O^-oofc ^ } 0 »T#

\<B>SOD

SERMON.

DECISION :

PLAIN SERMON EOR THE TIMES.

BY J. T. BEOOKE, D. D.,
RECTOR OF CHRIST CHURCH, CINCINNATI.

CINCINNATI:
H. W. DERBY & CO., PUBLISHERS.
1850.

CINCINNATI :
Morgan and Overend, Printers,

NOTE. •
The substance ofthe following discourse, was preached
by the author, in the ordinary routine of parochial in
struction, without the least view to publication. It is
put to press in its present form, at the urgent request
of several faithful and respected members of his con
gregation. Instead of polishing it for criticism, he has
rather aimed to retain the free style of the pulpit, and
to speak plainly, and pointedly, against errors, some of
which, he thinks, have been, heretofore, too much praised
with faint condemnation. It has been his wish to " hate
the thing th&t is evil," and yet love the person, who may
cherish it. If he has erred on either hand, he prays to
be forgiven.
Cincinnati, March, 1850.

SERMON.

EXODUS, XXXIII; 26.
" Then Moses stood in the gate or the camp, and said, Who
is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me."
The mere faith of education, is often little better than
a modified skepticism. Many who possess it, suppose
that, witnessing a single miracle in attestation of the
Scriptures, would at once settle their doubts and make
them decided Christians. Our Saviour anticipated this
common delusion, in his parable of the rich man and Laza
rus ; in which he represents Dives as entreating that
Lazarus might be sent to warn his five brethren. But,
the final answer was : " If they hear not Moses and the
prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one
*rose from the dead." And, the truth is, that what men
in general want, is not conviction, but conversion — not
evidence, but moral ability, or the will, to follow the
light, which the judgment already approves.
One of the most remarkable instances of the insuf
ficiency of the most sublime and diversified miraculous
evidence, to arrest the current of appetite and passion,
may be found in the narrative connected with our text.
The Israelites, after witnessing the miraculous plagues
of Egypt, were led out, by the Almighty, with a strong
hand. The pillar of cloud and of fire, had conducted
them by day and by night. They had passed the Red

8
Sea on dry land, with the embanked waters on either
side of them ; and sung their song of deliverance. They
had seen the miracles of the manna, and the quails,
and the smitten rock, and the brazen serpent; and,
most of all, they had just witnessed the delivery of the
law on Mount Sinai, amid " thundering and lightning,
and darkness and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet,
and the voice of words." But Moses had gone up into
the Mount to commune with God, and receive his in
structions. His absence, united to their own idleness,
formed a strong temptation. Their hearts revolted from
the pure and spiritual worship of God, and desired a
service more congenial to their carnal propensities. Un
der this infatuating impulse, they surrounded Aaron and
demanded an idol. From timidity, or carnal policy,
he yielded to their importunity, and set up a golden calf;
to which the people made sacrifices and offerings, and
(in the lauguage of the sacred historian) " sat down to
eat and drink, and rose up to play" — that is, kept an
idol feast, in the usual way, with mirth and music, and
songs and dances. It was when Moses, by the com
mand of God, came down to arrest the defection, that
" he stood in the gate of the camp" (the usual place of
administering justice), " and said, Who is on the Lord's
side, let him come unto me."
From the text, viewed in its historical connection,
we draw the following leading lessons :
I. That following a multitude, or a majority,
however great, is not always safe; and —
II. That Christians should be decided and uncom
promising IN THEIR OPPOSITION TO IDOLATRY.

9
I. Of following a majority. w Thou shalt not fol
low a multitude to do evil," is a precept of inspiration,
given to restrain a common propensity of human nature.
Man, as a sympathetic and social being, is prone to fol
low his fellow-men. And, absurd as the notion is in it
self, the deceitfulness of the heart often whispers the hope
that majority will secure impunity. Hence, custom, or
the fashion of the world, is frequently pleaded for plain
violations of christian consistency. Men forget that the
volume which they profess to reverence, warns them that
"every man shall bear his own burden" — that "every
one of us must give an account of himself to God " — that,
" though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not go un
punished." In the face of such warnings, many are en
couraged, because they are sinning with the multitude ;
and, it is no uncommon thing for individuals to sin in
company — and, especially, with a large majority — who
would not dare to sin alone.
It can hardly be doubted, that many of the Israel
ites were borne forward by this common influence, in the
remarkable apostasy which we have under review. Per
haps the idea of setting up an idol began with a few,
and then spread from heart to heart, as fire to tinder,
until the majority became so great, that Aaron himself
was intimidated into compliance. Probably there was a
faithful minority, who stood aloof from the idolatry of that
day. Peradventure, one and another, timid servant of
God, shrank away, to hide himself in the wilderness, and-
weep and pray in secret places. Now and then one and
another ventured to offer a gentle remonstrance ; and, if
here and there a more sturdy spirit stood up and boldly
protested against the abomination, he was soon silenced
with a shout, or thrust aside by personal violence.

10
" As in water, face answereth to face, so the heart
of man to man." And, as it was in the days of Moses,
so it is now. For, when the preacher enforces some
peculiar doctrine, or practice of the gospel, and warns
against the spread of opposite views in the church, the
adversary is ready with the suggestion, " the preacher
must be eccentric — see how large a majority is against
him — and, if he be right, how many good sort of peo
ple are in dangerous or fatal error !" Ah ! my breth
ren, how much better would it have been for the Israel
ites, if, instead of listening to such suggestions, they
had remembered the solemn command of God, heard but
a few days before, amid the thunders of Sinai, " Thou
shalt have none other Gods but me." And, happy is that
Christian, who, in view of a world's apostasy — unmoved
by its sophistry, its threats, or its promises — can look
at a a thus saith the Scripture," or, a " thus saith the
Lord," and say with the apostle, " Let God be true, and
every man a liar." And here we naturally pass to our
second and principal division, viz :
II. That Christians should be decided and uncom
promising in their opposition to idolatry. But what is
idolatry ? and what does the preacher mean by exhort
ing us to oppose it ? Does he mean that we must con
tribute to foreign missions, or do all that we can to over
throw the idols of heathenism ? Doubtless he means
this, but very much more. For, although idolatry, in-
its more common sense, is only applicable to Paganism :
in its widest and most spiritual meaning, it is giving to
any object that place in our affections which belongs to
God. In this sense, every sin is idolatrous in its nature.
For, every time a man sins, he loves some object more
than God, or fears something more than God ; — trusts

11
in something rather than God, or prefers some other ob
ject to God. And this is idolatry. It is a plain viola
tion of the spirit of the first commandment, " Thou shalt
have none other Gods but me."
But we shall concentrate our thoughts with better
effect, by considering some of the more prominent idola
tries of christian lands : such as the idolatry of liberal
ism — the idolatry of sectarian formalism — and the
idolatry of worldly amusement. These are attractive in
their different spheres, and, in resisting them, we should
be decided and immovable.
Indecision is always an evil in the churchj and never
more so than at the present crisis. " He that wavereth,
is like a wave of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed."
He can neither be a useful nor a happy Christian. This
infirmity is sometimes a defect in really good men. An
instance of it may be seen in the conduct of Aaron, in
yielding to the demand of the multitude, for an idol.
His excuse, when rebuked by Moses, was, that the peo
ple "were set on mischief"' — that is — "they were
bent on an idolatrous feast ; it would have been useless
to attempt to withstand them, and he had thought it
wiser to yield, and take the matter, as far "as possible,
into his own hands, than fall a victim to popular fury."
For, it will be seen, on a careful perusal of the narrative,
that Aaron, and perhaps others, who acted with him,
were not so palpably profane, as might, at first view,
appear. They probably did not intend to sanction
literal idolatry, but rather meant to use the image
as a symbol of the true God. For Aaron, in ma
king proclamation, did not call it a feast to an idol, but
a feast to the Lord. " To-morrow is a feast to the Lord,

12
or to Jehovah." It was an attempted compromise be
tween idolatry and true. piety.
And, as it was in the days of Aaron, so it is now. For
when iniquity abounds, and the love of many waxes
cold, and some popular sin rises high, how often is the
Christian, and especially the christian minister, tempted
to confer with flesh and blood, and argue that opposition
is useless — that the people " are set on mischief;" and
it is, therefore, better, just to let things take their course,
and carry on the worship of God as well as we can, in
connection with the prevailing idolatry, hoping for better
times. How often has a whole church been corrupted
with the leaven of heresy, by consulting this carnal
policy — this false peace. Let us beware of it, breth
ren, and to this end, let us be faithful, in bearing testi
mony against —
The idolatry of liberalism. And by liberalism, we
mean the common notion that we ought, in charity, to
recognize every system which claims the christian name,
as a safe one, to all its apparently sincere disciples. Our
national constitution recognizes all sects as having equal
rights, and gives no preference to any one religious sys
tem. And certainly we would not have it otherwise. Di
rect interference by civil authority to promote religious
truth, has almost invariably been injurious and corrupt
ing. But, our civil constitution, excellent as it is, in its
place, was not given by divine inspiration, nor is it, as
some would seem to imagine, our rule of faith, or stand
ard of responsibility to God. And the common notion
that, whatever claims the christian name, must be re
cognized as sufficient for salvation, is as unreasonable as
it is unscriptural.
Every intelligent believer in revelation must see, on

13
a moment's candid reflection, that the gospel, or the
christian religion, must be a definite system — that, as
such, it must have essence, or essential doctrines, without
which, it would cease to be what it is ; that every one
who would beheve and practice it, must judge and de
termine what are its leading essentials ; or, in other
words, what itself is ; for how can a man believe in any
system without judging what it is, or what materially
distinguishes it from other systems ? And, having once
determined what are some of its essentials, how can he
hope that they, who hold a system fundamentally differ
ent, hold the genuine gospel, without hoping that what
he himself holds, is not the gospel. And what would this
be, but hoping that he himself is in a state of condem
nation, in order to hope that others are in a state of sal
vation ? — a degree of charity, which, certainly, trans
cends the commandment, and makes it read, not, thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, but more than thyself,
by hoping that he may be going to Heaven, and thou,
thyself, to perdition !
But the advocates of this species of charity, when
pressed with such a case, are apt to reply that, " sincerity
in religion is all in all," and the sincere inquirer, who
does not find and fix his faith on the essential gospel,
will be just as acceptable to the God who knows the
heart, as he who does find and beheve it. But, this is
assuming a very material point, and that, too, in the
face of inspiration. For the question is, (Ccan a sincere
inquirer, in a Christian land, honestly and faithfully
seek the essential gospel and not find it ? Jf yea, what
becomes of the veracity of God in such promises and
pledges as, "ask and ye shall receive — seek and ye
shall find ?" And again, " if any man lack ivisdom, let

14
him ask of God." " If ye, being evil, know how to give
good gifts to your children, how much more shall your
Heavenly Father give his Holy Spirit to them that ask
him." Now, to admit that a sincere seeker in a christian
land, can fail to be led by the promised " spirit" to prom
ised "wisdom," or, that the Spirit may lead him into the
folly of an essentially false system, instead of the wis
dom of truth, is to extend faith to human assertions at
the expense of divine declarations. And let men take
care, lest, in lifting high the hand to protest vehe
mently, against the uncharitableness of questioning the
sincerity of man, they bring it into profane contact with
the sacred veracity of God!
But, unreasonable and unscripturalas such liberalism
is, it is one ofthe most popular idols ofthe day! And
they who faithfully and conscientiously condemn it, are
treated as weak and narrow-minded, and deficient in the
expansive spirit of the age ! And yet this very liberal
ism, with all its loud out-cry against bigotry, and the
tyranny of creeds, often manifests a most marked impa
tience toward those who venture to question the infalli
bility of its own brief creed, which is: A belief in the
sufficiency of all unbelief, or that whatever a man believes
to be Christianity, is to him saving Christianity. The
thunders of the Vatican were never dealt out more confi
dently against the impugners ofthe dogmas of Rome, than
indignant denunciations are often hurled at the unfortu
nate dissentient, from this summary creed of modern
liber alists!
That skeptics should make use of it as a convenient
shield from the odium of infidelity, is not remarkable.
But let Christians take care, how by word, or by action,
which speaks louder than word, or by silence, which may

15
«
be as expressive as either, they even seem to give it
countenance. Let them beware how they bow to an idol,
which stands in public places, with orthodoxy in one
hand, and heterodoxy in the other, bearing the ad cap-
tandum motto of " prosperity to all religions, and prefer
ence to none !"
But there is another false divinity of an opposite char
acter, against which we are to warn you. Satan is fruit
ful in devices, and adequate to any emergency. He has
idols suited to any position, and to every variety of taste.
And Christians, who cannot be induced to bow down to
liberalism, are tempted by an idol of a different sort,
which is posted on an opposite extreme; we mean — ¦
Sectarian Formalism, or an inordinate devotion to any
non-essential form of doctrine, or mode of discipline or
worship, which is purely denominational. With us, this
formalism may be fitly caUed Churchism. We say, with
us ; for, while we admit that it is a sore evil among us,
and one to which the very variety and excellency of our
forms, render us peculiarly liable, we maintain that it is
more or less the growth of the human heart ; and that a
candid observer may see it in all denominations — even in
those whose ecclesiastical framework has been fashioned
with the most severe and meager simplicity, for the very
purpose of excluding it.
With one class it is chiefly a doctrinal formalism, in
laying undue stress upon non-essential differences — in
Unyielding adherence to the minute literalism of a con
fession — in extreme sabbath views, rather pharisaical
than evangelical, associated in some instances with a pecu
har aversion to good poetry, or good music. They forget
that a non-essential difference in doctrme, as well as in
polity, may be magnified into dangerous dimensions, or an

16
uncharitable exclusiveness — that there may be super
stitious veneration for the terms of a confession, as well
as the words of a prayerbook — as much tenacity about
one posture in public prayer as another, and as much
time wasted in a synodical discussion of the admissibility
of instrumental music, as in debating whether a rubric
shall prescribe standing or sitting at a particular part of
the morning service.
With another class of Christians, formalism is distin
guished by a sort of one-idea-ism, or magnifying of some
one branch of practical benevolence (such as emancipa
tion), into a virtual standard of orthodoxy ; together with
an extreme fondness for new views in theology, and new
measures in revivals. They seem not to realize that
the mode of advancing a particular branch of benevo
lence, as well as a mode of church government, may be
so exaggerated as to overshadow and degrade evangeh
cal doctrine. And that there may be a misplaced confi
dence in anxious benches, and various bodily exercises,
as well as in praying with the back to the people, or ex
pecting mysterious virtue from the surface of the com
munion table.
Another class of Christians is distinguished by what
may be called a sacramental formalism, or insisting on
a certain quantity of the symbolic fluid, as essential to
the vahd administration of one ofthe sacraments. They
can see the superstition of ascribing a regenerating virtue
to the quality of the consecrated baptismal water, with
out perceiving the danger of attaching too much impor
tance to the quantity; and while they complain of prelati-
cal exclusiveness, in laying too much stress upon a
form of ordination, they make the mere mode of a sacra-

17
ment a just ground of excluding all other Christians from
their communion.
Another species of formality may be called noisy
formalism, from the fact that it is distinguished by loud
preaching, singing, and praying, and by attaching impor
tance to physical excitements, as means and evidences
of conversion. Brethren, who sanction such things,
do not seem to realize that the subtlety of Satan can
infuse the evil of formalism into a groan, as weU as into
a liturgical response ; that loud shouting may be as
mechanical as scientific church chanting ; and that mere
seeking, considered as a qualification for communion,
may be as doubtful, and as dangerous, as mere baptism
in infancy, added to formal confirmation in riper years.
Again. There is a quiet formalism,-which pertains to
a very peaceable denomination, who claim to be the most
rigid of all anti-formalists. In their strong desire to
exclude all possible abuse of forms, they have dispensed
with the ministry and the sacraments, and withal, as
sumed a peculiar garb and diction. But, experience has
shown, that dispensing with divine ordinances, to get
rid of their abuse, is a poor way of securing the doc
trinal purity of a society — that there may be as much
precision of formality in laying stress on a buttonless
coat, or other plain garment of superfine texture, as in
the excessive valuation of a surplice, or a gown ; and that
a studied peculiarity in the use of personal pronouns,
may be quite as formal and as useless as bowing in the
creed. These allusions to other denominations, are made in
no bad spirit. We are only reciprocating charges and
rebukes which we often hear from them, and which we
are bound to consider sincere and well intended. And, in
CI

18

so doing, we are clearing the way for a more candid
view of our own formalism, which is mainly ecclesiasti
cal, and may, therefore, be fitly termed —
Churchism. Its main features are, an inordinate
valuation of Episcopal ordination as exclusively valid.* As
common consequences of this : magnification of the sacra
ments, and mystification of evangelical doctrine. As anoth
er common consequence, an excessive, not to say supersti
tious regard for the liturgy : and, as another natural effect
of all these, attaching undue importance to such things as
chancel arrangements, postures, clerical garments, etc.
Now, let it be understood that we underrate none of
the peculiarities which we have referred to, as they are,
or as the church holds them. We value our ministry as
apostolic and primitive, but not exclusively vahd. We
*We consider the validity or invalidity of non-episcopal ordina
tion, the main dividing line between the high and low church parties
in this country. As a general rule, all who admit the validity of
such ordination, sympathize in doctrines and policy with one another,
unite cordially with their clerical brethren of other denominations,
in support of such Catholic institutions as the American Bible and
Tract Society, and the American Sunday School Union — and en
courage prayer meetings, and the use of ex tempore prayers on all
suitable occasions. On the other hand, the mass of those who deny
the validity of non-episcopal orders, do not teach, in its fullness
and simplicity, the doctrine of the Eleventh Article of the Church,
but move much in the mists of baptismal regeneration, and sacramen
tal justification, and, withal, keep aloof from all public associations
and Union Societies, which might bring them into an apparent re
cognition of non-episcopal ministers ; whom they feel bound to treat
as schismatical teachers. Of course we do not mean to say that
there are not individual exceptions to be found on either side of this
general line of party division ; and hence we only speak of some of
the above features of " churchism," as " common consequences'' of
the invalidating doctrine.

19
love our liturgy as the best form of prayer in Christen
dom, and as unequivocally preferable to any other mode
of pubhc worship, while we profess not to be insensible
to some of its defects ; — defects, we believe, in its lan
guage, rather than in its fair sense, — but such as we
should rejoice to see remedied, because they now afford
specious footholds for " erroneous and strange doctrines."*
Of the sacraments, also, let it suffice to say, that we re
gard them as among the best blessings of Heaven, and just
in the simple light in which the Articles of the Church
exhibit them. And, with respect to such things as pos
tures, clerical garments, and other minor matters, it
is enough to say : that there are none which we do
not esteem harmless and decent, and some, that we
think decidedly desirable and useful. Yea, there is
much precious gold in all these things, for which we
heartily thank the Lord. — Gold, mingled with marvel
lously little alloy, considering the times and circumstan
ces, in which our services were composed and arranged.
But, what we object to is, inordinate devotion to such
peculiarities — taking the gold of these precious vessels,
and candlesticks, and of this rich vesture ofthe sanctuary,
and so fusing it in the furnace of a sectarian im
agination, as to bring it out an Idol, to be wor-
*Until recently, the author honestly believed that not merely the
language, but the fair, natural sense of the baptismal office, was
in conflict with the teaching of the Church in her Articles and Hom
ilies. And while he still thinks a change in the language of the
service highly desirable, be is happy to say, that the late work of
Mr. Goode, has brought to light facts which have satisfied him,
it was morally impossible that the framers of that service, could have
intended to teach by it the doctrine of the Bishop of Ezeter, or of
those who sympathize with him in this country.

20
shiped, after the manner that the Israelites worshiped
their image in the wilderness !
Am I told that this is slanderous — that no church
men, however ardent or ultra, really idolize these things,
but only make use of them as appointed instruments
and helps to devotion? Just a similar excuse mighi
have been offered by Aaron and his associates, for the
worship of the golden calf. They did not intend liter
ally to worship the image, but only to make use of it as
a symbol of the Divine Being, or an instrument of de
votion. And just the same excuse is made by Romanists,
for all their idolatry of the mass, of pictures, images, rel
ics, and the like. They profess to use them only as
helps to devotion. And their defense against the charge
of idolatry, in the use of the consecrated bread, is, that
they do not literally attach any great sanctity or value
to the wafer as such, but to the body, soul, and divinity
of Christ, exhibited under that appearance. With
respect to relics, images, and the like, their idolatry con
sists in their inordinate and superstitious regard for
them — that is, in a kind of sub-deification of them, against
the spirit rather than the letter of the commandment.
And the true essence or spirit of Popery is the same,
whether manifested in an inordinate and superstitious re
gard for priestly power, images and relics, with the idola
trous use of unleavened bread in the eucharist, or an ex
cessive appreciation of a ministry of apostolic succes
sion — liturgical services, postures, garments, and leav
ened bread in the same ordinance. Such Churchism is
but Popery diluted. In proof of it, let us look at facts.
Look at all the Romanizing tendencies in the church,
as well as all the clerical apostasies to Rome, which
have occurred within the last ten years, and whence

21
have they proceeded but from this region of ultra church
ism ? What clerical pervert can be named, who did not
get his germ of apostasy here, whence it was transplanted
to the middle region of Tractarianism, until it became
too rank and odorous for any but its original and native
soil ? As long as a man continues a firm low church
man, no one has the least apprehension of his passing
into Romanism ; but the moment he becomes high, he
gets into a community pervaded by an epidemic atmos
phere, which affects some apparently little, and others
more, while the most sagacious cannot predict who will
be the next victim of its fatality.* Nor, can we hope
that the church will ever flourish in the doctrine and
spirit of the Reformation, as long as so many of her
*The attempt to weaken the force of these facts, by showing that
several of the late clerical Apostates were originally Low church
men, or non-Episcopalians, can hardly succeed with any candid
mind. If it proves any thing, it shows that those who are but re
cently introduced into an epidemic atmosphere, are more liable to
its fatal influence, than those who are more accustomed to it.
Is it not a fact, that every one of the late perverts rose higher
and yet higher in Churchism, until he got to the transition point of an
easy stride into Romanism ? And, is it not &fact that the Dioceses
of New York and North Carolina, in which the seeds of High
Churchism had been most thoroughly and deeply sown by two of
our late most distinguished high church Bishops, are those in which
Tractarian and Popish plants are now most rank and flourishing?
But we have " A Voice from Connecticut," condemnatory of the
pastoral letter of the Bishop of North Carolina, and approvedbj the
venerable and amiable Bishop of the former Diocese. Let us hear it :
"The sacrament of Baptism, is the sacrament of christian infan
cy ; the sacrament of the Holy Communion that of christian man
hood. All other acts of the christian life, are subordinate to these.
In them, and in them alone, remission of sin is conveyed to the soul
of the recipient, by the Holy Ghost. The power of the christian
priest, consists only in this : that by a valid ordination he has re-

22
clergy hold unchurching and invalidating doctrines, of
which the Angelican Reformers scarcely dreamed — doc
trines never recognized by any considerable number of
the clergy of the church of England, before the days of
Archbishop Laud. And, we cannot but marvel at a
few* intelligent and able High-Church brethren, in
other respects, apparently Protestant in creed as weU
as in heart, who think we can retain such roots and
stumps of Laudian errors, without being troubled with
ceived, and that exclusively, authority from the Holy Ghost, to
remit sins in the administration of the sacraments — p. 13."
This we take to be, in substance, what the Bishop of Ohio,
with his clear discrimination in such matters, calls the " Sacra
mental Theory" of Oxford {see his n <te to Consecration Sermon
of Bishop of Indiana). And we are not surprised that, with such
a theory, the learned author of the " Voice," commends, not only
weekly, but " daily communion." The discerning reader will judge
whether " old fashioned high churchism ," as published on high au
thority, from Connecticut, is not the natural source, rather than the
fit corrective, of the Tractarian Romanism of the Bishop of North
Carolina. Truly, if the late mysterious epidemic, which scourged
our land, could be as easily traced to its source, as the present
trouble of our church, there would be general rejoicing; and,
probably, but as little difficulty in finding the remedy.
*We must say emphatically " a few." For the bulk of the High-
Church party has always manifested, either a want of perception
of Oxford errors, or a disposition to shield them from any public
or official censure, until, perhaps, they reach a degree of efflores
cence, as unmistakable as the displays of the late Pastoral letter of
the Bishop of North Carolina. And we cannot but admire the
moral courage of the few high-church brethren, who have severed
themselves from former connections for the truth's sake. We feel
happy to co-work with them against the superstructure of Tracta-
rianism, while we lament that they do not agree with us in regard
to its main foundation.

23
periodical crops of Popish heresies, whenever the moral
elements happen to favor their growth.
If from the clergy we pass to the laity, and trace the
practical influence of churchism among them, in regions,
where it is most prevalent, we shall find it marked by fea
tures of Romish exclusiveness,^ well as Romish inconsist
ency. For example, you will sometimes find the thorough
lay-churchist, like the true papist, preferring to read his
prayer book at home, or in his room at the village inn,
to attending a " dissenting meeting" where he would miss
his prescribed forms. And, choosing to violate the com
mand to Christians, "not to forsake the assembling
of themselves together," rather than hear a Presbyterian
preacher, even as talented and as pious as a Chalmers, a
Payson, or an Alexander, lest he should encourage schis-
matical teaching, or countenance some "usurper" ofthe
sacred office ! Alas ! if the martyred Reformers of Eng
land, who hugged to their bosoms, as brethren beloved,
such ministers as Calvin, Bucer and Martyr, were to
rise from their graves, how would they condemn such
professed foUowers and interpreters of church standards,
which they wrote in their own blood !*
*Mr. Keble, in his late preface to Hooker's Works, admits that
" up to the time of Hooker (who died in 1600), numbers had been
admitted to the ministry of the church of England, with no better
than Presbyterian ordination."
In 1618 (eighteen years after the death of Hooker), the Church
of England sent commissioners to the Synod of Dort, an assem
bly convened to settle important doctrines, and composed almost en
tirely of non-Episcopal divines. Of course, if the Anglican church
had held, at this date, the exclusive validity of her own orders,
she would not have sent commissioners to an assembly composed of
invalid and schismatical ministers.
Laud was made Arch-Bishop in 1533, and died in 1644-5, and

24
If, indeed, the conscientiousness of such laymen in
church matters, always extended itself to other
things ; and especially to the affairs of fashionable life, it
might at least claim the merit of consistency. But,
unhappily, it is not unfrequently distinguished by that
feature of the ancient Pharisaism of Jerusalem, as well
as the more modern Pharisaism of Rome, which consists
" in straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel" — in be
ing exceedingly disturbed at the casual neglect ofa rubric,
or the omission of a clerical garment, or posture; but
not at all conscience-reproved for the largest and freest
worldly conformity. In being too scrupulous to encour
age schism, by attending a non-Episcopal church, but
not shrinking from an occasional visit to the thea
ter. By no means to be persuaded to attend a prayer
meeting, where pious laymen venture to offer ex tempore
prayer, but needing no persuasion to visit the nocturnal
dancing assembly. And what is such inconsistency but
a distinguishing feature of that apostate Church, which
can embrace in her wide circumference, the extremes of
strictness and levity — which provides a cell, a crucifix,
it was not until 1660, that the Act of Uniformity was passed,
which required, just what the preface to the ordinal requires, that
none should be recognized as ministers of "this church" (of England),
without Episcopal ordination. That the design of that act was not to
impute invalidity to non-Episcopal orders in the church general, is
obvious from the fact, that it has a special clause, exempting from
its operation, the ministers of certain foreign churches established
in England.
The reader may judge, from these facts, how far we have kept
within the limits of truth in asserting, on a former page, " that the
invalidating doctrine, was never held by any considerable number
of the English clergy, until the days of Archbishop Laud." And
how fitly Stillingfleet calls it, in his Irenicum, which he wrote even
as late as 1659 — "a novel pretense.'"

25
and a coarse garment, for a somber fanatical nun — and
leaves open the way to the ballroom, for the gay world
ling, who desires to flutter in the mazes of the dance ;
recognizing both as genuine Christians, although, not, of
course, Christians of equal merit, or eminence. And here
we pass to the consideration of a third species of idolatry :
The Idolatry of Fashionable Amusement. — This is a
serious troubler, not only of our own church, but of oth
ers, which embrace the same classes of the community.
And by fashionable amusement we do not now refer to
pleasures so indefensible as the racefield, the cardtable,
or the theater ; but chiefly, to large gay dancing assem
blies, held at private houses ; and, according to the latest
arbitrary decree of fashion in this region, not begun un
til nine or ten o'clock in the evening, and sometimes
protracted two or three hours beyond midnight. To
such parties we object, as virtually worshiping assem
blies of the God of this world. And we object to the
children's dance, and to the domestic or social piano
dance ; not because they are intrinsically evil, but be
cause their direct tendency is to produce and foster a
strong desire in the young, for the dangerous fas
cination of gayer and larger assembles. Intrinsically,
there is no more harm in moving one set of muscles, to
the sound of music in the domestic dance, than in em
ploying another set, in throwing and gathering up painted
papers, in a domestic game of cards. Neither can be
shown to be morally wrong in itself ; but, we object to
both, and for like reasons — the one invariably produces
a taste for gaming, which is vicious in itself, and still more
vicious in its fruits ; the other cherishes and promotes a
rehsh for the fascination of the gay, fashionable dancing
assembly, with its present unspiritualizing inconsisten-

26
cies,and its ulterior demoralizing tendencies. The moral
atmosphere of such assemblies is thoroughly worldly,yea,
so essentially idolatrous, as to exclude all pious and useful
conversation, and all reverent mention of God and spir
itual things, just as effectually as if a literal Idol were
mounted on a pedestal, in the midst of the haU — and
one of the written conditions of minghng in the assem
bly, were, " that no other God was to be named or hon
ored there !"
Do I hear Christians say : " In visiting such scenes,
we are not bound to recognize such idolatry, or to allow
our minds to be carried away with it ; we can realize the
presence of God there, as we do in other public places,
and, however worldly the spirit of the assembly as to oth
ers, it is not necessarily so to us. And, as to late hours,
or other forms of intemperance, which are more or less
occasioned by such amusements, we must not be held
responsible for them. We only mean to be moderate and
temperate ourselves, and why should we be blamed for
the sins of others V
Precisely so might Aaron, and those pious Israelites
who acted with him, nave vindicated their uniting in the
festival of the golden calf. They did not mean to wor
ship the image ; they intended, for their own part, to
keep " a feast to Jehovah." And, possibly, during the
progress of the feast, some of them strove hard to keep
their thoughts on the Lord, with their eyes alternately
on the Idol and the dancers, and, with all the music, and
the mirth, ringing in their ears. Certainly it must
have been a severe task, and how successfuUy performed,
we can weU imagine. And they who spend midnight
hours at a modern dancing assembly, with intent to pre
serve all that habitual sense of the presence of God, and

27
that spirit of prayer with which a Christian should
never dispense, we honestly fear are not likely to prove
more successful. And the question how far God holds
such professing Christians accountable for the excesses,
whether great or small, few or many, which generally
accompany or follow such amusements, is just about par-
aUel, with the question, how far did he hold Aaron
and his associates responsible for the more gross and
sensual consequences of the idol feast — consequences
which probably excited their strongest disapprobation
and disgust. Happy would it have been for them, if
they could have stood firm in the spirit of their father
Israel, when he exclaimed, " 0 ! my soul, come not thou
into their secret, and unto their assembly, mine honor be
not thou united !"
In conclusion, permit us to sum up our calls, to be
decided : to be "on the Lord's side," not merely, but une
quivocally. Follow not a multitude to do evil. Bow
not to the popular liberalism of the day. Distinguish
what is pious from what is sectarian in all denomina
tions, and give "honor to whom honor is due." And
especially be decided against that ultra churchism, which
we honestly believe to be the dUuted "wine" of the
abomination of her that " sitteth upon the seven hills*
*It may be asked, what does the author mean by taking a deci
ded stand against Churchism ? Does he propose to set up a new
article or canon, circumscribing the right of private judgment, re
specting the ministry ? Would he break off pulpit exchanges, or
kind personal intercourse with his high-church brethren ? or, re
fuse to meet them at convocations or common ground ? or insist on
intruding this or any other point of difference, not essential to sal
vation, into their pulpits, whenever opportunity offered ? Certainly
not. He only means that low-churchmen shall be just as decided,

28
And, although there may be men of strong heads
and gracious hearts, whose vision may not be bleered
by it, and others whom it may affect but slightly, there
are some constitutions, which, in certain states of
our ecclesiastical atmosphere, will demand it — stronger
and yet stronger — until at last they begin " to grope for
the waU as the blind, and stumble at noonday," into the
gates of the mystical Babylon. And finally. " Be not
conformed to this world ;" be decided against all those
temples of fashion, and idols of pleasure, which the God
of this world has set up for his worshipers. To this
end, be decided for Him who has said " no man can
serve two masters," "He that is not with me, is against
me." Nothing but decision here can make us truly de
cided elsewhere. And nothing but light and strength
daily and unceasingly drawn from a Saviour ever present
to the eye and hand of faith, can enable us to hold on
our way against Idols, which solicit us at every turn of
our pilgrimage. Therefore, to Him be glory and praise,
forever and ever, Amen.
and as uncompromising in defending and promoting their own
church views, as high- churchmen have ever been in pressing theirs.
He thinks that the low-church party have, for the last twenty
years, been making concession after concession, to high-churchism,
under the idea that it was a small thing, or a trivial error, not worth
contending about, and that the present troubles of the church are,
in a very great degree, the fruits of those concessions. His posi
tion, therefore, in reference to all high-churchism, which does not
run into tangible and arraignable Tractarianism, is : " toleration, but
not compromise." This, he believes to be " the Lord's side ;" and,
although he has not the vanity or presumption to assume the part
of a leader, and say to his brethren, "come unto me," he trusts that
far abler and better men may come in and take the ground, and
allow him the place of an earnest follower.

3 9002 '