acknowledge in all the length and breadth of the principle. Whatever is taught in revelation, so far as we know it, we shall maintain; any thing not taught there, we reject. We will not cede to our sister Church of England, that she has a right to decree rites and ceremonies in matters of religion. We echo the language of the immortal Chillingworth, "the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants." Yet we do not conceive it inconsistent with this principle, that we should endeavor to ascertain whether the members of our church courts and congregations hold the doc. trines of the Bible. We conceive that this may most consist ently be done by means of an examination committee, or a confession of faith. Our contest is not for the mere letter, but the principles of the Bible. And the man who will maintain, that the drawing up a confession of faith, in the words of men, is a violation of the sufficiency of scripture, on the ground that the truth is better expressed in the Bible, must, to be consistent with himself, object to all expositions of the scriptures, and particularly abstain from preaching, as all he can say is better expressed in the words of scripture. Such a principle, indeed, supposes that the doctrines of the Bible are neither tangible nor distinct. And we are well aware, that men have professed to be. lieve the Bible, who, in the judg. ment of the whole Catholic church, rejected all its distinguishing doctrines.

On "the right and duty of prirate judgment," we trust our

No

pages will never encroach. man has a right to tread upon it, for the ground is sacred; and no man has a right to part with it, for the birthright is inalienable. We believe it to be one of those privileges for which every intelligent being will render a strict and solemn account, in the day of judgment. But even this principle may be abused. I am responsible for forming my own judgment, but I am not bound to encourage what I consider the erroneous judgments of others. A member of the Roman Catholic church comes to me, and, on the ground of private judgment, demands admission into the church of which I am a member. I refuse it, not because I will tread on his right of private judgment, but because I will not be responsible for what I consider his erroneous judgment. A Unitarian offers himself to me as a candidate for communion. I tell him he rejects what I consider the leading doctrines of Christianity. He insists to be admitted, on the ground of private judgment. I tell him I will not interfere with his private judgment; but I will not permit him to profess what I think his erroneous faith, in my name and under the sanction of my authority. It is thus incontrovertibly clear, that to acknowledge the right of private judgment does not require us to sanction what we consider the errors of others. And the man who will force himself on my fellowship, on the ground of private judg ment, when he knows that I disapprove of his doctrines, I consider to be the violator of that very principle on which be inconsis

tently urges his plea. I say with Paul, "to his own master he stands or falls." I will not, and do not injure him; but I will not and dare not encourage him.

As for liberality, we wish to be thought, and in reality to be genu. ine Catholics. We will acknowledge every man that holds the Head, Jesus Christ. Whether he be Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Independent, if he only holds the Head, we acknowledge him for a brother. We long to see the time when these different denominations shall, in the spirit of forbearance and brotherly love, meet together, and forgetting their minor differences, glory in their common Lord. But liberality does not imply either latitudinarianism or licentiousness. Because we receive every man that holds the Head, it does not follow that we must acknowledge any man who does not hold the Head. We would be as tenacious and uncompromising on the one hand, as we are liberal and forbearing on the other. The solemn assurances of Christ and his apostle, are our directory in this as in every other part of Christian duty: "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life;" 1 John v. 12.-and, "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost." 2 Cor. iv. 3. We fear there is a spurious libe. rality, in these times, which can extend the right hand of fellow. ship alike to infidelity and Christianity. One thing we have ob. served, that some men, loud in the cry of liberality, freely asso. ciate with men who do not hesitate to pour contempt on Chris.

tianity itself, while their indignation can be restrained within no bounds against those who zealously stand by the doctrines of the reformation. These are the great principles by which we hope to be guided in the present undertaking; and, steadily ad. hering to them, we trust to be ac, knowledged as contributors to the great cause of truth and right. eousness in these lands, and par. ticularly to the revival of religion in the Presbyterian churches.

These reflections will be fol. lowed, in the next number, with an address to the Presbyterian public on their duty in these eventful times.

PRESBYTERIANISM.

Much has, of late, been said and written about the "essential principles of Presbyterianism," the "constitutional principles of Presbyterianism," and the "unalienable rights of presbyteries, and of the Presbyterian people." But, in the greater part of what has been said or written, there has been such vagueness and indistinctness in the application of terms, that the true meaning of the speakers and writers remains generally a secret to all except themselves. This circumstance alone demands a brief, and plain, and scriptural exposition of the nature of genuine "Presbyterianism." But there is another reason demanding such an exposition. In this country, at the present day, the speakers and writers about " Presbyterian principles," have generally been per

sons favoring, or advocating the cause of Arianism. And such has been the boldness with which they have asserted and appealed to "Presbyterianism" as their profession, and its principles as their support, that it becomes necessary to guard the unwary against the specious imposition; to prevent 66 Presbyterianism" from being identified with "Arianism;" or from being supposed in any degree favorable to its prin ciples or propagation.

Immediately from the Greek of the New Testament is derived the word "presbyter," which signi. fies "elder." From "presbyter" we form the words " Presbyte. rian" and "Presbyterianism. So that the distinctive title of our church, in modern times, is directly derived from the primitive phraseology of the apostles. Presbyterianism, as a form of church government, stands distinguished from "independency" upon the one hand, and "prelacy" upon the other. But it does not, as some have thoughtlessly affirmed, stand opposed to "Episcopa. cy," i. e. government by bishops; or reject the title "Episcopalian,' as descriptive of its constitution. The Presbyterian church is an Episcopalian church, for every minister is the bishop of his own congregation. Presbyterianism teaches, that bishop, and presbyter (whence Episcopacy and Presbyterianism,) are, in the New Testament, only two different names for the same person and the same office, without inferiority in the one, or superiority in the other..

The parity of her ministers is, therefore, the PRIMARY PRINCI.

PLE of Presbyterianism. This principle may be deduced from various portions of scripture. But as we mean not to argue, but merely to make a statement, we confine ourselves to one authority, Acts xx. 17. "And from Mi. letus (Paul) sent to Ephesus, and called the elders (in Greek, presbyters) of the church; and when they were come to him, he said unto them, (28) Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (in the Greek, bishops,) to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Here nothing can be more manifest than the identity of presbyters and bishops. They are called presbyters or elders, in reference to their age and qualifications; they are called overseers, or bishops, with reference to their duty, the overseeing, or episcopacy of the flock committed to their care.

This passage seems to us fully to demonstrate the apostoli. cal origin of Presbyterianism. The persons called from Ephesus were presbyters, and all these were bishops. Accordingly, all the ministers of the Presbyterian churches are equal in point of rank, and office, and authority, and all are bishops, or overseers, of their respective congregations. Presbyterianism is, indeed, the episcopacy of the New Testament.

By the SECOND GENERAL PRINCIPLE, Presbyterianism is distinguished from independency. The Independents form a numerous body in England, a considerable body in Scotland, and have a few churches in Ireland. According

to their views of church government, every particular church, assembling in one place, is com. plete in itself; and is totally independent of the authority, pow. er, and interference of any sister church whatsoever. But, according to Presbyterians, the sister churches of a country or province, form but one aggregate church, and should, in their ge. neral meetings, exercise a common episcopacy over one another in the Lord; and, by their respective delegates, meet in church courts, for the consideration and exercise of a common discipline. This view of church fellowship. is founded, like the former, upon various portions of the divine word; but is chiefly extracted from a consideration of the xv. chap. of the Acts of the Apostles. The 2d verse of that chapter gives us an example of delegates being sent from one church to another. The 6th verse presents us with a meeting of the church rulers, the apostles and ellers. For while the epistle, verse 23, runs in the name of the apostles, elders, and brethren, we discover, from chap. xvi. verse 4, that the resolutions were passed only by "the apostles and elders, (presbyters) that were at Jerusalem. Here, also, Presbyterians conceive they discover a union of churches in one common council, for the settlement of questions and exercise of discipline; and, taking this account as their example and authority, the common concerns of many churches are, in their estimation, to be superin. tended by a common and united authority. For let it be observed, that in chap. xiv. verse 26, we

find Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, which was situated at a considerable distance from Jerusalem; yet the church at Antioch does not proceed to settle the question in dispute, but refers the cause to a common and united council of the churches assembled at Jerusalem.

The THIRD GENERAL PRINCIPLE of Presbyterianism asserts the right of the people to elect their own ministers and of the minis. ters to examine the qualifications of persons so elected, and, if satisfied of their fitness, to ordain them to their office.

There are in the New Testament two distinct examples of election. One of these we find, Acts vi. 1, 2, 3, 5; but this election being rather to a civil office, relating to the temporalities of the church, may, therefore, be considered inapplicable to the case of election to the ministry. We have, however, another example, Acts i. 15, 21, 22, 23, 26,—and here the election is to be the apostleship, the most distinguished office in the ministry of Christ; yet this election, like the former, is not by the authority of any one individual, or even the united authority of the eleven apostles; but, as plainly appears from the narrative, by the common choice of all the assembled brethren.

That the examination and decision respecting the qualifications of candidates, as well as their ordination to office, are lodged with the ministers of the gospel, is apparent from 1 Tim. iii. 10, and iv. 14.

By the former it is required that candidates be carefully proved before their admission to the sacred offices of bishop or deacon;

and, by the second, the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, or council of the elders, is described as the mode in which Timothy was appointed to the office of the ministry.

By a FOURTH GENERAL PRINCI PLE, Presbyterianism recognizes the order and rights of ruling elders. The Jewish synagogue, upon which, it is generally supposed, the early Christian churches were modeled, possessed an order of men, corresponding, in rights and duties, with the ruling elders of Presbyterians. The works of some of the primitive writers of the Christian church seem distinctly to recognize them as existing in their days. But the authority on which Presbyterians genc. rally rely, is derived from 1 Tim. v. 17, where all elders are said to rule, but some likewise to labor in word and doctrine. Whence we conclude, that there are two kinds of elders in the church,-one who both rules and teaches, i. e. in our language, the minister; and one who only rules, i. e. the elder. Another proof is deduced from Rom. xii. 7, 8, in which the apostle, in exhorting the various officers of the church to discharge their several duties with fidelity, adds, in reference to the ruling elder, "He that ruleth, let him do it with diligence." To ruling elders Paul seems also to refer, I Cor. xii. 28, under the general description of "helps and govern ments." The ruling elders of the Presbyterian church should be helps to the ministers in governing the church. And, as the church is called the "House of God," the government of a household or family is the true model of VOL. I, JUNE, 1831.

their common duties. Does a father provide for his family their meat in due season? so it is the duty of ministers, with their help. ers, the ruling elders, to see that the people be supplied with the bread of life. Does a father provide for the education of his family? so should ministers and ruling elders mutually labor for the education of the people. Does a father sympathize with the afflicted members of his family? so the Presbyterian minister and the ruling elders are to visit the sick and the sorrowful. Does a father feel it his duty to chastise the disobedient? so the minister and the ruling elders are to exhort, re. buke, or cut off from the church the unruly and the profane. Does a father receive with joy the penitent and returning prodigal ? so are the rulers of the church to restore the penitent in the charitable spirit of meekness.

Taking this scriptural view of the duties of the ruling elder, the importance of his office must be obvious. And when ministers do employ their elders as "helps" in the government of the church, and where elders are capable, and willing to "rule with diligence," and to "help" in the cause of the Lord, there never has been, and there never can be, a more efficient moral machinery.

Having thus submitted, and, we trust, from scripture established, the FOUR GENERAL PRINCIPLES of Presbyterianism, we will now proceed to some obvious and practical conclusions.

1. The first observation deducible from our principles amounts to this :-Presbyterianism is not a system of religious doctrine, but 10