon, 
 Bohemian, Swiss, Belgic, Dutch, French, and Scotch Churches, 
 can question their Presbyterian character. Accordingly, 
 there is no controversy upon these points. Were there room, 
 many striking passages might be quoted, but I forbear. Let 
 me only assure the reader, that among the fathers and 
 founders of these Churches, he will find men as pre-eminent, 
 if not more pre-eminent, for talent, learning, the study of the 
 Word of God, submission to its authority, integrity, and public 
 usefulness, as in any Churches of Christendom in any period 
 8 
 
262 APPENDIX. 
 
 of history, ancient or modern. I single out one name — that 
 of Calvin, not so much for its acknowledged superiority and 
 influence, as to correct a misapprehension. The friends of 
 Episcopacy, anxious for the benefit of his name, have often 
 alleged that he was favourable to their views, and have quoted 
 one or two detached sentences from his voluminous works in 
 proof of their assertion; but these can be easily explained 
 from circumstances which have been already noticed. The 
 strongest of them all, as Dr. M'Crie well shows, not only 
 does not, but cannot, apply to the Church of England.* The 
 sentiments of Calvin are to be learned from his " Institutes," 
 his earliest work, published at twenty-seven years of age, 
 where he fully discusses the subject, and his Commentaries on 
 the Scriptures, down to the day of his death — from his own 
 practice — from the advice which he gave to the Churches of 
 Scotland and France, an advice which they acted upon, be- 
 lieving it to be accordant with Scripture — from his very will 
 and testament — all mark the enlightened and resolute Pres- 
 byterian. I subjoin a single sentence from a comment on 
 the 20th of Acts, written very shortly before his death. 
 " Concerning the word bishop," he says, " it is observable that 
 Paul gives this title to all the presbyters of Ephesus; from 
 which we may infer, that, according to Scripture, presbyters 
 differed in no respect from bishops, but that it arose from 
 corruption and a departure from primitive purity, that those 
 who held the first seats in particular cities began to be called 
 bishops. I say that it arose from corruption — not that it is 
 an evil for some one in each college of pastors to be distin- 
 guished above the rest, but because it is intolerable presumption 
 that men, in perverting the titles of Scripture to their own humour, do 
 not hesitate to alter the meaning of the Holy Spirit." f 
 
 It would be endless to quote the distinguished Continental 
 writers who held and maintained the sentiments of Calvin. 
 Suffice it to mention the names of a few. The Presbyterian, 
 the only Protestant Church of France, was remarkable for 
 the ability and learning of her sons, and for the contributions 
 which they made to the literature of the Church. It is no 
 dishonour to the learned men of modern times to say, that it 
 would not be easy from their ranks to draw such men as 
 Sadeel, Chamier, Danau, Le Blanc, De Moulin, Bochart, 
 Blondel, Daille, and Claude, and many others; and yet their 
 Presbyterianism is indubitable. Turning to Holland, similar 
 names appear, such as Junius in early days, who preached 
 
 * Miscel. Writings, p. 176. 
 
 t For a notice of Calvin in this connection, vide p. 158 of " Eldership of the 
 Church of Scotland." 
 
APPENDIX. 263 
 
 at Antwerp with no other light than that supplied by blazing 
 martyrs. The divines of the Synod of Dort — the most pious 
 and learned of their profession, of whose assembly Bishop 
 Hall said, " there was no place upon earth so like heaven as 
 the Synod of Dort, or where he should be more willing to 
 dwell" — they came under the solemn sanction of an oath to 
 the resolution : " We believe that the true Church must be 
 governed by that spiritual policy which our Lord hath taught 
 us in his Word, viz., that there must be ministers or pastors 
 to preach the Word of God, and to administer the sacraments; 
 also elders and deacons, who, together with the pastors, form 
 the council of the Church. As for the ministers of God's 
 Word, they have equally the same pow T er and authority where- 
 soever they are; as they are all ministers of Christ, the only 
 universal Bishop and the only Head of the Church." I quote 
 these words the more, because some, from the circumstance 
 that a few English bishops, at the request of James VI., were 
 present, and acted as members of Synod, have drawn the in- 
 ference that the assembly was favourably inclined to Prelacy. 
 A more natural inference would have been, that the good 
 English bishops of those days w r ere strangers to the notion 
 of Episcopacy by divine right ,and recognised the Presbyterian 
 ordination of the Dutch Church, and acknowledged her as a 
 sister. If farther proof of the decided Presbyterianism of the 
 Synod of Dort were desired, it may be found in the published 
 works of Gomarus, Polyander, Thysius, and Waloeus, all 
 members of Synod, and professors of divinity in the Dutch 
 universities; in the writings also of the celebrated Salmasius. 
 The same point might be established from the constitution 
 of the Synod : out of the ninety members, twenty were ruling 
 elders. 
 
 The only remaining point in connection with the testimony 
 of the Reformers which demands notice, is the opinion of the 
 early English Reformers and Divines. Though their testimony 
 had been clear and unanimous against Presbytery, it w r ould 
 not have been wonderful, nor would it have affected the 
 weight of the other authorities which have been quoted. But 
 it is an interesting and remarkable fact, that the great men 
 of the Church of England, in her early, and perhaps some 
 would say, her best days, did not differ from their brother 
 Reformers of the Continent; but either held, with them, that 
 there should be no diversity of rank among the ministers of 
 the gospel, or contended for it as a mere matter of expediency, 
 to be retained till the days of a more extensive and favour- 
 able reformation. It is certain that the opinion of Episcopacy, 
 as founded on divine right, is comparatively a recent idea, 
 
264 APPENDIX. 
 
 that its origin can be pointed out, and that its prevalence can 
 be identified with the ascendency of the Arminian Archbishop 
 Laud, towards the middle of the seventeenth century. The 
 reader is referred to the Appendix of Ay ton's work for " A Short 
 Account of the Rise of the Jure Dicino Prelatists," where a 
 full answer to each of their arguments is " drawn forth from 
 the writings of many learned Episcopal divines and members 
 of their own Church." This jure dicino doctrine is the doc- 
 trine which is so prevalent in the Church of England at the 
 present day, through the labours of her new Tractarian 
 school. I have space to advert only to a few testimonies on 
 the other side; but they are indisputable. 
 
 It appears, then, that the earliest of the English martyrs, 
 distinguished for learning as well as high principle, one of 
 them the first translator of the Word of God into English, 
 Tyndal and Lambert, with many of their brethren, maintained 
 the identity of the bishop and the presbyter, and the perfect 
 equality of the ministers of the Gospel. In Archbishop Cran- 
 mer's t: Institution of a Christian Man," printed in 1537, sub- 
 scribed and recommended by two archbishops, nineteen 
 bishops, and the whole Lower House of Convocation, it is ex- 
 pressly declared, " That in the New Testament there is no 
 mention made of any other degree and distinction in orders, 
 but only of deacons or ministers, and of presbyters or bishops." 
 Thus, it is obvious that the founders of the Church of Eng- 
 land were essentially Presbyterian; and doubtless, had it not 
 been for the influence of the scarcely half-reformed civil 
 government, which clung to the old Popish government 
 of prelates, their principles would have been carried into 
 effect. Passing from additional evidence of the same nature, 
 which might be appealed to, the reader maybe reminded that 
 in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, the 
 one (Twenty-third) which bears upon the office of the mini- 
 stry does not contain one word about diocesan bishops, or the 
 necessity of Episcopal ordination; on the contrary, it uses 
 such language, apparently on purpose, as shall comprehend 
 other Reformed Churches, and recognise the validity of their 
 ordinances. * Those," says the Article, " we ought to judge 
 lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this 
 work by men who have public authority given unto them in 
 the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord's 
 vineyard." Is this like the language of men who hold dio- 
 cesan bishops to be essential to the being of a Christian 
 Church ? If they held the sentiment, would they not, on such 
 an occasion as the drawing up articles involving the consti- 
 tution of the Church, have expressed it ? But this is not all. 
 
APPENDIX. 205 
 
 The founders of the English Church invited the aid of lead- 
 ing men in other Churches, such as Bucer and Peter Martyr, 
 and recognised their ordination, though it was only Presbyte- 
 rian. Archbishop Grindal in this way received John Mori- 
 son, a minister of the Church of Scotland, to labour in the 
 diocese of Canterbury in 1582. Indeed, as is stated by Bishop 
 Burnet for a long time after the beginning of the Reforma- 
 tion in Great Britain, the validity of Presbyterian ordination 
 was clearly and uniformly acknowledged. The first intima- 
 tion of an opposite notion did not appear till 1588. The 
 person who first gave utterance to the sentiment in the Pro- 
 testant Church, that bishops, by divine right, have & superiority 
 to presbyters, was Doctor (afterwards Bishop) Bancroft, at 
 that time chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift, w^ho, as his writ- 
 ings testify, disclaimed all such views. Bancroft's sermon, 
 as might have been anticipated in the circumstances, gave 
 great offence, and drew forth a letter from Dr. J. Raignolds, 
 professor of divinity in the university of Oxford — accounted 
 a prodigy of learning as well as humility by his contempora- 
 ries. The letter was in reply to one from Sir F. Knolleys. 
 The following are one or two sentences : — " All that have 
 laboured in reforming the Church, for five hundred years, 
 have taught that all pastors, be they entitled bishops or priests, 
 hate equal authority and power by God's Word — as, first, the 
 Waldenses; next, Marsilius Petavinus; then WicklifFe and 
 his disciples; afterwards Huss and the Hussites; and last of 
 all, Luther, Calvin, Brentius, Bullinger, and Musculus. 
 Among ourselves we have bishops; the Queen's professors of 
 divinity, in our universities, and other learned men, as Brad- 
 ford, Lambert, Jewel, Pilkington, Humfreys, Fulke, who all 
 agree in this matter; and so do all divines beyond sea that I 
 ever read, and doubtless many more whom I never read. But 
 why do I speak of particular persons ? It is the common 
 judgment of the Reformed Churches of Helvetia (Switzer- 
 land), Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, 
 the Low Countries (Holland), and our own (the Church of 
 England). Wherefore, since Dr. Bancroft will certainly 
 never pretend that an heresy condemned by the consent of the 
 whole Church, in its most flourishing times, was yet accounted 
 a sound and Christian doctrine by all these I have mentioned, 
 I hope he will acknowledge that he was mistaken, when he 
 asserted the superiority which bishops have among us over 
 the clergy to be God's own ordinance." (Boyse on Episcopacy, 
 pp. 13-19.) 
 
 It is unnecessary to add any thing to the statements of 
 this admirable document, which raufifi be held by all candid 
 
266* APPENDIX. 
 
 men as settling the question of the sentiments of the early 
 Church of England on the claims of Prelacy to a divine origin. 
 The reader who wishes farther to investigate the views of the 
 English Reformers on the government and worship of the 
 Church, and to see their harmony with those of the other 
 Reformed Churches, in short, their substantial Presbyterian- 
 ism and Puritanism, may consult "M'Crie's Life of Knox," 
 App., vol. i., pp. 3S5-390. 
 
 Satisfied of the unquestionable accuracy of the views which 
 have been presented, we forbear from making any quotations 
 from the writings of leading divines of the Church of Eng- 
 land, subsequent to the Reformation, down to the Revolution, 
 and even to the present day. To such passages it would 
 have been easy to refer. In addition to the names of the 
 Reformers w hich have been given, those of Jewel, Willet, 
 Bilson, Holland, Whitaker, Hall, Davenant, Usher, Hooker, 
 might have been subjoined; and later still, those of Stilling- 
 fleet, Tillotson, Wake, Bingham, Edwards, Haweis, Gisborne, 
 Tomline, Noel; who all, with greater or less distinctness, dis- 
 claim the views of the higher Prelatists — but this is unneces- 
 sary. The truth is, that almost all sound writers against the 
 Papacy, if consistent, must entertain Presbyterian views of 
 the pastoral office. If parity be once allowed in the ministry, 
 and different ranks suited to different ranks in society, it will 
 be difficult to show that there should not be a pope above all. 
 The true way to cut up his pretensions by the root, is to 
 establish ministerial parity. 
 
 Reviewing the whole, it appears that the Reformers from 
 Popery, large in point of numbers, widely dispersed in point 
 of situation, men of powerful minds, eminent learning, ardent 
 students of the Scriptures and of antiquity, distinguished also 
 for their spirit of prayer, though exposed to opposite tempta- 
 tions, came to clear, decided, unanimous views on the parity 
 of pastors as a scriptural principle, and acted upon it wherever 
 they had the opportunity; in the few cases Avhere they did 
 depart from it, avowedly doing so on the score of human ex- 
 pediency. Such are the facts of the case, and do they not 
 speak powerfully in behalf of Presbytery ? Is not England 
 standing alone in Protestant Christendom for the divine right 
 of Prelacy, and even she not maintaining this position in her 
 best days, one of the most impressive testimonies which can 
 be conceived in favour of the principles of the Church of 
 Scotland ? If ever human authority should weigh with them, 
 this should be the occasion. But we again remind the reader, 
 that it is neither the Fathers nor the Reformers on whom we 
 rely; we appeal to the authority of God speaking in the Scrip- 
 
APPENDIX. 2fi? 
 
 tures as supreme. This is the exclusive as it is the perfect 
 standard of faith and practice. 
 
 I cannot more appropriately conclude the testimony of the 
 Reformers than in the words of the great Alexander Hen- 
 derson, one of the most distinguished ministers of the Church 
 of Scotland, in one of the most eventful periods of her history. 
 The passage, while it bears testimony to Presbytery in general, 
 has a special reference to the Church of Scotland, as a Pres- 
 byterian Church. The admirable little work from which it 
 is taken is very scarce, and almost unknown. It is entitled, 
 " The Government and Order of the Church of Scotland — 
 1641." Though anonymous, Baillie, and the Reviewer of 
 " Protesters not Subverters," unhesitatingly ascribe it to Hen- 
 derson. It is worthy of the celebrated Moderator of the 
 General Assembly of 1638. 
 
 Speaking of the Church courts, he says : " In the authority 
 of these assemblies, parochial, presbyterial, provincial, and 
 national, and in the subordination of the lesser unto the 
 greater, or of more particular elderships to the larger and 
 general eldership, doth consist the external order, strength, 
 and stedfastness of the Church of Scotland, which is lovely 
 and comfortable to all fearing God, whether pastors or pro- 
 fessors, and hath been very awful and terrible as an army 
 with banners to all Papists, to all heretics, schismatics, hire- 
 lings, and all ungodly persons. As, upon the one part, they 
 break not the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax, but 
 do cherish and labour to bring to ripeness and use the grain 
 of mustard- seed in sincere beginners, and the smallest talent 
 iu preachers having the zeal of God; so, upon the other part, 
 no scandal of proud sinners escapeth censure, no heresy or 
 error is sooner hatched, but is either presently spied out and 
 crushed by some of the inferior assemblies, or, if it be kept 
 on foot and gather strength, it is quite suppressed and extin- 
 guished in the General Assembly, which meeteth once in the 
 year, and never sufifereth such bastard births to grow to be 
 one year old; which is a true and main cause why no sects 
 nor errors have appeared in the Reformed Church of France; 
 and in the Churches of Scotland and of the Low Countries, 
 so long as they enjoyed the liberty and happiness of assem- 
 blies — which they did no sooner by the mercy of God recover 
 but immediately, at their brightness, the mists and mildews, 
 gathered before, were scattered and vanished. 
 
 " 2d, And as, by the order and power of these assemblies, 
 foxes are taken that they spoil not the vines, and gangrenes 
 are prevented that they spread not against truth and unity, 
 all sorts of lewd and wicked men are discouraged and put 
 
2G8 APPENDIX. 
 
 to shame; so is there excited among the godly ministers an 
 holy emulation, by acquaintance, conference, and by perceiv- 
 ing the gifts one of another, which maketh them return from 
 the assemblies with a mean and humble conceit of them- 
 selves, and with new and strong resolutions for greater dili- 
 gence in their studies, and faithfulness in every pastoral duty, 
 to the common benefit and edification of all the Churches; 
 all the ministers are made more wise in the matters of go- 
 vernment; and all the congregations are affected with reve- 
 rence to what is required of them by their particular elder- 
 ships, as having the consent and approbation of the whole 
 Church. Many such fruits are reaped of these assemblies, 
 which, without them, no particular person or congregation 
 can have any ground to hope for or expect. 
 
 " 3d, They have no archbishops, diocesan bishops, suffra- 
 gans, no chapters, no curates, dumb nor idle ministers; no 
 hirelings, non-residents, nor pluralists; no deans, nor arch- 
 deacons; no chanters, sub-chanters, nor treasurers; no chan- 
 cellors, officials, nor apparitors; no canons, petit-canons, pre- 
 bends, singing men nor boys; and yet, without these and the 
 like, they have practice and use of all the ordinances of 
 Christ; all matters ecclesiastical determined; remitting ques- 
 tions of tithes, marriages, divorcements, &c, to the civil judge, 
 to whom they properly do belong; and all petitions, com- 
 plaints, and Church grievances heard and redressed, which 
 they esteem as the sweet yoke of Christ, and think it a great 
 ease, both to their consciences and estates, to be free of such 
 bundles and burdens of trash and superfluities. They con- 
 ceive that to erect presbyteries, synods, and National Assem- 
 blies, and still to keep prelates and the members of that 
 hierarchy, is, in the matter of Church government, not unlike 
 the Popish adding of traditions to Scripture in the rule of 
 faith, or works unto faith in the point of justification, &c; 
 additions to Christ's institution being not only, in respect to 
 their author, human inventions.and for any use they can havej 
 idlements, vanities, and follies; but that they do also corrupt 
 the purity, and eat out the life of the ordinances of Christ. 
 
 " 4th, Here there is a superiority without tyranny, for no 
 minister hath a papal or monarchical jurisdiction over his own 
 flock, far less over other pastors, and over all the congrega- 
 tions of a large diocese. Here, then, is parity without con- 
 fusion and disorder, for the pastors are in order before the 
 elders, and the elders before the deacons; every particular 
 Church is subordinate to the presbytery, the presbytery to 
 the synod, and the synod to the National Assembly. One 
 pastor, also, hath priority of esteem before another for age, 
 
APPENDIX. 269 
 
 for zeal, for gifts, for his good deservings of the Church, each 
 one honouring him whom God hath honoured, and as he 
 beareth the image of God; which was to be seen amongst the 
 apostles themselves. But none hath pre-eminence of title, 
 or power, or jurisdiction above others; even as in nature, one 
 eye hath not power over another, only the head hath power 
 over all, even as Christ over his Church. The same may be 
 seen in the Commonwealth, and in some of the offices of the 
 Roman Church itself. And, lastly, here there is a subjection 
 without slavery; for the people are subject to the pastors and 
 assemblies, yet there is no assembly wherein every particular 
 Church hath not interest and power, nor is there anything 
 done but they are, if not actually yet virtually, called to 
 consent unto it. 
 
 " otk, As they have done and suffered much for vindicating 
 and maintaining the liberty of their religion, that what be- 
 longeth unto God may be rendered unto God; so do they 
 desire that, according to the rule of righteousness, each man 
 have his own, and above all men; that the things which are 
 Caesar's be rendered unto him, and to give him that which 
 is God's, were a wronging both of God and Caesar. They 
 have ever been willing to taxes, and to pay subsidies above 
 that which they were able. They join with the inward re- 
 verence of their hearts external honour and obedience in all 
 things lawful. They pour forth their prayers to God in pri- 
 vate and public, for all blessings, spiritual and temporal, upon 
 the king's royal person and government, and upon his pro- 
 geny; and for the same blessings upon the queen's majesty, 
 especially that God by his Spirit would give unto her the 
 knowledge and love of the truth. They long for her con- 
 version, as happiness to herself,* and a mean of great happi- 
 ness to the king, to their children, and to all their subjects; 
 and that the Lord may answer their prayers, they think it 
 incumbent to the Church of England, nor can any bond 
 whatsoever oblige them to the contrary, to use the best and 
 most powerful means, and would most willingly, in all humi- 
 lity, love, and respect, join their endeavours for that blessed 
 end. And as they thus present their best desires and pray- 
 ers, so are they ready to sacrifice their lives to God for his 
 majesty's good, and in their hearts are grieved that their 
 loyalty, which they account their no small glory, should have 
 been called in question. 
 
 " 6th, Neither is this all. But, moreover, they do acknow- 
 ledge that his majesty, as supreme magistrate, hath not only 
 charge over the Commonwealth, but doth watch, and hath 
 * The Queen was then, in the year 1641, a Papist. 
 
270 APPENDIX. 
 
 inspection over the Church and Church matters, but in a 
 civil way — " Vos Episcopi in Ecclesia (saith Constantine), ego 
 extra Ecdesiam Episcopus a Deo comt'itutus sum;'''' and therefore, 
 that he is by his high calling and place, Custos utrhisque tabuhe, 
 to command the precepts of the first table as well as of the 
 second table to be obeyed; that he is Vindex religionis by 
 his sword, as the Spirit of God in Scripture is Judex, and the 
 Church is Index; that he hath power to turn the constitu- 
 tions of the Church into laws, and to confirm them by the 
 civil sanction in Parliament, that he may constrain all his 
 subjects to do duty in matters of religion,* and may punish 
 the transgressors; that when debates arise about religion, he 
 hath power to call assemblies of the Church, to be present, 
 and civilly preside in them, and to examine their constitu- 
 tions, that he may discern of them both as a Christian caring 
 for his own soul, and as a supreme magistrate watching over 
 his people; and that he may do all things which can prove 
 him to be a kind and careful nursing father. They accoxmt 
 all that is vomited out to the contrary (as that they liked 
 anarchy better than monarchy, and that they would turn a 
 kingdom into a democracy) to be but the fictions and calum- 
 nies of the malicious enemies of God and his truth; not unlike 
 the lies which were devised against the Christians of old; 
 their consciences, their words, writings, and actions, even 
 then when the world did put the worst constructions upon 
 them, were witnesses of the integrity of their heart. 
 
 " 7th, They do still hold there can be no antipathy betwixt 
 one ordinance of God and another. By him princes do reign, 
 and he hath also appointed the officers and government of his 
 own house. They do desire nothing more than that the Son 
 of God may reign, and that with and under the Son of God, 
 the king may command, and they, as good subjects to Christ 
 and the king, may obey." (P. 57.) 
 
 This is an ancient, but correct and beautiful testimony. 
 Perhaps the reader will not regret to be reminded of a briefer 
 and more modern. The Parliamentary Committee on Church 
 Patronage in 1834, on reporting the result of their labours to 
 the Legislature, remark : " No sentiment has been so deeply 
 impressed on the mind of your Committee, in the course of 
 their long and laborious investigation, as that of veneration 
 and respect for the Established Church of Scotland. They 
 believe that no institution has ever existed, which, at so little 
 cost, has accomplished so much good. The eminent place 
 which Scotland holds in the scale of nations is mainly owing 
 to the purity of the standards, and the zeal of the ministers 
 * The just freedom, nevertheless, of conscience still excepted. 
 
APPENDIX. 271 
 
 of its Church, as well as the wisdom with which its internal 
 institutions have been adapted to the habits and interests of 
 the people." (Report on Patronage.) 
 
 The eldership of the Presbyterian Church, too, has been suc- 
 cessfully vindicated by Dr. King of Glasgow, and Dr. M'Ker- 
 row of the United Presbyterian Church. 
 
 ADDITIONAL FACTS ON TIIE MORAL TENDENCY OF CALVINISM. 
 
 ( Referred to at page 65. ) 
 
 Many additional facts to those given in the text might be 
 stated; let a few suffice. Fuller, in his triumphant little 
 work, " The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Compared in 
 their Moral Tendency," has beautifully made out that Cal- 
 vinism has a very high moral influence as compared with 
 Socinianisin; and it cannot be doubted, that on many of the 
 grounds stated, it would be found greatly superior to Armi- 
 nianism. It could be shown that Calvinism supplies the best 
 answer to the objections against the peculiar doctrines of the 
 Gospel — doctrines which both parties admit to be the grand 
 sources of all truly moral influence; and that, its theory of 
 Scripture interpretation is much more simple, and sublime, 
 and glorifying to the character of God than any other. These 
 things must be favourable to high moral and religious prin- 
 ciple and conduct. 
 
 With regard more particularly to facts, all will admit that 
 true Calvinists are, in point of character, at least as good as 
 the professors of Arminianism— as zealous for God — as ready 
 to make sacrifices — as benevolent to their fellow-men. This, 
 at least, shows that Calvinism cannot be very injurious; and 
 yet, if one were to believe in the representations which too 
 many give of it, he could expect nothing but the most loose 
 and abandoned life as its fruit. 
 
 Toplady testifies to the superior power of his preaching in 
 converting souls, when he preached the Calvinistic system, than 
 before; and if conversion to God be the first and best security 
 for individual holiness, and, through it, national morality, it 
 is plain that Calvinism must be considered the friend of both. 
 He says, in 1774 : " As to the doctrines of special and discri- 
 minating grace, I have this much to observe, that for the 
 first four years after I was in orders, I dwelt chiefly on the 
 general outline of the Gospel. I preached little else but of 
 justification by faith only in the righteousness and atonement 
 of Christ, and of that personal holiness without which no 
 man shall see the Lord. My reasons for thus narrowing the 
 truths of God were (with humiliation and repentance I desire 
 
2"2 APPENDIX. 
 
 to speak it) these two : — 1st, I thought these points were suf- 
 ficient to convey as clear an idea as was absolutely necessary 
 of salvation; and, 2d, I was partly afraid to go any farther. 
 God himself (for none but he could do it) gradually freed me 
 from that fear. And as he never at any time permitted me 
 to deliver, or even insinuate, anything contradictory to his 
 truths, so has he been graciously pleased, for between seven 
 and eight years past, to open my mouth to make known the 
 entire mystery of his Gospel, as far as his Spirit has enlight- 
 ened me in it. The consequence of my first plan of opera- 
 tions was, that the generality of my hearers were pleased, 
 but very few were converted. The result of my latter deliverance 
 from worldly wisdom and worldly fear, is, that multitudes 
 have been very angry. But the conversions which God has 
 given me reason to hope he has wrought, have been at least three 
 for one before. Thus I can testify, so far as I have been con- 
 cerned, the usefulness of preaching predestination, or, in 
 other words, of tracing salvation and redemption to their first 
 source." 
 
 Abraham Booth, a popular and useful evangelical writer, 
 thus describes his own change of mind in becoming a Calvi- 
 nist. After speaking of persons who, though their own ex- 
 perience may plead for Calvinism, and though their other 
 avowed sentiments involve it, yet dispute against it as com- 
 monly and justly stated, and endeavour to load it with horrid 
 consequences, he goes on to say of himself : " This the writer 
 of these pages knows by experience, to his grief and shame. 
 Through the ignorance of his mind, the pride of his heart, and 
 the prejudices of his education, he, in his younger years, often 
 opposed it with much warmth, though with no small degree 
 of weakness; but after an impartial inquiry and many prayers, 
 he found reason to alter his judgment. He found it to be the 
 doctrine of the Bible, and a dictate of the unerring Spirit. Being 
 thus patronized, he received the once obnoxious sentiment 
 under the full conviction of its being a divine truth. Now he 
 considers the eternal discriminating love of God, in the 
 choice of his people, as the original source of all those spiri- 
 tual blessings they here enjoy, and of all that glory they 
 hereafter expect. To the distinguishing love of the Father, 
 to the redeeming blood of the Son, to the almighty agency 
 and sanctifying operation of the Divine Spirit, he now desires 
 to ascribes the whole unrivalled honour of a complete eternal 
 salvation. In the firm belief of those glorious comprehensive 
 truths he desires to live — enjoying the sweet consolations 
 arising from it, he desires to die; and if the Lord thus favour 
 him, he does not fear but his life will be useful in some degree, 
 
APPENDIX. 273 
 
 his death peaceful, and his end salvation." (Dmth of Legal 
 Hope, p. 46.) 
 
 Can any one read such a statement of feeling and hope as 
 this, and imagine that Calvinism makes a man careless in his 
 religion and relaxed in his morals ? Is not its tone rather 
 spiritual and sanctifying, plainly conducting to much happi- 
 ness, and so to active usefulness ? 
 
 Passing from individual testimonies and experience, how 
 striking is the following picture of the moral influence of 
 Puritanism, which was Calvinistic in doctrine and Presby- 
 terian in form. The most zealous advocates of Arminianism 
 were to be found among the High Church party of Arch- 
 bishop Laud, not at that time numerous, and the wilder Sec- 
 taries ? The writer is the Rev. J. Jones, the biographer of 
 Bishop Hall, " Life and Times," 1826. He is a minister of 
 the Church of England, and though better than many Epis- 
 copalians when writing of such times, is by no means parti- 
 cularly favourable to the Puritans; yet the following is his 
 sketch of the moral operation of their system, which was 
 one of unbroken Calvinism : — " During the troubles of the 
 times, on account of the differences between Charles I. and 
 the Parliament, Puritauism was in one sense productive of 
 much good. The reformation of manners icas then very remarkable. 
 The laws against vice and profaneness were so strict and so 
 vigorously put in execution, that vice was forced to hide itself 
 in corners. The magistrates did their duty in suppressing all 
 kinds of games, stage-plays, and abuses in public-houses. 
 There icas not a play acted on any theatre in England for almost 
 twenty years. Profane swearing, drunkenness, or any kind of 
 debauchery, were not to be heard or seen on the streets. 
 The Lord's- day was observed with unusual reverence. The 
 churches were crowded with numerous and attentive wor- 
 shippers, three or four times in the day. The peace-officers 
 patrolled the streets of London, and all the public-houses 
 were shut up. There was no travelling on the road or walk- 
 ing in the fields, except in cases of absolute necessity. Re- 
 ligious exercises were set up in private families — as reading the 
 Scriptures, family prayer, repeating sermons, and singing of 
 psalms. This was so general a custom, that we are told a 
 person might walk through the city of London, on the even- 
 ing of the Lord's-day, without seeing an idle person, or hear- 
 ing any thing but the voice of prayer or praise from churches 
 or private houses. It is also said that there was hardly a single 
 bankruptcy to be fward of in a year, and that even in such a 
 case the bankrupt had a mark of infamy set upon him, that 
 he could never wipe off." (Pp. 455, 456.) 
 
2? 4 APPENDIX. 
 
 While tlje morality of the Calvinistic period of the seven- 
 teenth century was so pure and stern in England, what was 
 the character of the Arminian period which succeeded ? It 
 was dissolute to a proverb. We do not charge the Arminian 
 doctrine with being the cause of all the mischief — there were 
 other adverse influences at work; but that it produced much 
 evil is certain; and it is not less clear that it was too weak 
 to prevent what it did not directly produce. Toplady, ad- 
 dressing the bench of bishops, and therefore, it may be be- 
 lieved, writing with all due caution, says : " With that prince 
 (Charles II.) Arminianism returned as a flood, and licentious- 
 ness of manners was co-extensive with it. We have had 
 since that period more than one hundred years' experience of 
 Hie unsanctified effects which naturally result from the ideal 
 system of free-will and universal redemption. What has 
 that system done for us ? It has unbraced every nerve of 
 virtue, and relaxed every rein of religious and social duty. In 
 proportion to the operation of its influence, it has gone far 
 toward subverting all moral obedience, and seems to endanger 
 the entire series even of political and ecclesiastical subordi- 
 nation, &c. Look round the land, and your Lordships can- 
 not fail of perceiving that our fiercest free-willers are for the 
 most part the freest livers, and that the belief of universal 
 grace is in too many instances the turnpike road to universal 
 sin." (P. 278.) In accordance with these views, Toplady, at 
 a later, day, quoted, as an illustration of the demoralizing in- 
 fluence of Arminianism fairly carried out, the case of a zealous 
 advocate of the system, who, " when he was in a fit of intem- 
 perance, if any one reminded him of the wrath of God threat- 
 ened against such courses, he would answer, I am a child of 
 the devil to-day, but 1 have free will, and to-morrow I will make 
 myself a child of God" (Works, p. 759.) 
 
 A recent number of the " Edinburgh Keview," January, 
 1841, without connecting the immoral results of the period 
 of the Restoration with the state of religious sentiment, bears 
 a striking testimony to the extent and fearfulness of the 
 moral relaxation. This literary journal, not, of course, on 
 religious grounds, but as a matter of historical fact, con- 
 tended many years ago for the moralizing influence of 
 Calvinism on society. The following sentences describe the 
 state of England when Arminianism was everywhere en- 
 couraged and all-powerful. Surely there can be nothing in 
 its influence very favourable to strict morals, otherwise we 
 should not have such results as these. Writing of the 
 dramatists, the reviewer says : "We can at present hardly 
 call to mind a single English play written before the civil 
 
APPENDIX. 275 
 
 war" (a generally Calvinistic period) "in which the character 
 of a seducer of married women is represented in a favour- 
 able light. We remember many plays in which such persons 
 are baffled and exposed, covered with derision, and insulted 
 by triumphant husbands." Proofs are given. He then adds: 
 " In general we will venture to say, that the dramatists of 
 the age of Elizabeth and James I." (a still more Calvinistic 
 period) "either treat the breach of the married vow as a 
 serious crime, or, if they treat it as a matter of laughter, 
 turn the laugh against the gallant. On the contrary, during 
 the forty years which followed the Restoration" (a* strongly 
 Arminian period), " the whole body of the dramatists invari- 
 ably represented adultery, not as a* peccadillo or error of the 
 passions, but as the calling of a fine gentleman — as a grace, 
 without which his character would be imperfect. It is repre- 
 sented as essential as that he should know French or wear 
 a wig. There is no passion in it." 
 
 Now contemplate the moral result on society. " A period 
 of wild and desperate dissoluteness followed. Even in remote 
 manor-houses and hamlets, thechange"(from the strictness of 
 the Commonwealth — in other words, from Calvinism to Armi- 
 nianism)"was felt. But in London the outbreak of debauchery 
 was appalling; and in London the places most deeply affected 
 were, the palace, the quarters inhabited by the aristocracy, and 
 the inns of court. It was on the support of these parts of the 
 town that the play-houses depended. The character of the 
 drama became conformed to the character of its patrons. The 
 comic poet was the mouth-piece of the most deeply corrupted 
 part of a corrupted society, and in the plays before us 
 (Wycherley and Congreve), we find distilled and condensed 
 the essential spirit of the fashionable world during the anti- 
 Puritan reaction.'' 
 
 Dr. Owen, who lived in both periods — the Commonwealth 
 and the age of Charles II. — gives a fearful and detailed pic- 
 ture of the irreligion and profanity of the latter. {Inquiry, 
 &c, pp. 206, 207, 331) To prevent misapprehension, I beg 
 leave to state, that while fully convinced that Arminianism, 
 carried out to its logical consequences, lowers both the law 
 and the gospel, and so relaxes morality, I am equally con- 
 vinced that there are multitudes who popularly pass under 
 the name of Arminian, such as many of the present Evan- 
 gelical party in the Church of England, and of the modern 
 Wesleyan Methodists, who are much better than their pro- 
 fessed name, who hold the doctrine of justification by free 
 grace through faith alone, and only differ from Calvinists in 
 tracing up grace to its source. Such persons are Anti-pre' 
 
276 APPENDIX. 
 
 destinarian, but should not be confounded or classed with 
 Arminians, properly so called— the men who make a man's 
 good works the ground of his acceptance with God. 
 
 WORKS ON PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 A.MOXG the leading British works in defence of the Presby- 
 terian Church, some more extensive in their scope than 
 others, but all indicating a talent and learning which rebuke 
 the allegation that the ministers of the Presbyterian Church 
 are weak or ignorant men, may be enumerated the follow- 
 ing :* — 
 
 " Altare Damascenum seu Ecclesise Anglicanse Politia," 
 1623. This is a thick quarto in Latin, by David Calderwood, 
 the historian. It has frequently been republished on the 
 Continent, where it bears, and justly, a high reputation. 
 
 " A Dispute against the English-Popish Ceremonies ob- 
 truded upon the Church of Scotland, wherein not only our own 
 arguments against the same are strongly confirmed, but like- 
 wise the answers and defences of our opposites, &c, particu- 
 larly confuted," 1637. A small quarto in English, most 
 masterly in its character, by George Gillespie, one of the mi- 
 nisters of Edinburgh. 
 
 " Aaron's Rod Blossoming; or, the Divine Ordinance of 
 Church Government Vindicated," &c, 1646. It is by the 
 same author, and is dedicated to the divines of the Westmin- 
 ster Assembly, of which he was a member as a commissioner 
 from Scotland. Many other publications, bearing more or less 
 on Presbyterian Church government, pi-oceeded from his 
 pen; among others, "An Assertion of the Discipline and 
 Government of the Church of Scotland," 1641, in small quarto. 
 Gillespie was a first-rate scholar for his years — learned in the 
 original languages of the Scriptures and antiquity, and highly 
 esteemed by his contemporaries. In debate he was eminent. 
 
 * It is not necessary to refer to foreign writers ; otherwise, in addition to 
 those named in the preface, many might be adduced, such as F. Turretine, 
 " De Distinctione Episcopi et Presbyteri," in his " Institutio Theologia?," 
 torn. 3. 
 
 Vitringa, a professor of theology and Church history at Franeker, in North 
 Holland, " De Synagoga Vetere," showing that the government and ministry 
 of the Ancient were transferred to the Christian Church. (P. 846.) 
 
 H. Witsius, ° De Vita Timothei." (P. 318.) " Exercitationes Deylingii 
 Observationes Miscellanea?." (P. 429.) 
 
 " Ursinus Corpus Doctrina? Christiana?." (P.582.) And the usual text- 
 books used in the Continental Divinity Halls. 
 
 Among modern works^ " Neander's Church History," and also " Planting 
 of the Christian Church," might be appealed to. He contends for the primi- 
 tive identity of the bishop and presbyter. 
 
APPENDIX. 2?7 
 
 The works of the antagonist of Selden and Lightfoot in the 
 "Westminster Assembly are well worthy the attention of in- 
 telligent Presbyterians. 
 
 " Due Right of Presbytery," by Samuel Rutherford, author 
 of the celebrated " Letters" which bear his name — a man of 
 eminent scholarship and acuteness, as his attainments in Rab- 
 binical learning, appearances in the Westminster Assembly, 
 his works, and the estimation in which he was held by foreign 
 contemporaries, all show. 
 
 " A Dissuasive from the Errors of the Time, wherein the 
 tenets of the principal sects, especially of the Independents, 
 are drawn together, &c, and examined by the touchstone of 
 the Holy Scriptures," by Robert Baillie, 1645. Baillie, after 
 holding more than one professorship, was principal of Glas- 
 gow College, and, like his two preceding brethren, was a mem- 
 ber of the Westminster Assembly. He was a master in lan- 
 guages, being able to claim acquaintance with ten or twelve 
 of them. Learned in chronology, theology, &c, he stood high 
 in the estimation of the most distinguished Continental scho- 
 lars and divines, such as Salmasius, Spanheim, Leusden, &c. 
 
 " A Brief Refutation of the Errors of Toleration, Erastian- 
 ism, Independency, and Separation," by James Fergnsson of 
 Kilwinning, written in 1652, but published in 1692. 
 
 James Wood, professor of theology at St. Andrews, pub- 
 lished " An Examination and Refutation of Lockyer's Lec- 
 ture on the Visible Church, in defence of Presbytery, and 
 against Independency," in 1654. 
 
 In the same period Presbyterian ministers in London and 
 England published, 
 
 " Jus^Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, or Divine Right o. 
 Church Government Asserted and Evidenced by the Holy 
 Scriptures," &c, &c, by sundry ministers of Christ within 
 the city of London. A small quarto. 
 
 " Smectymnus, an Answer to a Humble Remonstrance, 
 1646, in which the original of Liturgy and Episcopacy is dis- 
 cussed, the parity of Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture de- 
 monstrated, the antiquity of Ruling Elders in the Church 
 vindicated, &c, &c, by five learned and orthodox Divines." 
 This was an answer to Bishop Hall's " Defence of the Church 
 of England." The authors were, Stephen Marshall, Edmund 
 Calamy, Thomas Young, Matthew Newcomen, and William 
 Spurston, whose initials make up the title. 
 
 "A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government and Mi- 
 nistry, by the Ministers and Elders met in Provincial Assem- 
 bly, November 1649." Small quarto, London, 1650. 
 
 " The Good Old Way Defended, &c, wherein the Divine 
 
 T 
 
278 APPENDIX. 
 
 Right of the Government of the Church by Presbyters act- 
 ing in parity, is Asserted," &c, by Gilbert Rule, principal of 
 the College of Edinburgh, 1697. He was the author of vari- 
 ous pamphlets in defence of Presbytery against Episcopacy, 
 after the Restoration. 
 
 " Xazianzeni Querela et Votum Justum : the Fundamen- 
 tals of the Hierarchy Examined and Disproved," by William 
 Jameson, lecturer of history in the University of Glasgow, 
 1697. 
 
 " Cyprianus Isotimus, or J. S.'s (John Sage, a Scottish Epis- 
 copal bishop) Vindication of his Principles of the Cyprianic 
 Age Confuted," &c, by the same author, 1705. 
 
 " The Sum of the Episcopal Controversy, as it is Pleaded 
 from the Holy Scriptures," &c, &c, by the same, 1713. 
 
 Jameson must have been a remarkable man. His works 
 are full of learning, and yet he was blind. This is beauti- 
 fully referred to by him, in the conclusion of his " Nazian- 
 zenzi." 
 
 " The Hierarchical Bishops' Claim to a Divine Right, Tried 
 at the Scripture Bar" (in answer to three authors, two of them 
 bishops), " the whole issuing in a clear discerning of the solid 
 grounds of Presbyterian Government, in opposition to Pre- 
 lacy," by Principal Forrester of St. Andrews. Quarto, 1669. 
 The same author, though his name is not given, published in 
 a thick quarto a " Review and Consideration of two Pamph- 
 lets, &c, in confutation of Bishop Sage on the Cyprianic 
 Age," 1706. The same author, at an earlier day, 1684, anony- 
 mously published, " Rectius Instruendum, containing a Con- 
 futation of Episcopacy, and Vindication of the Truth, owned 
 by the true Protestant and Presbyterian Church of Scot- 
 land." Currie, in his " Vindication," states that Forrester 
 was the author. 
 
 " The Divine Institution of Bishops having Churches con- 
 sisting of many Congregations, Examined by Scripture," by 
 Alex. Lauder, minister of Mordington, 1711. The same 
 author published " The Jurisdiction and Power of the An- 
 cient Bishops Considered," in answer to Chillingworth, 1707. 
 
 " Defence of the Church Government, Faith, Worship, and 
 Spirit, of the Presbyterians," by Anderson, minister of Dum- 
 barton, and afterwards first minister of the Ramshorn Church, 
 Glasgow, 1704. Here may added, "A Plea for Scripture 
 Ordination, cr Ten Arguments from Scripture and Antiquity 
 proving Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops to be 
 Valid," by J. 0. (James Owen, a Dissenting minister), pre- 
 faced by Rev. Daniel Williams, 1694. 
 
 " The Original Constitution of the Christian Church, 
 
APPENDIX. 279 
 
 wherein the Extremes on either hand are Stated and Exa- 
 mined; to which is added, an Appendix, containing the rise 
 of the Jure Divino Prelatists, and an answer to their Argu- 
 ments by Episcopal Divines," by T. A. (Thomas Ayton), 
 minister of the gospel at Alyth, 1730. 
 
 " A Clear Account of the Ancient Episcopacy, proving it 
 to have been Parochial, and therefore inconsistent with the 
 present Model of Diocesan Episcopacy, wherein the several 
 Pretensions of the Divine Right of the latter are fully Exa- 
 mined," by Joseph Boyse of Dublin. Vide Works, 1726. 
 
 The works of the excellent Willison of Dundee may here 
 be referred to. His views on Episcopacy are contained in 
 his Letter from " A Parochial Bishop to a Prelatical Gentle- 
 man;" his views on Independency in his controversy with 
 John Glas. 
 
 " A Humble Attempt to Exhibit a Scriptural View of the 
 Constitution, Order, Discipline, and Fellowship of the Gospel 
 Church," by Archibald Hall. London, 1795. 
 
 " A Short Vindication of Presbyterial Church Government, 
 containing a Summary View of the Evidence in Support of 
 it from Scripture, together with an Examination of the Prin- 
 cipal Arguments of the Independents against it," by George 
 Whytock, of the Associate Congregation, Dalkeith. 1799. 
 
 " Letters on the Constitution, Government, and Discipline of 
 the Christian Church," by John Brown of Haddington, 1799. 
 
 " A Vindication of the Presbyterian Form of Church Go- 
 vernment, as professed in the Standards of the Church of 
 Scotland, in reply to the Animadversions of Modern and An- 
 cient Independents," by Rev. John Brown of Gartmore (now 
 Dr. Brown of Langton), 1805. 
 
 " Presbyterian Letters, addressed to Bishop Skinner of 
 Aberdeen, on his Vindication of Primitive Truths and Order," 
 &c, by Dr. Mitchell of Kemnay, 1809. 
 
 " Presbyterianism Defended," 1839, and 
 
 " Plea of Presbytery," &c, &c, both by Ministers of the 
 General Synod of Ulster, 1841. 
 
 Several of the authors above named have published others 
 which it would have been too tedious to mention, but which 
 the reader, with those given, will have little difficulty in 
 finding. Perhaps to the list might be added a work of the 
 great Dr. Owen, entitled " An Inquiry into the Original Na- 
 ture, Institution, Power, Order, and Communion, of Evange- 
 lical Churches, with an Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet." Quarto, 
 1681. Though not strictly a Presbyterian book, yet it is a 
 powerful exposure of the claims of Prelacy, and is written with 
 a freedom and ease unusual in many of the works of Owen. 
 
280 APPENDIX. 
 
 There is a posthumous little work by David Clarkson, pub- 
 lished in London in 16SS, entitled "Primitive Episcopacy 
 Stated and Cleared from the Holy Scriptures and Ancient 
 Eecords." The object is to show, and it is done with great 
 learning, that the Primitive Episcopacy was not an oversight 
 of a number of pastors, as Prelatists allege, but of a single 
 congregation. Various treatises, bearing more or less on the 
 same controversy, have been republished by the Wickliffe 
 Society, the production of the same author. 
 
 Of modern American works, by far the most important 
 which I have seen, bears the title of 
 
 " Letters concerning the Constitution and Order of the 
 Christian Ministry, addressed to the Members of the Presby- 
 terian Churches in the City of New York," &c, &c, by Dr. 
 Miller of Princeton. Large octavo, 2d edition, Philadelphia, 
 1830. 
 
 The Letters are by the same author as the little treatise 
 which is now republished, and are of a very high character. 
 What adds to their value is, that they most satisfactorily 
 discuss the pretensions of the new Anglican School in the 
 Church of England, in a controversy which Dr. Miller held 
 with similar parties in America in 1807. 
 
 " An Ecclesiastical Catechism : being a Series of Ques- 
 tions relative to the Scriptural Authority of the Presbyterian 
 Form of Church Government." By Alexander M'Leod,D.D., 
 pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, New York. 
 Republished by Johnstone, Edinburgh. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Smyth of Charleston has recently published 
 various important works in defence of Presbytery and against 
 High Church Prelacy. 
 
 A little useful work has been published by Dr. Barnes, 
 trying Episcopacy solely upon scriptural grounds. It has 
 been reprinted in London, while one of Dr. Smyth's has been 
 reprinted by Mr. Collins of Glasgow. 
 
 Since the above was written, Dr. James Buchanan of Edin- 
 burgh has published valuable Tracts, and Dr. Alexander an 
 able volume on Apostolic Succession. 
 
 Dr. King of Glasgow, and Dr. M'Kerrow of the United 
 Presbyterian Church, have published useful volumes on the 
 Eldership, which so far vindicate an important part of the 
 Presbyterian Constitution. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Preface to the Second Edition, ... . Page iii 
 
 Preface to the First Edition, ...... v 
 
 I. 
 
 DR. MILLER'S TREATISE, 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 On the name Catholic or Universal Church— Is the Church of Rome a Church 
 of Christ ? Note— Of whom the True Catholic Church consists— Its Unity 
 — Obligation of Christians to Ascertain which Christian Denomination 
 comes nearest to the Scriptural Model— Four distinct Forms of Church 
 Order— The precise and general Meaning of Presbyterianism, Page 17-23 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 The Government of the Church conducted by Representatives in Old Testa- 
 ment Times— The Synagogue ruled by Elders— Appeal from the Inferior 
 to the Great Synagogue— The same System adopted by the First Con- 
 verts to Christianity — No countenance in the New Testament to any Go- 
 vernment except the Presbyterian— True meaning of the word " Bishop." 
 Note— The Earliest Fathers testify in behalf of Presbytery— Prelacy and 
 Independency unknown in the Christian Church for the first two hundred 
 years— Prelacy began to rise in the|Third Century amid great Corruptions 
 —Taylor's "Ancient Christianity" recommended. Not-e— Christian Writers 
 of the highest character bear witness to the unhappy Change— Ambrose 
 —Augustine— Chrysostom— Summary of the Argument from Early Times 
 — There were always Witnesses against Prelacy in the Christian Church 
 — Paulicians in the Seventh Century— The Waldenses were Presbyterians 
 — Presbvterianism kept alive in the only Pure Churches known^to'exist at 
 the time— The Reformers almost unanimously adopted Presbytery— The 
 Church of England alone, in Protestant Christendom, clung to Prelacy- 
 Political Considerations the cause— The ignorant charge thatPresbyterian- 
 ism originated with Calvin— The history of Presbyterianism shows that 
 it is l Favourable to Freedom— The Presbyterian Church often Perse- 
 cuted, never a Persecuting Church— Case of Calvin and Servetus, 
 
 Page 24-42. 
 
 T 2 
 
282 index. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 Presbyterians have, in all ages, laid great stress on Pure Doctrine — Their 
 System of Doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith — 
 Usually bears the name of Calvinistic — Why ? — In what they Agree and 
 in what Differ from other Evangelical Denominat ; ons— Gross Misrepre- 
 sentations of the Calvinistic System— Facts fitted to moderate the hostility. 
 Note— 1. Statement of the real System of Doctrine which Presbyterians 
 believe— 5. The ample support of this System found in the Word of God — 
 3. For substance the same with that of the Witnesses to the Truth, and 
 great body of the Reformers in past times— 4. As few Difficulties attend it 
 as any other System — 5. The very same Objections were made in Apos- 
 tolic Times to the Doctrines of Grace— 6. Every devout Professor of 
 Religion becomes a Calvinlst in Prayer— 7. The Moral Influence of the 
 Calvinistic System higher than that of any other, . Page 43-69. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 The Necessity of Government in the Church— The Peculiarities of Presby- 
 tery—The Official Equality of Ministers against Prelacy— Statement of 
 the Prelatic Claim — Diocesan Bishops not the Successors of the Apostles 
 — Total absence of Scriptural Authority for them— The Testimony of 
 Theodoret, Four Centuries after the Apostolic Age, of no value in itself, 
 and is, besides, opposed by earlier Fathers— The alleged Prelacy of 
 Timothy and Titus without the slightest Foundation in Scripture — Aban- 
 doned by Episcopalian Writers— The Postscripts of the Epistles of Second 
 Timothy and Titus ofno Authority— The Argument from the Angels of 
 the Seven Churches shown to be equally vain— The Claim that James 
 was Bishop of Jerusalem a Gratuitous Assumption — Summary Answer to 
 the Prelatic Arguments— Episcopal Writers claim the Fathers in behalf 
 of their Views— Dr. Miller's Reasons for not entering on this Field— The 
 Supremacy of the Word of God — New Testament Testimony in favour of 
 Ministerial Parity clear— All the Reformers Contended for the same. 
 Note on the Views of the Lutheran Church in the matter— The Office of 
 Deacon in the Episcopal Church Destitute of Scriptural Authority— True 
 Nature of the Office— Views of the Fathers regarding it— Presbyterians 
 contend not only for Parity among Ministers, but for the Office of Ruling 
 Elder— Summary of the Argument for— Also for Courts of Review— 
 Ir.conveniences of the absence of them— Arguments for— General Ad- 
 vantages of the Presbyterian Form of Government— Other Churches con- 
 strained to Act upon 'its Principles, .... Page 70-96. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 THE WORSHIP OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 Word of Godonlv Safe Guide in regard to Worship— Views of the English 
 Puritans— High Character of. Note— 1. Christ is the only King and Head 
 of the Church— 2. Human Additions expressly Forbidden in Scripture— 
 3. Once Admitted, there is no end to them, . . Page 97-100. 
 
INDEX. 283 
 
 SECTION I. — PRESBYTERIANS REJECT PRESCRIBED LITURGIES. 
 
 True State of the Question. Note — 1. No Forms of Prayer in the Apostolic 
 Age of the Church — 2. The Lord's Prayer not intended to be used as an 
 Exclusive Form — 3. No Prescribed Form known for several hundred 
 years — 4. If the Apostles had given a Liturgy to the Church, it would 
 have heen Preserved — 5. Forms Injurious to the Spirit of Prayer— 6. No 
 Forms can be adapted to all circumstances — 7. When Religion is in a 
 lively state, Forms are felt to be a Restraint— 8. Prescribed Liturgies have 
 a tendency to Perpetuate Error — Summary of Argument — Clarkson on 
 Liturgies Recommended. Note. 
 
 SECTION II. — PRESBYTERIANS DO NOT OBSERVE HOLY DAYS. 
 
 Because, 1. Scripture does not Warrant— 2. Expressly Discountenances them 
 — 3. Existence of under Old, no Argument for use under New Testa- 
 ment— 4. .The History of, does not Recommend the Practice of— 5. The 
 Motives and Manner of Introducing, is an Argument against — 6. There is 
 no Limit to them— 7. The Observance of, Injurious to the Sanctification 
 of the Lord's Day. 
 
 SECTION III.— PRESBYTERIANS REJECT GOD-FATHERS AND GOD- 
 MOTHERS IN BAPTISM. 
 
 There is not a shadow of Scripture Evidence for them— 2. No Trace of 
 them for five hundred years after Christ — 3. Their subsequent History 
 marks the Progress of Superstition— 4. Unknown among the Waldenses 
 and Albigenses— 5. The Practice sets asido Parents in a solemn transac- 
 tion — Church of England allows Lay- Baptism. Note. 
 
 SECTION IV. — PRESBYTERIANS REJECT THE SIGN OF THE CROSS 
 IN BAPTISM. 
 
 The Practice was retained in the Church of England only by a Majority of 
 One — 1. It has no Scripture Authority — 2. Is associated in its Origin with 
 much Superstition— 3. Also in its Progress— Tertullian, &c— 4 The 
 miserable Superstition to which it is subservient in the Church of Rome. 
 
 SECTION V. — FRESBYTERIANS REJECT THE RITE OF 
 CONFIRMATION. 
 
 Because Unwarranted, 1. By the Word of God— 2. By Inspired Antiquitv— - 
 3. It is Superfluous— 4. As Administered in the Church of England, it is 
 liable to Serious Objections. 
 
 SECTION VI. — PRESBYTERIANS REJECT KNEELING AT THE 
 LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 Because, 1. Sitting was the Posture of our Lord and his Disciples— 2. Kneel- 
 ing was unknown for many Centuries after the Apostolic Age— 3. Is In- 
 congruous, and therefore "unsuitable to the Lord's Supper — 4. Is liable 
 to Misapprehension and Abuse. 
 
284 INDEX, 
 
 SECTION VII.— PRESBYTERIANS DO NOT ADMINISTER THE LORD'S 
 SUPPER IN PRIVATE. 
 
 The Ordinance much Perverted from Earliest Times downwards by the 
 Church of Rome— The Church of England Administers to Impenitent 
 Criminals— Cases — Presbyterians refuse it in Private, because, 1. The 
 Ordinance in its own nature is Social— 2. No Warrant for Private Com- 
 munion in the New Testament— 3- It Encourages the Dying to rely on 
 an External Sign— 4. There is no end to the Practice if the Principle be 
 once admitted — Declining to Administer in Private avoids serious Em- 
 barrassments. 
 
 SECTION VIII. — PRESBYTERIANS REJECT BOWING AT THE NAME 
 OF JESUS. 
 
 Because, 1. There is no Warrant for it in Scripture — 2. No good Reason can 
 be assigned for'it — 3. It Encourages Superstition — Was never heard of 
 till the Fifteenth Century. 
 
 SECTION IX. — PRESBYTERIANS REJECT THE READING OF APOCRYPHAL 
 BOOKS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP. 
 
 Because, 1. Nothing should be read under the name of Holy Scripture, ex- 
 cept what truly is so — 2. The Apocryphal Books contain False Doctrine 
 — The Homilies of the Church of England speak favourably of them — 
 The Reading of them in Public Worship Protested against by many o£ 
 the most eminent Divines, .... Page 100-139 . 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Presbyterians, while they Maintain their own Principles, do not Condemn 
 other Christians — A large portion of the Apostolic Spirit essentiarto the 
 Maintenance and due Execution of their System, . Page 140-142. 
 
 CONCLUDING NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 
 
 The Presbyterian Church has never Unchurched other Evangelical Churches 
 — Historical References Proving her Candid and Charitable Spirit — Ex- 
 hortation to Presbyterians not to be moved by the arrogant assumptions 
 which dony the Validity of their Religious Ordinances, Page 142-144. 
 
INDEX. 285 
 
 II. 
 
 MR. LOEIMER'S TREATISE. 
 
 THE CHARACTER AND ADVANTAGES OF PRESBYTERIANISM 
 ASCERTAINED BY FACTS, WITH AN APPENDIX ON THE 
 PRETENSIONS OF THE NEW ANGLICAN SCHOOL, TESTI- 
 MONY OF THE FATHERS AND REFORMERS TO PRESBY- 
 TERY, ETC. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 VIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF PRESBYTERIANISM 
 THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. 
 
 The Church of Scotland— The Free Church— Other Scottish Presbyterian 
 Bodies— Growth of Presbytery— Presbyterian Church of Ireland— Increas- 
 ing Presbyterian Church of England— Recent Growth— Calvinistic 
 Methodists— Presbyterian Churches of Holland— Of France — Switzerland 
 — Hungary— Piedmont— Germany— United States of America-- All Re- 
 viving—In some cases Great and Growing Enlargement, Page 147-157. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE MAINTENANCE 
 OF SOUND DOCTRINE. 
 
 No System of Church Government of itself able always to Preserve Sound 
 Doctrine, but Presbytery more Favourable than others— No Tenets or 
 Practice of the Presbyterian Church fitted to Pervert Sound Doctrine — 
 Prelacy Injurious to it — Also Independency— The latter proved by His- 
 tory— Fergusson and Baillie's Testimonies — Sound Doctrine of the^Pres- 
 byterian Church of America— Explanation of the Cases where Presbyte- 
 rian Churches have become Unsound— The Relaxation of Presbyterian 
 Principles a Leading Cause— When Sound Doctrine Revives in a Church, 
 its Presbyterian Organization Aids the Revival, . Page 158-166. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO UNITY AND PEACE. 
 
 Its Organization Conduces to Unity— Misapprehension springing from the 
 Free Discussions of its Church Courts— Independency tends to Division 
 — Prelacy, where associated with the notion of the Uninterrupted Epis- 
 copal Succession — And in its own Nature— Divisive in its Tendency— 
 — Proved by the Facts of History— Particularly of the Church of Eng- 
 land—The Alleged Unity of the Churches of Denmark, Sweden, and 
 Norway, .... . Page 167-178. 
 
682 INDEX. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE CULTIVATION OE 
 KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING. 
 
 What sort of Knowledge is most Important for the Ministers of the Gospel — 
 The Presbyterian Church, on Principle, and from its Constitution, always 
 the Friend of a Well-educated Ministry— The high Acquirements of the 
 Presbyterian Reformers, both in Britain and on the Continent, and in 
 subsequent periods— The Presbyterian Church of America Zealous in her 
 Efforts for a Well-instructed Ministry — High Proportional Number of her 
 Theological Institutions and Colleges for General Literature— Creditable 
 Labours of the British and American Congregationalists in the same Cause 
 — The Claim of some Episcopalians in behalf of the learning of the 
 Church of England, to the Disparagement of that of Presbyterian 
 Churches, Considered and Answered— In Comparing the Church of Eng- 
 land with other Churches, the RelativeNumber of Educated Men must be 
 taken into account, also the peculiar Encouragements and Facilities for 
 Learning— Statistics of Cambridge and Oxford Universities — Application 
 of these Considerations, ..... Page 179-193. 
 
 1CHAPTER V. 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 
 
 Civil Insubordination a Common Charge against Presbytery — True Religion 
 in every age assailed with the same charge — Parity not the Parent of Con- 
 fusion. Note— The Confessions of Faith of Presbyterian Churches Prove 
 their Loyalty — German, French, Swiss, Bohemian, Waldensian, Scottish 
 — Presbyterian Churches have, in point of fact, been Eminent for their 
 Loyalty— The Waldenses — French Protestants— Testimony of James VI. 
 — British Presbyterians Vindicated from the Calumny of being the 
 Authors of the Death of Charles I. — The Protest of the Presbyterian 
 Ministers of London — The Acknowledgment of Sir George Mackenzie — 
 The Dying Testimonies of the Scottish Martyrs— The Loyalty of the 
 Irish Presbyterians Proved by History, also the Presbyterians of America 
 — Prelacy in the days of Popery Seditious— The Scottish Episcopal 
 Church Disloyal for one hundred years— Explanation of the Collisions 
 of the Presbyterian Church with Civil Power in former and present 
 times, ....... Page 194-213. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 LIBERTY. 
 
 What True Liberty is— The Fruit of True Religion— The Connection be- 
 tween Civil and Religious Freedom— The Services of the Presbyterian 
 Church in Working out the Freedom of Europe at the Reformation — 
 Explanation of the Intolerance into which Evangelical Christians have 
 been occasionally Betrayed — Presbyterians Vindicated from all Serious 
 Persecution. Note, 222— Also Confessions of Episcopal Writers to this 
 effect — Connection between Presbyterianism and Freedom in Scotland, 
 in Ireland, in the United States— Prelacy Injurious to Liberty Proved 
 by History— The Exclusive Claims of Congregationalists to be the Friends 
 of Freedom Considered — Neither their Practice nor their Principles en- 
 title to the honour, ...... Page 2li-22i. 
 
INDEX. 287 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO CATHOLIC VIEWS OF 
 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 Presbyterian Principles Cultivate just Views of the Unity of the Church of 
 Christ— Facts — Confessions of Faith— Prelacy Injurious to such Views— 
 Also Congregationalism— The Church of Scotland informer times Catho- 
 lic—The Free Church of the present day Catholic, . Page 225-232. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF 
 SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES AND PRIVILEGES IN PEACEFUL 
 AND ADVERSE TIMES. 
 
 Importanc 3 of a Self-preserving Power— In Peace, Presbytery Provides for 
 
 Symp£thy, Consultation, and Co-operation— Its Diffusive Tendency 
 
 Christ an Missions— In Times of Trial, Presbytery is a good Defence- 
 Promptitude of Movement — United Resistance— Disadvantages under 
 which Episcopal and Congregational Churches Labour— Concluding Re- 
 marks, ....... Page 233-239. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE FAVOURABLE OPERATION OF PRESBYTERIANISM ILLUS- 
 TRATED IN THE FREE CHURCH MOVEMENT OF SCOTLAND. 
 
 Change in Ecclesiastical Parties during the last Five Years— Revival of the 
 Principles of Presbytery even among those not professedly Presbyterian 
 — The Scottish Disruption honourable to Presbytery— Prepared for the 
 event — Useful at and subsequent to it— The inadequacy of Prelacy or 
 Congregationalism in similar circumstances — Facts in confirmation— Tes- 
 timony of a Popish Bishop to the Advantages of Presbytery,, Page 210-248. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS IN BEHALF OF 
 PRESBYTEKY. 
 
 Presbyterians might Consistently Decline to Acknowledge the Fathers— The 
 Inferior and Unsatisfactory Character of their Writings— At the same 
 time, Presbyterians have never shrunk from this Argument — What it is 
 Essential Episcopalians should Establish from the Writings of the Fathers 
 — Testimonies of Clement, Hermes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenajus, Justin 
 Martyr, Clemens A lexandrinus, not Inconsistent with, but more or less 
 Favourable to, Presbytery — Strong Presumptions against Diocesan Epis- 
 copacy in Primitive Times from Acknowledged Facts, Page 249-257. 
 
682 INDEX. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE CULTIVATION OF 
 KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING* 
 
 What sort of Knowledge is most Important for the Ministers of the Gospel— 
 The Presbyterian Church, on Principle, and from its Constitution, always 
 the Friend of a Well-educated Ministry— The high Acquirements of the 
 Presbyterian Reformers, both in Britain and on the Continent, and in 
 subsequent periods— The Presbyterian Church of America Zealous in her 
 Efforts for a Well-instructed Ministry — High Proportional Number of her 
 Theological Institutions and Colleges for General Literature— Creditable 
 Labours of the British and American Congregationalists in the same Cause 
 — The Claim of some Episcopalians in behalf of the learning of the 
 Church of England, to the Disparagement of that of Presbyterian 
 Churches, Considered and Answered— In Comparing the Church of Eng- 
 land with other Churches, the RelativeNumber of Educated Men must be 
 taken into account, also the peculiar Encouragements and Facilities for 
 Learning— Statistics of Cambridge and Oxford Universities — Application 
 of these Considerations, ..... Page 179-193. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO LOYALTY. 
 
 Civil Insubordination a Common Charge against Presbytery — True Religion 
 in every age assailed with the same charge— Parity not the Parent of Con- 
 fusion. Note— The Confessions of Faith of Presbyterian Churches Prove 
 their Loyalty— German, French, Swiss, Bohemian, Waldensian, Scottish 
 
 — Presbyterian Churches have, in point of fact, been Eminent for their 
 Loyalty— The Walilenses — French Protestants— Testimony of James VI. 
 — British Presbyterians Vindicated from the Calumny of being the 
 Authors of the Death of Charles I. — The Protest of the Presbyterian 
 Ministers of London — The Acknowledgment of Sir George Mackenzie — 
 The Dying Testimonies of the Scottish Martyrs— The Loyalty of the 
 Irish Presbyterians Proved by History, also the Presbyterians of America 
 
 — Prelacy in the days of Popery Seditious— The "Scottish Episcopal 
 Church "Disloyal for one hundred years— Explanation of the Collisions 
 of the Presbyterian Church with Civil Power in former and present 
 times, ....... Page 194-213. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 LIBERTY. 
 
 What True Liberty is — The Fruit of True Religion — The Connection be- 
 tween Civil and Religious Freedom— The Services of the Presbyterian 
 Church in Working out the Freedom of Europe at the Reformation — 
 Explanation of the Intolerance into which Evangelical Christians have 
 been occasionally Betrayed — Presbyterians Vindicated from all Serious 
 Persecution. Note, 222— Also Confessions of Episcopal Writers to this 
 effect^ — Connection between Presbyterianism and Freedom in Scotland, 
 in Ireland, in the United States— Prelacy Injurious to Liberty Proved 
 bv History— The Exclusive Claims of Congregationalists to be the Friends 
 of Freedom Considered— Neither their Practice nor their Principles en- 
 title to the honour, ...... Page 214-224. 
 
INDEX. 287 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO CATHOLIC VIEWS OF 
 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 Presbyterian Principles Cultivate just Views of the Unity of the Church of 
 Christ— Facts — Confessions of Faith— Prelacy Injurious to such Views — 
 Also Congregationalism— The Church of Scotlandin former times Catho- 
 lic — The Free Church of the present day Catholic, . Page 225-232. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM FAVOURABLE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF 
 SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES AND PRIVILEGES IN PEACEFUL 
 AND ADVERSE TIMES. 
 
 Importance of a Self-preserving Power — In Peace, Presbytery Provides for 
 Sympzthy, Consultation, and Co-operation— Its Diffusive Tendency — 
 Christ an Missions— In Times of Trial, Presbytery is a good Defence- 
 Promptitude of Movement— United Resistance — Disadvantages under 
 which Episcopal and Congregational Churches Labour — Concluding Re- 
 marks, ....... Page 233-239. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE FAVOURABLE OPERATION OF PRESBYTERIANISM ILLUS- 
 TRATED IN THE FREE CHURCH MOVEMENT OF SCOTLAND. 
 
 Change in Ecclesiastical Parties during the last Five Years— Revival of the 
 Principles of Presbytery even among those not professedly Presbyterian 
 — The Scottish Disruption honourable to Presbytery — Prepared for the 
 event — Useful at and subsequent to it— The inadequacy of Prelacy or 
 Congregationalism in similar circumstances — Facts in confirmation — Tes- 
 timony of a Popish Bishop to the Advantages of Presbytery^Page 210-248. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS IN BEHALF OF 
 PRESBYTERY. 
 
 Presbyterians might Consistently Decline to Acknowledge the Fathers— The 
 Inferior and Unsatisfactory Character of their Writings — At the same 
 time, Presbyterians have never shrunk from this Argument — What it is 
 Essential Episcopalians should Establish from the Writings of the Fathers 
 — Testimonies of Clement, Hermes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin 
 Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, not Inconsistent with, but more or less 
 Favourable to, Presbytery— Strong Presumptions against Diocesan Epis- 
 copacy in Primitive Times from Acknowledged Facts, Page 249-257. 
 
288 INDEX. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS IN BEHALF OF 
 PRESBYTERY. 
 
 The Superiority of the Reformers to the Fathers— Misapprehension of Prela- 
 tists as to the Origin and Prevalence of Presbytery — Any Favourable 
 Opinion of the Reformers in Behalf of Prelacy Explained — The Ancient 
 Waldenses Presbyterian— Also Wickliffe, Huss, Jerome, and the Bohe- 
 mian Brethren — Luther, his Sentiment and Practice— Others— Lutheran 
 Divines— The Reformed Churches Presbyterian— Calvin— France— Hol- 
 land — Synod of Dort — Reformers of the English Church Substantially 
 Presbyterian— Also their Successors and more Modern Writers — Sum- 
 mary of the Argument from the Reformers — Striking Testimony to Pres- 
 bytery in general, and the Church of Scotland in particular, by Alexander 
 Henderson, in 1GH — Also to the latter by Committee of the House of 
 Commons, in 1834, ...... Page 257-271. 
 
 ADDITIONAL FACTS ON THE MORAL TENDENCY OF 
 CALVINISM. 
 
 Experimental Testimony of Toplady to the Success of Preaching the higher 
 Doctrines of Calvinism in the Conversion of Souls— Booth's Recantation 
 of Anti-Calvinistic Views, and accompanying Happiness — An Episcopal 
 Minister's Attestation to the high Moral and Religious Character of the 
 Calvinistic Age of the English Puritans— The " Edinburgh Review" on 
 the fearful Immorality of the Arminian Age, which succeeded — Dr. 
 Owen's Testimony to the same purpose — Misapprehension guarded 
 against, ....... Page 271-276. 
 
 WORKS ON PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Page 276-280. 
 

 1332YG lk lffi8j 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 
 
 1 1012 01185 4215