ghiJolinAWeir 16Julywric41u
New Series, Vol. V, No. 29.
$3 00 By Mail. $8 50 By Carrier.
50eta Additional after three Months.
ginuritan tzglsgtgriait.
THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1868
LAY ELDERSHIP."
This is the ,title
,of a paper contributed by
Prof. Hito'heOok, at 'Union Seminary, to tile
April number of the American Presbyterian and
Theological Rerotetc. ' It is an historical argument
to prove the Mbdern origin of the office now
known in the Presbyterian Church as that of
Ruling. Elder. The office, as the writer thinks
we have it, was originated by Calvin and intro
duced into the Genevan Church after his return
from Strasburg, in January, 1642. Some hinta
upon the matter were derived,,it is, supposed, by
Calvin, from the United Brethren in Bohemia,
with whom the Reformer corresponded about thia
time. These brethren had dlected elders for the
first time in 1467. As'for the Waldenses, Prof
Hitchcock regards, their Presbyterianism, as of
comparatively modern date, going back :probably
only to 1620, or 1624; and, at all events, they
were not heard of in contact with`the United
Brethren until after these, had instituted an el
dership for therriselves.. , '
The attempt of Calvin and others to 'show a
divine right for their Ruling B14'1.04), the Pro
fessor sets down, with eqUaPs6nyfroid, it§:a fail
ure. The Eldership of, •,Calvin's Institutes, 11. 9
shows, is a very different,affair from the offico as
the Reformer actually established it in Geneva.
There, it was'ionly,a , rbtary board of Lay Asses=
sots, elected annually and aiding
, iiithout ordi
nation in the discipline and government of the
Church. In the Institutes, an the contrary,
where they first appear in the •third: edition of
1543, they are inentiOner i t in a way'which
that they were to be ordained men, to 4liom the
terms Elder, Presbyter, Aug•xtioop,rog4t, be ap
plied,, as much auto thasb twhartaborboth is word'
and doctrine, This whiit is called' a,./jud/
Presbyterate; implying two 'ciasseis“of ordained
Church officers in the Church Presbytery or
Session, one of which only ruled, and ,the
. other
both ruled and taught. The main and almost
only proof text cited was 1 Tim. v: 17.
Quoting now a series Of ,distinguished • Presb
yterian authorities against admitting the Scrip
tural warrant for any such sharp distinction
among the Presbyters or Bishops of the early
C,hurch, Prof. Hitchcock declares this to be the
growing conviction even among Presbyterians of
the staunchest sort in our day, Calvin, they ao
knowledge, was mistaken in his interpretation of
the famous proof text, 1 Tim. v. 17. Two orders
of Preakyters are ettit 'here referred to, but only
one order: the difference being simply that of
f.ervicp, not of • {auk. Prof.. Hitchcock then
takes up the vistrof Principal Campbell of Aber
deen, in which the 'claim of our. Ruling Elders to
the title of Presbyters or Bishops is abandoned,
but the attempt is made tO show that they Cor
respond to Calvin'e Lay . 44,fessors;, and that a
Scriptural warrant for such Lay officers is to be
found, not in 1 Tim. v. 17, but in Rom. xii. 8
and in 1 Cor. xii. 28. Principal Campbell's ar
gument both from Scripture and from Church
,History is easily set aside. So t,,co is a third ar
gument for "Congregational Episcopacy," urged
by Dr. Thorttwell, of South. Carclin'a. Thiti ton
sista in ascribing entire equality in dignity to
each of the bench of Presbyter or Bishops in a
congregation, but in supposing that the excineive
right to teach was conferred upon certain indi
viduals of the: Session by the apostolic appoint
ment. Of such excluaive right Prof 4. finds no
trace in the New Testament. His view that
the Elders of apostolic times were, one and . all,
officially Pastors, competent alike toperform both
the duties of teaching and ri ling. Some of them
may have been eminent . , in one department and
some in another, and there may ; thus have exist
ed practically a difference in their functions, but
the same office covered both. Consequently
there exists now no exact copy of this primitive
Presbytery or Session either'in the'Presbyterian,
or any other, branch of the Church. Our own,
polity is nearestrto it of any, not so much because
of a likeness between our own and the primitive
elders, as because the principle of Lay representa
tion is wrought into the very fibre and marrow
of our system.
The learned Professor's argument for the most
part is sound. We can freely admit his general
principle that no existing Church polity is'to be
found fully develoPed in the New Testattuent.
Presbyters, Elders, and Bishops, it is now uni
versally admitted, designate the - same official
persons from different points of view.' But 'we
do not agree with the assumption Of 'the title of
the article. We have no "Lay glclership" in'
our churches. Oar Elders .are wrongly.ealled
Laymen. The term is used byway-of itecommo
.
dation or- comparison merely, inasmuch as this
class of officers is not, in modern times, called
away from lay pursuits by'any'exigency of their
office. They still engage, as the preaching elders
do not and cannot., in secular pursuits. They
are, therefore, representatives of the people. But
they are not laymen. The Lay Assessors of
Calvin in Geneva, are not their prototypes. Out
Ruling Elders are ordained men. Unaccounta
bly the Professor ignores this fact, important: as
it, is. He says: "We might easily be rid of it
[the novelty of Lay Eldership] any day, by or
dajnit!g,our Lay Elders, and making them min
isters bi r th; Word and dispensers of did sacra
menta:l Ottr Rifling Elders being already or
dained' then, the Presbyterian 'Session comes. so
much nearer the apostolic tench of. Elders .tpan
the 'Prefessor has conceived. It 'is only neces
sary, to enlarge the sphere of the Eldership, not
to, elevate its ecclesiastical standinc , , in order to
bring back the Presbytery of apostolic ,times to
r
thee Church nf our day. Whether this would
'llSpirit• the
accord !ivt the teachings ofthe
history,of
i the,Ohlirch ; whether it would he a
step' backward instead ,of forward, is an open
questioh.
CRITICAL, NOTES ON, TIRE LATE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY. lIL
Soon after the Assembly convened, the con
viretiOn got abroad that 'the Re-union sentiment
was in overWhelining strength. It is difficult to
point to ithy one thing; before , n vote was taken,
as proof 'of 'the Tact. Certainly only a very few of
the , 'well-known members of the body showed
1:1y; great Zeal for lie-union. These we're chiefly
the Moderator (Dr. Stearns), Prof. H. B. Smith,
and• Hon. W. E. Dodge. Dr. S. W. b'isheraricike
on that side ; President Hickok, as Chaim:hair of
the Special Committee, defended his report ;-
Skinner, when the ititerpretatinti - of: the Doe
tOftrAlllitatits lintatnie kino4itylth;i4w himself warm-'
Sly on the stole of the Basis, htit.thifirst , three
named, to whom `should be hiterible
John Rankin' of Ohio, were the only PrOininent
men who could have been regarded as originally
very zealous for Re-union in the Assembly. .The
California delegation was understood to be for. Re-,
union, also most of the Minnesbta and part of
the Philadelphia , delegation, while it was known
that it was regarded with little favor by such
men as Patterson, Spear, Swazey, John C. Smith,
Noble, Hutchins, MeCorkle, of Detroit, J. Am
biose Wight, Eva, Darrah, of Missouri, Elders
Bodine of this city, Edwards, of Pittsburgh, if
not also Geo. Duffield, Jr., T.. Ralston Smith,
of New York city, and , not a few others in
W. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, -Indiana • and
Missouri. If not in opposition; no special zeal in
the affirmative could, he ascribed to Profs. Nelson
and Morris of Lane Seminary. The• Assembly cer
tainly saw no demonstrations of zeal from Presi
dent Tuttle, Prof. Edwin 'Hall, and not much
from Dr. Prentiss. And yet the conviction. was
strong in the winds even of those who, disliked
the Basis, that Re-union , was largely' in the as
cendant. Almost all the prayers and exhorta
tions from the beginning of the Assetubly ran' in
that Channel, and the applause, which it was
found necessary to check, took the same direc
tion. the only conclusion we can reach is, that
the great majority of the less t.nown members,
ruling elders and ministers„ Werelargely perva
ded with the Reunion sentinient.
It is to be noted, however, that any impres
sions-that the Basis could of would be construed
illiberally, were met at *the outset, by 'the posi
tions taken in the retiring Moderator (Dr. Nel-
, son's) sermon, that our Church regards itself as
" called unto liberty in the study and exposition
of Scripture," and of " the Confession of `Faith;"
a 'liberty "allowing not only different modes of
*viewing the doctrines, but extending to a doubt
of the correctness, or even to deliberate rejec•
tion, of propositions in the Confession not be
. lieved to be " necessary to the integrity of the
system or even consistent with it." And these
views, afterwards re-stated by the ex-moderator,
on the floor of the Assembly, of which fortu
nately he was.a member, with such clearness and
ability, were ihown so plainly to have been those
of' the Joint Committee, of which he was also a
member,,and were putein such relations to the
Christian honor of the other Branch in refer
ence to the interpretation of the Basis, as to
make all feel that the adoption of the terms in a
narrow sense by that body, or its Presbyteries,
was next to impossible. The explanatory and
argumentative parts of the Joint Committee's
Report confirmed this impression ; and when
the Special Committee's Report still further in
' terpreted the doCtrinal article as recognizing in the
United Church the orthodoxy of all pronounced
orthodox in the separate churches, the opposi ,
tion of many disappeared, and at least stink to
PHILADELPHIA, THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1868.
indifference; others said, There can be no harm
in a Union with such an understanding, let us
go in for it ; others said, We don't care for Re
unn, but it is safe on this basis. It won't do
for us, in the present state of public opinion to
go against Re-nnion ; we can't afford it. Let
the Old : School take the responsibility of de
feating it., Others rejoiced at the removal of a
great and hitherto insuperable 'obstacle to a
movement they had desired, but now for the
first.time felt they could favor. Of course the
. ,
original ,
phalanx of re-unionists; who we suppose
to be. a large majority, without these: gains from
the other side, were more than content, and
would.have been, we fear, with a less favorable
haidlingef the documents.
Dr. Spear influenced by these interpretations,
i
unwilling, to face a movement, of his brethren
which seemed soetrong, and beirg in-poor health,
gave way early in the debate l He opposed the
tenth article, but he was not in the house to re
cord his dissent when the rolwas called. Dr.
Skinner followed, in one of hi most energetic,
I \
impassioned appeals for the Iwbole Basis; and
plead with the brethren to ntake no
. exceptions
in the form of their assent; .a\;owing meanwhile,
his New Schoolism in'the mosemphatic, defiant
way. Geo. Duffield, Jr, i
wee, erely, a loeker on
t
in the debate.! Thus the oppthition was deprived
of all its pungent and most effective speakers.
Patterson, erudite: and massite, could no more
carry on the battle, than thee` artillery of an
army can, without skirmisheri, cavalry and in
fantry. Swazey belonged to the same arm of
the service. 'The sabre-like \ etas and stinking
minnie-bull hits of Spear, t e
~dashing cavalry
charges, the fiend/ um est of affield, Were Want
lug. , Ambrose Wight dam d . his side by as-
serting as facts, what, on bet er: knowledge, he'
was afterw,skls compelled to thdraw. Such
,
popular speakers as Fisher, $., Smith,
Skinner and Dodge, backed 41Dr.Adanas, were
too much:for the opposition.
The fact was, the firstrand most important ar
ticle of the Basis, after the explanations given,.
was regarded as conserving nearly all the interests
involved in our denomiiiational position. The
question was not seriously weighed, 'What au
thority have these interpretations ? or the other,
'Why may not the other bran& adopt the terms
with in interpretation of their own, quite ad
verse to ours? Giving our brethren our own
view of the Basis plainly, it . wa i ls thought becom
ing to trust them to adopt it in that sense, or
not to adopt it at all. And the language of the
Answer to the Protest in the Albany Assembly,
shows our trust not misplaced. Nevertheless, the
course of our body seems to us wanting in the
highest prudence, and they are not excused be
cause the event has turned out better than they
might: have feared. Being thus satisfied on the
leading point of the Basis, many ceased utterly
to be concerned as to the bearing of any other
point of it. Only a few were left to point out
the dangers that might arise in connection with
the Tenth Article. The true New School doc
trine that the right of examination can be pro
perly exercised upon members bearing creden
tials of good standing in our - own churchonaly
in special and extraordinary cases, if at all, was
stretched to cover its introduction, as a broad,
general principle of policy, into a document of
equal solemnity and authority, if adopted, with
the constitution itself. Dr. Patterson's attack
upon this right of examination was the great
speech of the session. No other speech on any
subject approached it in fullness, scholarship,
and power. No point in the Constitution or the
Digest bearing upon the subject was left without
adequate and conclusive examination The in
troduetion of a test to be applied to men in good
standing in our body, he showed to be a novelty
of '37 and '3B. He showed that its application
would make Old School men the current coin of
the United Church, while the range of New
School men would be limited to their own. Pres
byteries. In an admirable manner, he turned
the guns against those who claimed that the de
cisions of '37 and '3B were the law of the New
School Church, unless our Assembly had ex
pressly repealed - them. There was a prophetic
tone in his peroration. Speaking consciously
against a strong current of Re-union feeling, he
said : " Sir, you may crucify these reflections,
and bury them now, but I tell you they will rise
again after- three days." When he concluded,
he was congratulated on_ all sides. Nor can the
speech be said to haie:had no result of impor
tance. It secured a record of dissent from nearly
one-sixth of the entire membership of the As-.
sembly—mostly in the Central West—against
the tenth article, and it sowed the seeds of re
flection on the very structure of Presbyterian
ism as related to liberty, which will yet germi
nate and bear. frait. .
The Basis of union was then ratified and sent
down to the Presbyteries by a unanimous vote.
Nor can it be said that our Assembly abdicated
its New School character, or proved recreant to
Presbyterian liberty in this act. Time was ne
cessary to prove that it had acted prudently in
trusting in the liberal purpose of the other branch;
but is plain that, with a liberal understanding of
the first or doctrinal article, the tenth is robbed
of half its force. The examination, wherever
conducted, dare not be rigorous or exclusive in
its character. The act is not and cannot be a
New School act, but it may not be so performed
as to give offence to New School men. It was
doubtless, in this view of the case, that a unan
imous vote was given for the Basis as a whole.
Certainly, in the light of the Albany Answer to
the , Protest, no examination may be conducted
upon a doctrinal Basis more rigid and narrow
than the Auburn Declaration. Of course this
answer had not been made when our Assembly
voted on Re-union. And it may be that even
without the liberal interpretations given to the
First Article, that and the tenth would have
gained a majority of votes in our body; but it
would have been a comparatively small majority,
and only after a greater and more nearly matched
debate,-to be followed with certain defeat in the
Presbyteries.
THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON RE
UNION, presented by the Chairman, Dr. Hickok,
in our body, is with justice regarded by our
brethren of the other branch as having an im•
portant bearing upon the interpretation of the
Tunis of the Basis. We are very glad that re
port was before the other Assembly on the eve
of their own vote upon the same subject. A
Correspondent of the Presbyterian of this city,
(G. H:) gives an exposition of part of the lan
.guage of the Report, enforced by the comments
of Dr. Hickok himself. The correspondent says:.
It seems to me perfectly plain that, in the
judgment of the author of this report, the um
pire, in, the case of trial for, heresy in the United
Churgh, is not to be the independent judgment
of the court before whorti the trial is had, as to what
doctrines are, or are - not, consistent with the Con
fession of Faith, but the judgment of the body
to which the person on trial may have belonged
previous to the union. "If the man " says Dr.
Hickok, " is not out of the pale of his former
church's orthoddxy, he cannot be in danger from
any ecclesiastical court's rigidity or bigotry."
All this seems to me perfectly plain; but if the
language were capable of a double meaning, all
doubt in my mind is precluded by a free and ,
very pleasant, conversation which I had with Dr.
Hickok, in his own house, the day after our
Assembly adjourned at Albany. •
In that conversation he assured me that it was
the consideration that the First Article of the
Basis bound the United Church to tolerate as
orthodox whatever had been tolerated by the
New School previous to the union, that finally
reconciled many in their Assembly to vote for
the Basis, notwithstanding their objection to the
Tenth Article. And as to what he regarded
as within the pale of orthodoxy, he said that
as he regarded the First Article as binding the
New School to tolerate the Old School doctrine
of immediate imputation, so he regarded it
as binding the Old School to tolerate—well,
(said he,) to give it definite form— Toylorism. I
expressed to him my conviction that the present
Basis is more latitudinarian than the one of last
year; and to this he answered that he so re
garded it, and was surprised—not grieved, but
surprised—that our Committee consented to it.
Subsequently, in reply to a note of inquiry
from Rev. V. D. Reed, D.D., Dr. Hickok says he
does not remember to have mentioned Taylorism
in this , conversation at all. He adds:
" I am willing to stand publicly responsible
for the opinion that the said first article will bind
the United Church to tolerate such doctrines and
explanations as have keen allowed as orthodox by
either branch-=and that any particular Presby
tery must judge, not merely from its own opinion
of the orthodoxy ,of the same, but in view of
what has been allowed by either one or the other
of the separate branches. Ido not choose to say
of any doubtful specific doctrine or explanation,
whether it has or has not been so allowed by either
branch. Certainly, I should not wish to be un
derstood as saying that "faylorism' in any defi
nite form had been so allowed."
par A Secretary of one of our benevolent so
cieties recently presented his cause in one of our
prosperous churches, in a small city, where,there
was no settled pastor. Among the cards of con
tributions was one for twenty dollars from the
church. He did not quite understand that, and
So asked for an explanation. "That," said one
of the leading men, "is what we pay each Sunday
for the supply of our desk; and its you are our
welcome supply to-day, beside our individual con
tributions, as a church we give that amount to
your . cause."
This, we fear, is unusual; some, at least, of the
representatives of our benevolent causes have not
often met with such a pleasant experience.
Sometimes indeed, it 'appears as though they
were tred as a mere convenience, perhaps preach-
Genesee Evangelist, No. 1156.
J Ministers $2.50 R. Miss. $2.00
t Address :-1334 Chestnut Street
ing faithfully and acceptably all day, and getting
a collection about equal to the price of a supply.
It is a cheap operation for the church; but it is
not every church, as is seen above, that does it.
We would name, with honor, the church above
referred to, except that we fear it would be at
once overwhelmed with applicants from the ben
evolent societies. It could not bear them all at
once.
FROM OUR ROCHESTER CORRESPONDENT
THE AMERICAN SABBATH.
It would seem from various indications, in dif
ferent parts of the land, that there is a settled
determination among a large class of citizens of
foreign birth, to break down and trample upon
the American and Christian Sabbath. We have,
indeed, long been accustomed to hear of outra
ges upon the sacredness of the day in some of
our cities; especially in New York, Cincinnati,
and St. Louis; but we had not expected like
manifestations in our own goodly Rochester ;
generally so quiet, so Christian, in its manner of
keeping the holy day.
But, we too, have had our Romish procession,
with a band of music, parading our streets at
church time, attracting general attention, and to
some extent disturbing our, public religious as
semblies. There is .a boldness, a defiance, in
this manner of proceeding, which by its very
audacity may go far toward carrying its point,
but which ought the rather to arouse the just in
dignation of every virtuous citizen, and call
forth such stern and persistent rebuke as shall
abate the nuisance.
SHANEATELES.—A recent visit to this place
revealed to us one of the prettiest little villages
of our State. We did not before know how
much of a gem it is. It boasts some fifteen
hundred inhabitants, or three ; hundred nice
houses nestling just around the outlet, of the
beautiful Lake which bears the same name. The
Lake is some sixteen miles long, about two miles
wide, with sloping banks, covered •with cultiva
ted arms, clean and productive clear down. to the
water's edge. A little steamer, plies upon, the
miniature sea,, which is often used by pleasure
parties. The Lake is deep and cold, and furnishes
fine fishing also. The village is something of a
summer resort for New Yorkers. It is but a
short ride from Syracuse.
But we are even more gratified to look into
the Presbyterian church on a pleasant, though
intensely hot, Sabbath. The house was full.
Hardly a vacant seat could be seen, showing ap
preciation of the faithful services of their pastor,
Rev. M. N. Preston. He is a young man. This
is his only settlement; but already it is time
ttbat his people gave him a larger house of wor
ship. Twenty feet could be advantageously add
ed to the length of the present building, and all
the additional pews would be needed almost at
once. We hope to hear soon that a movement is
being made by the parish in that direction.
A PARSONAGE.—The Presbyterian. chntcli
of Campbell last year built them a fiettl,
comfortable house of worship. This year 'they
are building a fine parsonage alongside of it,
and expect to install their minister, the Rev.
Dr. Wakeman,. in it, by the middle of Sep
tember next. The church was almost dead
a few years since;. but there were some members
in it that began to -think it ought to live, after
all; went to work accordingly, and this is the
happy result.
A CALL—Rev. Erskine N. White, of New
Rochelle, has received a unanimous call to the
Westminster church of Buffalo, which it is
earnestly desired, and confidently expected, he
will accept. This church is now happily in an
admirable condition to receive a good pastor. It
has recently received a noble accession to its
strength, t.ume twenty desirable families having
united with it from the down town churches.
It has a large, fine house of worship; is now a
harmonious body; and every thing looks well for
the future. We sincerely hope Mr. White will
come to them:
HON. C. T. Hula3unn, the upright and popu
lar member of Congress from St. Lawrence Coun
ty, delivered the addreis ;this -year before the
Barrett Browning Society, of Houghton, Semina
ry. It gave great satisfaction, as we were quite
sure it would when we named him ter that ser
vice. He is a very suggestive and instructive
speaker; full of matter, ying read and thought
extensively. ~
REV. C. M. WINES has resigned the pastorate
of the First Presbyterian church, of this city,
and preached his farewell sermon. last Sunday
evening. The Presbytery of Rochester city
(0. S.), is summoned to meet orb the 14th, to dis
solve the pastoral relation. GENESEE.
Rochester, July 11, 1868.
ireir The Advance (Chicago)says " The First
Presbyterian Church of this city axe trying to
induce Rev. Newman:Hall, of London to fill the
pastorate lately vacated by the Rev. Z.. M. Hum
phrey, D.D. They laid upon the cable the bur
den of, telling him that if he would come, be
would find a nice house, rent. free, and a salary
of $lO,OOO per year payable in gold. To these
attractions may be added that of a hearty wel
come by the many who had. already learned to
think so much of Newman Hall as to make: it
impossible to fully express their appreciation in
the short time he was here."