The American Presbyterian
t . AND...
GENESEE EVANGELIST.
RELIGIOUS AND FAMILY NEWSPAKEB,
IN THI UTTEaEST OF THB
Constitutional Presbyterian Cbureb,
...PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY,
AT THE PRESBYTERIAN HOUSE,
' 1884 Chestnut Streefj (2d Story,) Philadelphia.
ev. JOHN W. HEARS, Editor and Publisher.
CONTENTS OP
Missions in China 218
No New Thing 218
Thomas Chalmers 218
Essay A Review Acquit! 218
Melhod’t View of Calvin 218
Churches of New York.. 218
Table 219
Literary Items..... 219
Sensible A Encouraging
View
Fish Stealing.
A PUTAL WORD ABOUT CONGREGA
TIONALISM IN PHILADELPHIA.
All men, even the formally accused*'
Have a right to be regarded as innocent
until the.opposite is proved true, we
■shall therefore freely accept the “ Cen
tral” Congregational Church as an
orthodox body; as Trinitarian and Cal
vinistic—as much so as the Centre
Church, New *Haven, or the Park Street
Church, Boston. Any objections we
might have to .the means used in gather
ing its membership, and upon other
matters connected with its organization
we hiive already expressed or- are con
tent to let pass. Even if, as we tho-
believe, the establishment of
the beet form of Congregationalism is
entirely inexpedient in this city, its
friends have a perfect right to try the
experiment for the third time, or the
tenth time, if they see fit. No person
within our knowledge has the slightest
intention of questioning that right.
Nor shall we feel ourselves in any
special manner called upon to interpose
oar remonstrances if an open and avowed
attempt is made to set up a new class
of Arminian or of Unitarian churches,
or of churches without any distinct creed
in our city. The field is wide and
open; truth in her intrinsic greatness
can well afford to let error have an
equal chance before the human mind
with herself. But if old and honored
names are used to shield error, if names
and persons doctrinally and historically
associated with ourselves and popularly
identified, with us are freely given to
endorse what we repudiate; if sectarian
zeal and propagandism runs so high as
to overlook radical defects in doctrine
and even scandalous blemishes in the
personal character of those whom it
eagerly receives into its fold, it would
he a breach of our trust as Christian
journalists and as representatives of that
branch of the, clmrchjiearest_.o:L r kin to
the offenders, >to be silent. Wo disavow
such proceedings. We can have no
affinity with those who uphold and
defend them. In the name of that very
Congregationalism which we once recog
nized and hope still to recognize, as
congenial with ourselves, we resistthem
and brand them as schismatic and dis
honorable.
We declare that the First and Second
Congregational Churches of Philadel
phia, recognized as such by the late
council and received by the right hand
of fellowship given by Rev. Mr. Gulliver,
and another church, which at one time
was reckoned as the “ Second,” hut
which could not be finally manoeuvred
by “ B. H.” and his associates out of its
connections, were one and all of such a
doctrinal character, or in such a posi
tion, that they could not and would not have
been received into any orthodox Calvinistic
body in this city. The “ First Congrega
tional Church” Rev. D. L. Gear, pastor,
was originally a secession from the
“ Independent Christian” Church, in
Marlborough street, near Frankford road.
Rev. D. L. Gear was admitted to mem
bership in this church, and received as
a minister in the snmmer'fSf 1801, on a
certificate from the Second Congrega
tional Church of Lynu, Mass., the home
- of the late Rev. Parsons Cooke, D. 1).,
formerly editor of the Boston Recorder.
Were Ur. Cooke still living, he could
throw some valuable light upon this
part of the subject, as documents from
his pen, now in bur hands, will show.
We need only remark here, that Gear’s
credentials were not signed by Ur.
Cooke, and that from these documents
and other testimony, it appears that this
pastor of the First Congregational
Church had been Methodist, Baptist,
CODgrogationalist and Independent
Christian, and now turns up, conveni
ently for :; B. II.” and his friends, a
Congregationalist again.*
Having no employment, he was re
commended as a preacher by the pastor
of the*. Independent Christian Church,
Rev. John G. Wilson, to the Mount
Zion Christian Church, in the southern
part of the city, where he laboured
several months. He was then invited
back to Mr. Wilson's church, where he
laboured first as au associate, then, on
recommendation of Mr. WuSon.whohad
resigned, as pastor. Mir. W. still re
gained his connection with the church
over which ho had been pastor many
yeai’B. This was in the spring of 1862.
Soon after assuming tho pastoral office,
Mr. Gear or McGear commenced a
movement to revolutionize tho organiza
tion and"get the property into different
hands. Mr. Wilson, who at first never
suspected such an intention, when it
became evident, moved with prompti
tude and energy, and having equity and
the charter of the church on his side,
was able to defeat tho plan. His opin
ion of the morality of such a proceeding,
on the part of a man whom lie had
welcomed tb liis church and family, and
assisted in gaining employment when
*An eminent Methodist divine in this city suggests
the inquiry whether Mr. Gear has not laid .unde a
syllable of his name, and whether he ” ,
Daniel McGear, a local preacher m Cumberland.and
Salem ooautie?, N. J., in 1858.
INSIDE PAGES.
Piegah—Our Orders 222
Waiting for Je5u5......... 222
Adhamed of her Father 222
Anecdotes Dr. Beecher. 222
Children’s Books 222
Sulphur Mine 822
Christian Commise’n on
the Paoific Coast 223
Resurrection Flower 223
Itnumn l > «.slrt|trr«n.
New Series, Vol. I, INlo. 38.
an utter stranger ,-in 4his city, ■ may
easily he imagined. He instantly sent
to Lynn, Mass*, for further information,
and the two letters from Parsons Cooke
above referred to were the result. Any
one curious to know their contents, may
be gratified by calling at our office.
Forthwith, Mr. Gear alias McGear,
and his twenty ©r thirtyfollowers, with
letters furnished by himself, made their
exodus from the Independent Christian
Church, and hence arose the “ First
Congregational Church ofPhiladelphia,”
.clarum et venerabile nomen! Whether
“B. H.” and his friends had any hand
tin stimulating this secession or not, we
■have no means of knowing. . They soon
recognized* and aided it, however, and
the results were: the erection of a chapel
(with funds furnished by zealons Con
gregationalists) on Montgomery avenue,
near Frankford road; the handling of
great hopes and schemes of Congrega
tional extension in Philadelphia \ and
the final recognition of the church by
the late Congregational council, in
these words, addressed to Mr. Gear or
McGear as the representative of the
church, _by Mr. Gulliver. We quote
from the report of the Independent
My brother of the First Congregational
Church [Rev. Mr. Gear], you.represent, at
present, a feeble band. Your work is pre
eminently a missionary work. Like that of
your divine Master, your aim is to preach
the Gospel to the poor. We rejoice in the
labor which you have undertaken to per
form, and we especially rejoice that you
have undertaken to perform it upon the
broad platform of Congregational principles
and usages, which we believe to be the
foundation of the Apostles and prophets, of
which Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner
stone. In this labor, undertaken in these
relations, you may be assured of the sympa
thy and the aid of your brethren of the
Congregational churches of this country;
and in the hope of that sympathy, arid in
the pledge of that aid, I now give you this
right hand of fellowship. May the little one
become a thousand, and the small one a
strong peoplei; and may the Lord hasten it
in his time.
Did space permit, we should like to
speak of what was originally designed
tohethe Second Congregational Church,
in this system of movements. ■ It will,
he remembered that this Gear, or
McGear served the Mount Zion Christian,
Church for several months in 1861.
After he returned to the Independent
-Christian Church to assist Rev. J. G.
Wusonp-tre — virQ —uXrv
informed, some connection with the
former organization. During this time
several vain attempts were made to,
revolutionize this church. Finally, the
powerful aid of “ B. H.” and his asso
ciates was summoned, and a transfer of
the organization and change of name; to
the “ Second Congregational Church,”
with a call to a Congregational minister,
were actually voted, by a minority of
the church, accidentally in a position to -
do so. Arrangements were also made,
we are informed, for a renovation of the
building, from funds to be supplied by
their new friends. But the majority of
the church rallied, and at a meeting
held about November, 1863, ignored
entirely the proceedings of the minority,
called another minister and remain in
undisturbed possession of the property.
The fate of the unfortunate minority
with their pastor-elect is unknown.
<! B. H.” and the Independent, who may
he supposed better imormed about them
than any others, are silent on the sub
ject. Amid their loud trum.petingB.of
success in similar fields of strategy, some
regretful note might have been given to
these unhappy relics of a failure which
came so near being ,a grand aehieve
mon t for their cause. But ~
The world which credits what is done,
Is cold to all that might have been.
Great achievements surely! Petty
secessions, led out of isolated, coinpara-.
tively unknown churches, by men whose
very obscurity is a veil to something
worse'; these arc the materials for a
Congregational triumph ; these are the
foundations laid with such shoutings,
upon which tho grand structure of Con
gregationalism in the'middle and south
ern States is to rise; these Quixotic
exploits are tho themes of the jubilee
proclaimed by the Independent and its
contributors! The Congregationalism
that grasps eagerly after such meat,
must be, to quote the language of “ B.
H.” himself, a “ beggar for a life” indeed.
But there is another and more serious
view to be taken of these disreputable
ecclesiastical raids.. What is the doc
trinal character of the churches from
which these primal foundations of Con
gregationalism in our city are sought to
bo abstracted; what is the rock from
\ruiGli iB time, the Congregation
alists of our city are to he told they'
-were hewn ? •
The “Christian Church,” so fa* as wo
can learn, has no creed. When inquired
of for its belief, it falls back vaguely
upon the Bible. Such is the fact in re
ward to the Independent Christian
Church, from which Mr. Gear, or Mc-
Gear, and his score or more, seceded.
It is true, the First Congregational
Church brought with it to the council,
certain “ principles of its faith and
polity.” These'priueiples arc not given
in the report of the Independent, import
ant as they would have been m correct
ing any wrong impression as to the
doctrinal position and tendency of the
church, and of the council which re
ceived them. Wo would like to know
something about them. We are tolera
bly sure they are vague, non-committal,
PHILADELPHIA, THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1864.
;and unsatisfactory in a high degree.
Or let tho Independent say whether there
■is any thing in these “principles” which
would be a security against a Unitarian,
or a Universalist, or an Arminian be
.Goming pastor of that First Congrega
tional Church; or .anything to hinder
Unitarians, Universalist®, and Arrnini
ans from becoming members, in full and
regular standing ? We risk little in as
serting that there is no such security.
The Independent’s correspondent falls
hack upon the character of the councils;
and with a cheap show of indignation,
asks: - v
“And who is this editor, that he questions
the orthodoxy of Dr. Bacon and Dr. Todd
and Dr. Kirk and Dr. Thompson and Dr.
Stone and other men hardly less eminent ?
Did he not get his own theological education
■ —what there is. of it—in Mew England?
Who has appointed him as an umpire to de
cide what is orthodoxy in all the religious
denominations of the land ? Is it for such
as he to charge us and the distinguished
members of our council with sectarianism ?”
We are expected of course to be;
frightened by this parade of names and
this assertion of the “distinguished”
character of 11 our council.” But we
beg pardon for being so bold as to ask l
a question suggested by the_proceedings f
of this “distinguished’’ body; viz;'
What is tb e security for orthodoxy in a
Congregational council?:. There is no
reference to any doctrinal platform in
its proceedings. Each church hasform
ed its own articles, and these men, DrS.
Bacon,'Thompson, and others, recognize;
them without reference to any standards’;
of their own, or of the Association with
which they are connected. Have con
fessions and platforms been thrown
overboard as effete ? And in place of
these are we to trust solely to the indi
vidual opinions of an almost accidental,
concourse of men, in deciding the mo
mentous question of the 1 orthodoxy of
entirely-new organizations, playing the.
important par t of foundations In a great l
ecclesiastical experiment ? We protest
that “distinguished” names, evenif “B.
H.” is included in the list, Will not sat
isfy us. The dangerous looseness of the
proceedings is apparent to every one
not blinded by zeal for numerical acces
sions and for demonstrations imposing
to superficial observers. The First
Church is made up mainly of seceders
from an organization without a creed;.
At*. lnajues--«aittfljjt vitggu iv*‘ xLuilLag
faith into a council; the council is ltsfflf
without any acknowledged system or
known standard of faith, with no. doc
trinal guarantee, in fact, but the charac
ter of certain individuals, “ distinguish
ed” and not distinguished, who com
pose,it.
But if this council is loose, as to doc
trinal position it is at least consistent
with itself. The two churches which it
received, as the First and Second had
remarkable points of similarity in their
history. Principles were involved in
the career of both which should have
warned the council from intermeddling
with them, and -which, when the church
es were received, conferred necessarily
a peculiar character on the council.
Each was the result of a frustrated coup
d’etat, which left it without status, prop
erty, or sympathy with the orderly de
nominations of the city. The Second
Church that was to be, attempted a
similar process, hut failed more disas
trously than either of the others. Here
we have no less than three disorderly,
schismatic movements identified with
the rise of Congregationalism in our
city, finding refuge, and deriving char
acter and material aid from tho council
or its representatives.
.Our readers will bear with us while
we trace up more fully the history of
what is now the SeeoncTCougregational
Church under Rev. Dr. Stailey, and es
tablish the position of our former article
called in question by “B. H.,” in the
Independent. Ho says :
The church which has now become the
Second Congregational Church was, at its
origin, chartered by the State as an indepen
dent “ Evangelical Reform Congregation,”
on a Congregational basis; and the ninth
section of its charter was, “It is also declar
ed that nothing in this charter shall be so
construed as to prevent or hinder the said
congregation from uniting with any other
Christian denomination, whenever it shall
appear to a majority, of the members of said
congregation to be for their advantage.”
After some years of independence, this free
congregation formed a spiritual connection
with the Dutch Church, still, however, re
taining its charter and acting under it.
Wherever there was conflict, the ecclesiasti
cal'law of the Dutch Church had to yield to
the chartered rights ot f foe congregation,
which were older thyy an( j moro sacred
than Dutch Thus, although the consti
tution of J llie Dutch Church gives the eonsis
tofy power to call a pastor, this church had
always claimed the right to do it congrega
tionally under its old and unforfeited char-:
ter, and had always done it. At length they
called Dr. Smiley, by a strong majority.
Then ecclesiastical lawwas brought to bear
arbitrarily upon them, and they were de
prived of chartered rights, and were ejected
from their house of worship, which they
owned, and its pulpit shut against their min
ister. Dr. Smiley, before he came to Phila
delphia, had been the successful pastor of a
Congregational Methodist Church, and was,
both by thorough study of Scripture and of
ecclesiastical history, an intelligent Congre-
CTationalist. Nothing, therefore, was more
natural than that such a pastor, Congrega
tional in alt but the name, should pronounce
openly for our free church polity.
How wide these facts are from the calum
nious representations of The American Pres
byterian the plainest man can see. Possibly
the editor of that paper did not know what
the facts are. Then it was his first business
G-enesee Evangelist, No. 947.
to inform himself, and not impose upon the
public with his crudities.
Considering the assumption of supe
perior knowledge contained in these
paragraphs, the ignorance of this cor
respondent is surprising. If he will
turn to the final decision of Judge
Lowrie, of the Supreme Court, in this
case, (Wright’s Penna. State Reports,
6, 506) he will see that the First Re
formed Dutch Church not only was
never in spiritorpurpose Congregational
or Independent, but unanimously shrank
from such a position, to use their own
words, as “ imprudent andunscriptural.”
Their independency was but a temporary
expedient. They originated in 1809,
from the German Reformed Church, as
a polony who simply desired English
preaching, which they could not get in
their existing relations. That they had
no wish to change their polity or doe
trine, appears from the name which
they .assumed, when they' were char
tered in January, 1810. By dropping a
single syllable of the name, whether
designedly' or accidentally we cannot
tell, the Independent obscures this im
portant fact. They were chartered as
the “ Evangelical Reformed (not Reform )
Congregation ofPhiladelphia;” aud tho
word “Reformed*” in the ecclesiastical
language of Germans and their de
scendants, as every one at all familiar
with the history of the Reformation
ought to know, means Presbyterian.
But there is not a place left to hang a
doubt upon.; since, in December, 1811,
'a congregational meeting was held, at
which the form of government of the
Presbyterian Church was expressly and
unanimdusly adopted.
At this meeting it was also resolved
that, while it was inexpedient at that
time to unite with any denomination,
yet that to stand apart, or form a new
religious sect or party “would be im
pjjident and unscriptural,” arid contrary
"to their traditions, as their forefathers
were Presbyterians. Moreover, it was
provided in their “Fundamental Arti
'cles,” which, by reference, formed part
of the charter, that the pastor must be
“of the Reformed or Presbyterian de
nomination, regularly ordained,” How
any person of common veracity or
common sense could assert, in view of
these facts, that the Second Congrega-
originally “ chartered
impossible, for us to see. The people
even seem to have foreseen the possi
bility of such a false and unjust construc
tion of their independent position, and
to Rave guarded against it with jealous,
care, by unanimously voting themselves
Presbyterians, like their forefathers.
This they further proved in April, 1813,
by voting, with like unanimity, to join
the Synod of the Reformed Dutch
Church, through the elassis of New
Brunswick. Judge Lowrio’s view of
this act is a plain inference from the
facts. He Says: “All that had been
done before was simply provisional.
This act of union was the completion of
the- process of organization, in accord
ance with their original and continued
purpose.” The congregation in fact
never had a thought of being anything
other than Reformed or Presbyterian,
and .simply waited for the proper mo
ment to carry out their orderly ecclesi
astical tendencies, as inherited from
their fathers..
What “B. H.” means by the congre
gation forming “ a spiritual connection
with the Dutch church” is not obvious.
Surely he does not intend to mislead the
reader into the idea that there was no
organic union with- tho elassis, no sub
sfipiption to;its authority, no ecelesiasti-
dependence upon the Refor med Dutch
Church at large. Surely he doe 3 not
intend to ignore the fact that, as soon
as the union was formed, steps were
taken to have tho charter changed, to
conform to the new circumstances, which
was effected in ,1815; and that from the
date of the union, until 1860, Forty-seven
years, all their pastors have been in
stalled by the elassis, and were men
pledged to adhere to the symbols of the
Reformed Dutch Church. As for the
claim of the church under tho charter
to call its pastor congregationally,Jn
stead of through the consistory, “ B. H.”
must know that this is a Presbyterian
no less than a Congregational feature,
and can be of no use whatever, by it
self and especially in connection with'
th,e unanimous vote of 1811, to prove
the gregational tendencies of the
church. 1 ' p ; )
Arid now Where are “the chartered
rights” of which this correspondent
declares, in tho face of the decisions .of
our Common Pleas and Supreme Court,
“fee majority” were deprived? They
were' chartered, as a “ Reformed” Con
gregation. Their unanimous vote and
Fundamental Articles declared them to
be Presbyterians, and they expressly
repudiate any suspicion of their purpose
to he anything else, which might have
been aroused by their temporary; inde
pendency. “B. H.” must therefore re
nounce the absurd idea that the church
was originally chartered on a Congre
gational basis. But, if they were not
Congregational in the outset, had they
not a right to become so, and were they
not unjustly restrained from exercising
that right by the courts ? It is true
their original charter provided that the
congregation might unite-with any other
'Christian denomination,• whenever .a
majority of the members should decide
it to be to tbeir advantage.* And just
here, the decisions of the two Courts,
inferior and superior, diverge. Judge
Allison, in the Court of Common Pleas,
decided that a majority of the members
might have taken the church from its
.Reformed Dutch connection. Had there
been such a majority—the correspondent
in his hasty view of the case evidently
thinks there was—Judge Allison would
have given them the property. But
the fact, as brought out in the trial, was
that the transfer had never been voted by
a majority of the members , but only by a
majority of a quorum at a congregational
meeting. The evidence at the trial
showed that the conjugation numbered
166 voters ; hence 84 votes would have
been required to constitute a bare ma
jority, whereas only 75 votes, lacking
nine of the lowest necessary number,
could be raised by the friends of the
transfer. The majority, therefore, so
pathetically spoken of by “B. H.,” van
ishes “ into air, into thin air.” It never
existed. Judge Allison further ruled,
that even if a majority of votes, as re
quired by the charter, should be given
for a change of relation, it would not
be competent for the church to call Dr.
Smiley as a pastor, on account of his
Arminianisin; for, in or out of the Re
formed Dutch Church, their charter
required the pastor to be of “the Re
formed or Presbyterian denomination,
regularly ordained.” He accordingly
issued an injunction ' restraining Dr.
Smiley from occupying the pulpit of the
church.
At this point, “ B. H.,” with quite a
show of familiarity with the case, asks,
if we are not aware, that a higher Court j
has, in part, reversed Judge Allison’s
decision ? If “B. H.” knows as much
as he affects to, he is guilty of inten
tionally misleading his readers; for the
fact is, that the Supreme Bench,., to
whom the case was carried, reversed
the decision of the inferior court in no
manner or degree, except to make the po
sition of the seceders far worse than Judge
Allison had done ; it in fa'ct rendered
their case utterly hopeless. Under
Judge A.’s decision a large loop-hole
was left them; an accession of nine votes
to the strength of the seceding party
would have given them control of the
property, and all the chartered rights
“B. H.” imagines they had; but under
the change. ¥e quote his words (page
510) :
“ It is supposed because, in the chart
er, the right is reserved m the majority
to make such a connection, a majority
may dissolve it. But we' do not see it
so. - According to the mere terms used,
that article was fulfilled, and the right
exhausted by the exercise of it and in
the act of union, and we do not see how
it can be implied that it was to extend
further.” Judge Lowie has not the re
motest idea of making the case any
better for Congregational defenders of
of the secession, like “R H.,” than
Judge Allison had left it; for he says:
“ Surely no respectable denomination
would accept and. foster congregations
who would reserve a right to separate
from it at their pleasure. This they
would regard as no better than Congre
gationalism.”
In another place lie says :
“ It is therefore of no sort of import
ance what may bo the majority in such
matters, it cannot weigh a feather
against well known law in affecting the
rights of a minority. Before civil au
thority the question is, not which party
has the majority, but which is right ac
cording to the law, by which the body
has hitherto consented to be governed.
We have no doubt that a majority of a
congregational meeting transgressed
their own law, and attempted to violate
the rights of v the minority by calling a
pastor whom their classis would not
accept, and by resolving the secession
from the Reformed Dutch Church. The
majority may direct and control consist
ently with the particular and general
laws of the organism but not in viola
tion of them.”
In such a hopeless plight, Judge
Downe upon his unappealable seat of
justice, left these seceders. It was Pe
lion piled upon Ossa. The little finger
of Judge Lowi'ie’s decision was thicker
than the loins of Judge Allison’s,
- And who;is this Daniel come to judg-.
ment, this questioner ot the solemn de
cisions of our inferior and superior
courts; what judicial experience, what
stores of legal learning, what weight of
character warrants him in assuming
censorship of these decisions of our
purest and ablest men? Wbat_ good
end has he to serve .by sowing distrust
in these irrevocable judgements and by
weakening so far as his influence goes,
the confidence of the people in their
liighestand most trusted judicial officers.
Is his cause of such a sort that it- can
prevail only in an atmosphere breathing
of revolution? Must the stones with
which the foundations of Congregation
alism among us are to he strengthened,
be, in part,' pried away from our most
venerable temples of justice?
[We are compelled to lay over the
conclusion of this article until next
week.]
The General Assembly’s Plan of Be
lief for Disabled Ministers will appear in
full in our next.
TEBMS
By mail, $2.00 per annum, in advance.
“ 250 “ “ after a months.
By carrier, 50 cents additional fur delivery
GItTTBS.
I°n or more papers 9ent by mail to one
church or locality, or in the city to one address
By mail, $1.50 per annum.
By carriers. 2.00 - 1
To save trouble, cluo subscriptions must
commence at the same date, be paid strictly in
advance, in a single remittance, for which onf
receipt will he returned.
Ministers and Ministers’ Widows supplied at
club rates. Home missionaries at Si per annum.
Postage.— Five cents quarterly in advance,
to be paid by subscribers at the office of de
livery.
MINISTERIAL VACATIONS & HABITS,
This subject was : discussed not long
since by an association of ministers, with
somewhat differing views. All agree
that a rest from active pastoral duties
and a change of scene, at least annually,
is better for both pastor and people.
Sow and when to take the interlude to
labour is a more difficult inquiry. That
such arrangements should be made in
cities that the people who remain therr
in the warm Beason may have a eongf
nial place of worship, and know whet
to look in time of affliction for tl
needed ministerial attention, is, ¥
think, a duty imposed upon pastort,
alike by religion and humanity. It is
certainly not Christian, withont a clear
and unquestionable necessity, to deprive
the people of the means of grace by
closing churc3.es. Time and death do
not wait on our. comfort and-pleasure.
How the allotted time shall be spent
must depend on conditions of health,
taste and means. Whatever the recrea
tion, and wherever it is taken, that a
minister or Christian layman, especially
the former, should not forget Christ and
his eommisapn, so far as the sacred
office ,is eoncimed, is undeniable. To
affirm that to have relaxation one can
not be a living, happy Christian, is a
libel on the gospel, and this in the face
-of revelation.
That no clergyman can “puff” his
cigar along the streets, or sprinkle his
path with the juice of his quid, and
retain that most precious treasure un
sullied, influence, is the voice of Chris
tendom. To shrink from the sight of
a fashionable dance in the hotel of a
watering place, and parade before the
crowd a scientifically twirled Havana,
is an odd moral distinction. The reso
lution we give under Methodist religions
items, and the nolile words of Bishop
Janes express the growing moral senti
ment of the church. John B. Cfough,
all, speak earnestly of the
affinities and associations of the habit ot
using tobacco ; and the indecent pic
tures often found in the shops of the
retailers indicate the views of too many
of those in the traffic. In the plain,
free suggestions we have made, we
arraign no man, nor answer for his
conscience, but simply express our con
victions.
THE PUBLICATION PUND.
Mr. Editor: —The acknowledgment
donations to the Publication cause
ceived inthe month of June, which 1
send you for insertion, taken in conns.
tion with preceding acknowledgment ,
will encourage those of your readers in
terested in this enterprise. The friends
of wthe ork will sea in these contribu
tions evidence that it is not only to live
but to expand and increase its influence
for good.
The call of the General Assembly for
contributions to complete the $50,000
Publication Fund, on the part of those
who had not already given their propor
tion of the sum has not been unheeded.
Collections are coming in
large, some small—and churches that
have not yet found a good opportunity
to take up their collections, are arrang
ing to do so at as early a day as seems
to promise success.
If a little effort jsmade by each church
the nesult will be the completion of the
Fund. Wo hope that no church will by
its neglect endanger the success of this
important movement.
Yours.
HAMILTON COLLEGE.
The commencement of Hamilton Col
lege, Clinton, H- Y., /will be held on
July 21st (Thursday.)
President Fisher will deliver his Bac
calaureate on Sunday afternoon, and
Be v. Herrick Johnson, of Pittsburg, will
address the Society of Christian Be
search, Sunday evening, July 17th.
Hon. Charles P. Kirkland, LL. P., of
Hew York, will address the Alumni, and
Professor Edward North, of Hamilton
College, will deliver a Poem, Wednes
day, P. M.
The convention of the Psi Up si lon
Fraternity will he addressed by Charles
D. Warner. Esq., of Hartford. Ct. Poet,
Francis M. Finch, Ithaca.
- ®sr The Y. M. Christian Associate
contemplate making their annual exo;
si on to Allan Lie City on Friday nexl
J. W. D.