suffered for it. It is à priori probable that unions hastily formed will be long repented of.

Fourthly, we would recommend, brethren, that no accessible minister (we say, accessible, because we do not approve the practice of church robbery which has of late become too common,) be introduced to the vacant pulpit with a view to the pastoral office, unless, on ample enquiry, he should be thought to possess all the qualifications which are requisite to that office in that particular church. We feel assured, that much mischief has resulted from the lack of suitable caution on this point. Individuals totally disqualified by character, by temper, by deficient attainments for a particular station, have been introduced to it, and the result has been division and every evil work. And it may not be out of place here to caution our pastors against hasty recommendations. Brethren, great and solemn responsibility is involved in recommending a minister to a destitute church. No personal considerations, no private friendship should influence us, if we doubt his adaptation to the station. A brother, by the ties of blood, should be refused, if we cannot consider him adapted to promote there the cause of God. In taking the necessary steps to bring among you a man who may prove a pastor after God's own heart, it may not be possible, perhaps, for the church to act as a body. It will, in that case, be necessary to devolve this work upon the deacons or a few individuals chosen by the church for this specific purpose, for we do not think it belongs of right to the deacon's office. Yet we would not advise that this Committee should be entrusted with the power of introducing a minister with a view to his subsequent election without the previous consent of the church. We would have no imperium in imperio. We would rather leave the decision of this point, as well as the election of the pastor, to the general body of the communicants, than give it to a smaller body, though elected by the church itself.

Fifthly, we would earnestly caution you, when more individuals than one are recommended as likely to repair the breach made by death or removal, to avoid the mistake of determining to hear, and make trial of all, before a final decision is attempted. Certain churches, as if by miracle, may have escaped the formation of parties, when the practice just referred to has been followed, but it is difficult to conceive a more effectual mode of forming them. Those differences of attainment, or taste, or habits of thought which must exist in almost every church, cannot well fail, in such circumstances, to produce a difference of judgment with respect to the individual best adapted to fill the pastoral office, and in the train of divided opinion, a rupture of confidence and affection is but too likely to follow. Experience has thoroughly convinced us, brethren, that it is best to introduce first to the scene of labour the individual who is considered, after much deliberation and prayer, most likely to promote among yon and in its vicinity, the kingdom of our Lord, and to decide the question concerning his election before other measures are resorted to, or other candidates are even thought of. In most cases, this careful mode of proceeding would succeed in securing an early and

unanimous decision, and thus ward off one of the greatest evils which can befall a church, the evil of remaining long as "sheep without a shepherd."

Sixthly, we would strongly deprecate, beloved brethren, those private efforts which have been sometimes made, when more than one accessible minister is in view, to influence the opinions of the body with a view to carry the election of a particular individual. Such efforts are usually put forth under the pretence of securing the best interests of the church, but they may be prompted by private friendship, by ignorant partiality, or by pride. Were it right for one member to employ such means to gratify his own wishes and tastes, it must be right for all; now what fruit could result from a general effort of this kind but irritation, and estrangement, and discord, and division, and every evil work?

Seventhly. We would exhort you, beloved brethren, in exercising individually your undoubted privilege to vote in the election of a pastor, to remember that each of your brethren and sisters (for in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female,) possesses the same privilege with you. That all have a right to make their wishes known, and, as far as possible, to have them practically attended to in reference to this important business. We do believe, brethren, that the recollection of this fact would render it impossible for any individuals among you to resolve to accomplish their own wishes, even though they should be at variance with the convictions of others. Each would say to himself, neither my talents nor my property give me any right to impose a pastor upon a Congregational Church. I have assisted in wresting that power from the hands of the Pope and the State, it would ill become me to monopolize or attempt to monopolize it myself. Having speculatively admitted that the right of election to the pastoral office is in the body of communicants, I must not practically deny it by acting as if it belonged to me. will advise, but should I fail to convince my brethren, and should their voice, adverse to mine in the election, prevail, they will have done me no wrong. They will have acted on a principle acknowledged by myself as well as by them-that the members of a christian church have a right to elect their own pastors.

I

Eighthly, we would exhort you individually, beloved brethren, to bear in mind that in the choice of a pastor, no member of a church must regard his own interest merely, but aim to promote the welfare of the body, and the glory of its Head and Lord. Every individual among you should thus identify himself, his welfare and prosperity, with those of the church. Cases will occur in which certain members of a church may feel a decided preference for one of two ministers brought upon the field, while the majority may with equal decision desire the other. What is he to do, then? Must the minority yield, and thus sacrifice what may appear to them superior means of spiritual edification and enjoyment? We should be disposed to reply, that if, upon the whole, they should think the minister desired by the majority best adapted to promote the spiritual prosperity of that majority, the case involves no difficulty. The small minority should nobly resolve to prefer the good of the whole to

N. S. VOL. IV.

5 A

that of a part, though they are comprehended in it. They should determine to sacrifice the gratification of taste, or intellect, and if it must be so, some portion of personal improvement to promote the welfare of the body. We do not think, however, that they would suffer in a spiritual point of view by this disinterested conduct. The Lord will not permit any to sustain loss by the annihilation of self. Submission is seldom dangerous; self-will is invariably so.

But again, suppose the dissentients should imagine that the majo rity have made or are about to make a wrong choice-a choice not adapted to promote their own comfort and edification, what are they to do then? Will not the general principles just laid down prove a sufficient guide here also? What, if the minority were to say to themselves, We think our brethren have not been guided by the spirit of wisdom in this election. They think otherwise. Is it certain that we are right and they are wrong? Who can decide this important question? If we cannot so far relinquish our opinion as to say, "Perhaps they may be right," would it not be better to act as if we thought so, and leave it to future events, to settle the difference between us? Brethren, whether we are right or not, in reference to this specific suggestion, certain we are that this spirit of yielding and submission is the spirit that ought pre-eminently to be enforced upon the churches of the saints. Did it exist in the required degree, it would prevent most of the evils which occasionally spring up amongst us; especially those which are apt to appear when a church is called upon to elect a pastor. It is the determination of each to carry his own point, to provide for his own gratification or edification, regardless of the interests of others, that is the root of all the evil. We never heard of serious mischief resulting from the submission of the minority to the majority, or of the majority to the minority, (which may at times be proper, if the latter be considerable,) when the submission has been a real concession to the judgments, the wishes, and the wants of those whose salvation should be as dear to our hearts as it was to that of the Redeemer. We do not believe that such submission can ever lead to mischief. It is regarded with high approbation by the Saviour, and it will not lose its reward.

In fine, brethren, the election of pastors is perhaps the greatest act power, privilege, and responsibility committed by the Saviour to his churches. The due performance of it must therefore require the largest supplies of grace, and the highest exercise of a truly christian spirit. Among our churches many elections to the pastoral office are so conducted. They accordingly prove, at the time, seasons of great interest, edification, and grateful joy; and are followed, as might be anticipated, with most happy results, in the lasting prosperity of the church, and in the enlarged usefulness of the pastor. Some elections among us, are unhappily of a different character. An evil spirit prevails in them. Foolish counsels are followed. They are scenes of discord. They are pregnant with dishonour and mischief to the cause of Christ. On such a subject, therefore, beloved brethren, plain and faithful admonitions can require no apology. Your anxiety must be great as our own, that every election to the pastoral office in your churches, should be conducted in a spirit calm, devout, wise,

simple, patient, godly, your practice recommending your principlesyour spirit accordant with your professions-and you yourselves receiving of the Lord an ample recompense into your own bosoms, of peace and joy, enlargement and prosperity.

Accept, dear brethren, this address as a renewed proof of our love, and an additional instance of our sincere concern to promote the best` interests of the independent churches in our own land, and throughout the whole world.

Signed by direction of the Assembly, on its behalf,

JAMES BENNETT, D. D. Chairman.

THE HERMIT OF MOUNT SINAI.

MR. ISAAC TAYLOR, in the fifth part of his Ancient Christianity, which has just appeared, speaking of the men who, in the Nicene age, were remarkable exceptions to that corruption of mind and manners which generally prevailed, has the following paragraph :"A dozen less noted names might be mentioned, whose writings, (they were all recluses) not less than those of much better times, would suggest a supposition directly contradicted by history. Such are Hilary of Arles, Prosper of Aquitaine, and Eucherius, a companion of Vincent, in the monastery of Lerins: or turning eastward, we find, at the same time, Isidore of Pelusium, inferior to few in calm judgment and apparent fervour; or Nilus, the admirable anchoret of Sinai, whose epistles might be perused with advantage by modern Christians."* Again, in a note, he observes-"the epistles of Nilus, edifying, although darkened by the Nicene cloud, I have before me, and also his invaluable personal narrative, (invaluable as a document of history.) His Ascetica, containing (this I assume at second hand) the more explicit part of his inculpation of the monks of his time, I have failed, as yet, to obtain. Nilus, describing the life in the wilderness among the solitudes of Sinai, in a manner which might tempt one to follow him, attests the general corruption of the times, as affirmed by Salvian; and this testimony relates to a rather earlier period. There was no mean, no general morality, no diffused virtue-nothing but extremes-either a grim asceticism, driven into the wilderness, or utter dissoluteness everywhere else. A long and particular description of the luxury of the age, commences, Τοσούτον γαρ ισχυσεν ΝΥΝ ή απληστος λαιμαργία . . Narrationes, p. 31."+

The Ascetica of Nilus is in the fifth volume of the Bibliotheca Patrum, and fully justifies the account of the monks of the Nicene age which Mr. Taylor gives from Salvian. He draws a flattering picture of the character and conduct of the Christians who lived in the time of the apostles, or immediately afterwards. He speaks of their being neither rich nor poor, but a prevailing equality; of there being neither judgments nor accusations, because each had in his own + No. 5, p. 50.

* No. 5, p. 77.

conscience an uncorrupted judge, whose testimony was sought and followed; and of envy, hatred, and vain-glory being so far banished, that even in dreams they were unacquainted with them. The contrast between the primitive and the Nicene period, as to its moral aspect, is strongly asserted and vividly declared by Nilus. Those who, in his day, had professed to desert the world, he describes as wearing the monastic habit because of the licence which it afforded. "We are despised," says he, "as a troublesome and covetous rabble, by those who ought to reverence us; we are the sport of the marketplace, as really differing from the world but in dress, wearing merely an exterior of honesty." Of the monks in general, he writes-Those who ought to be havens and temples of God and his sheep, become rocks, and whited sepulchres, and ravening wolves. They besiege the doors of the rich; cities are oppressed with the numbers of these vagrants; of those received hospitably, a short time has revealed the feigned piety, and their infamous lives have been discovered; so that now all who appear modest and holy are imagined to be corrupters, and worse infected than as if with leprosy, and there is less trust reposed in monks than in assassins and highwaymen !" Had Mr. Taylor met with the Ascetica of St. Nilus, he would have found all his charges against the monks substantially corroborated; he might have advanced the hermit of Sinai as a witness in behalf of that state of demoralization produced by the ascetic life, for which he quotes the priest of Marseilles. The De Gubernatione Dei of Salvian, and the Ascetica of Nilus, appeared in the same age, and both testify to a shocking and general amount of wickedness prevailing among the religious celibates; and by appealing to both writers, living remote from each other, the author of Ancient Christianity would have strengthened his case, by showing that no more in the east than in the west, is the Nicene Church a safe guide for us moderns to follow. Ample means of information upon the moral character of the men whom the Oxford divines parade before us as little lower than the angels, were pos sessed by Nilus. Though the greater part of his days were passed among the frightful defiles of Sinai, yet, in his earlier life, he had mixed much with the world. He was connected by descent and marriage with some of the most influential families in Constantinople, and had been entrusted with the civil government of the city. Chrysostom was his personal friend; the Emperor Arcadius sought his good offices; and his solitude was enlivened by frequent visitors, attracted thither by his sanctity, through whom he kept up a communication with the external world. If historical evidence, and not modern imaginations, is to decide the question whether the men and women of the fourth century, professing Christianity, had any moral supe riority over the men and women who compose the church of the present day, the answer will be most emphatically, No, but that they were in most respects vastly inferior.

The writings of Nilus are well worth reading, not only as histo rical, but ethical documents. Though a slave to many of the superstitions of the day, he was free from its vices, and writes with honest fervour in the cause of practical godliness. His rules of life