always showed himself to be a good critic and an able teacher. It was not his fault, but that of his pupils, if they did not make proficiency in their studies. He always seemed greatly desirous to make us thoroughly acquainted with that system of doctrines revealed in the Bible, and to be earnest and faithful in inculcating the duties which these doctrines involve. And his conversation and preaching contributed largely to promote this end. The more deeply to impress this private instruction, and give it all a practical turn, each student had a portion of the parish assigned to him, where he was expected to attend, at least, one religious meeting each week, visit the sick, and become personally acquainted with all the families. In this way Dr. Woodbridge transferred a large amount of pastoral labor to his students, and was thus enabled to devote a considerable time to them in the recitation-room. Besides, there are advantages to young men under this system of instruction which theological seminaries cannot furnish; and the loss of which, I have often been told, young men from the seminaries seriously feel as soon as they enter the ministry. It is almost a trite remark, if you wish to teach a young man to swim, it is not best to take him to a blackboard, and chalk out a river, and then tell him just how to move his hands and feet, but put him into a real river, and thus let experience and teaching be intermingled. My field of labor was the North District (now North Hadley), where we enjoyed a precious revival; and which, some few years afterwards, became a separate parish, and has now for thirty years enjoyed the stated ministrations of the Rev. Warren H. Beaman. The recollections of my weekly meetings there, in connection with my theological studies, remain vividly and pleasantly impressed on my mind to this day. And Dr. Woodbridge, as a revered and beloved teacher and friend, will ever live in my grateful remembrance. C. DURFEE. VII. VOTING ON THE QUESTION OF LICENSING AND ORDAINING CANDIDATES FOR THE MINISTRY. THE question thus stated is one of much importance, and cannot be regarded as trifling by any man who credits the Scriptural testimony concerning the duties and immense responsibilities involved in the sacred office. A minister is a watchman for souls, a professed guide to the heavenly mansions, a co-worker with God, or with infernal spirits, to save or destroy beings made for immortality; an under-shepherd, under Jesus Christ, the chief shepherd of that flock which he hath purchased with his own blood. Much stress is laid in the sacred volume on the qualifications of those to whom are committed the high trusts of ambassadors for Christ, heralds of the cross, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Evidences of a renewed nature, aptness to teach, well-disciplined and furnished minds, soundness in the faith, and a general blameless demeanor, are indispensable prerequisites to the great work of the evangelical ministry. To prevent the intrusion of the incompetent, examinations of candidates by associations and ecclesiastical councils have been deemed highly useful, if not absolutely necessary; and to preach and assume the authority of a pastor without the approval of evangelical ministerial brethren, would, in well-regulated communities, be viewed as an offence against order, destructive of fellowship, and hostile to the general purity, peace, and prosperity of the church. Even those who are most loose in their notions of order are obliged, at length, to acknowledge the importance of some rules, some visible bonds of union, concession, and demand among themselves, that they may enjoy each other's confidence, and walk together with any degree of comfort and peace. The power intrusted to associations and ecclesiastical councils, supposes, of course, that each member is responsible for his own opinions and acts, both in his individual and associated capacity. Each must give an account of himself, both of his doings and of his motives, at the tribunal of God. These are little less than self-evident truths, mere axioms, which cannot be made plainer, or more certain, by any amount of argument. He, therefore, who violates his own conscience for the sake of pleasing, or joining with others, must be self-condemned, as well as incur the displeasure of that awful Being who will "bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." All that is necessary for each individual is to look with perfect impartiality, and with the best light which he is able to obtain, for the evidences of his duty; and, having made the discovery, to act as duty dictates, whatever pain or loss he may bear as the consequence of his firm adhesion to the right. No popularity, no worldly good or evil, can have any weight in the estimation of him who views things as they are, against the demands of duty and the approving smiles of the Most High. Will it be arrogant in me to say that, if I am not entirely ignorant of my motives, I have endeavored to regulate my conduct, as a public man, by the principles now asserted? I have not seldom had occasion to differ in judgment from the majority of my brethren with whom I have acted in council, and have not unfrequently been severely censured by some for my determined dissent from the popular voice. I refer particularly to the course I have felt constrained to adopt in opposing the licensure or ordination of men for the ministry, on account of their doctrinal errors, or ignorance of what I regarded as some of the important truths of the Gospel. I became, perhaps, the more strict in this regard in consequence of the changes on the side of laxity which I observed to be going forward in the popular theology of the nominally orthodox portions of New England and the Western States. I had even assisted in the installation of those whose influence, I had afterwards reason to think, was employed in bringing into disrepute some of the most vital articles of faith, as they were understood by the Reformers, the Puritan founders of our churches, and the Edwardeans and Hopkinsians of fifty years ago. Some, who reckoned themselves peculiarly revival preachers, used such language, in reference to these subjects, as would have disquieted, if possible, the sleeping dust of Joseph Bellamy, Nathan Strong, Samuel J. Mills, Sen., and their associates. Such then living men as Hyde, Perkins, and Tyler, shuddered at it, as if listening to the scoffs of blasphemers and infidels. Efforts were made to drive away from many a pulpit all that is most humbling, and heart-searching, and soul-reviving in the Gospel. Native depravity, decrees, election, divine sovereignty, and effectual grace in regeneration, as they had been explained by the soundest divines of a former age, were declared to be false, and the adherents of them were, in many instances, even held up to derision, as too weak and prejudiced to deserve a sober hearing from the enlightened juvenile disciples of a later day. The tendency of all this, in its connection with the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom and the salvation of men, was but too painfully apparent. It was clear that something should be done to arrest the tide of error and delusion. But who would move in the work of reformation? Should the watchmen in Zion fold their arms in apathy? It became with me a question of personal interest and duty: Shall I aid in giving ministerial authority to those who teach, in various important respects, a scheme of religion entirely different from that which I believe to be inculcated in the Gospel? In other words, shall I destroy with one hand that which I have endeavored to build up with the other? Shall I eradicate what I believe to be good seed, sown by myself, for the sake of giving to a stranger the opportunity of filling the ground committed to my charge, with tares? If we can descend far below our actual creed, in introducing men into the sacred office, is it not probable that those thus introduced will descend still lower, and their successors lower still, till at length the ministry become utterly corrupt? Is this fidelity in the appointed guardians of the purity of the church? Was it not by such a process that the degeneracy of the primitive churches, and the apostasies of the Reformed in Europe, took place? Was it not in the same way that Unitarianism achieved its conquests, and gained its establishment in some of the fairest portions of our own country? There must be limits somewhere to the inroads of false doctrine, or all is lost. Without some limitation here, on the part of the appointed watchmen on the walls of Zion, councils are but collections of men without personal responsibility; the very name is but a mockery; and examinations, pretended deliberations, votes, results, are but meaningless forms, or mere impositions on the credulity of the uninitiated in the mysteries of theological jugglery. What must the limits be? I shall not attempt to specify them exactly, but shall propound certain principles, according to which, it appears to me, every man's conduct ought to be regulated in deciding as to the admission or rejection of those who come before him as candidates for the sacred office. I need not say that to expect from ministers perfection in knowledge or in virtue would be absurd, and betray utter ignorance of the design of God in his appointment of men as the messengers of his mercy to a guilty world. He might have chosen angels to preach the Gospel. But such was not the purpose of infinite wisdom. "We have," says Paul, “this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." Yet it is evident that they who are set apart to the work of the ministry should have a good report as Christians, of them that are without, and that they should be able to give such an account of their religious experience as ought to be satisfactory to a discerning and impartial council. Christ required of Peter, and consequently requires of all religious teachers and pastors, love to the Redeemer, as preliminary to the privilege and duty of feeding his sheep and his lambs. Certain natural qualities are also requisite to fit one for the arduous labors of the ministry; as a good understanding, sound judgment, industrious habits, and a physical power of endurance. On this point, I presume, there can be but one opinion among sensible and candid men. In addition to these qualities, a minister at this day needs a thorough education in the common and higher branches of learning, an extensive knowledge of the Scriptures in their general scope and connection, discriminating views of the Gospel, and the ability to state and defend them against all cavillers and enemies of the Cross of Christ. (1 Tim. iv. 15, 16; iii. 6; Tit. i. 9; ii. 8; 2 Tim. iv. 1-5.) Aptness to teach is twice distinctly mentioned by the apostle as a necessary qualification of a Christian bishop. (1 Tim. iii. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 24.) An utter want of this talent, whatever else may be a man's acquirements and gifts, is a clear intimation of his unfitness to be intrusted with the care of souls. Though eloquence, strictly so called, may be of little comparative value, yet an ability to speak with clearness and some degree of fluency, is, in ordinary cases, highly desirable, if not of indispensable necessity. Moses was encouraged in the self-denying labor of delivering the children of Israel from their bondage, by the consideration that he would have as his associate in the work, "Aaron," his "brother," concerning whom, "I know," said God, "that he can speak well." From the foregoing remarks it is obvious that true piety, though an essential, is yet not of itself a sufficient qualification for the ministerial office. A man may be a true Christian who has little power of ratiocination, little knowledge, and few intellectual gifts of any kind. He may do good by his example, by his prayers, and by the words of grace and truth which occasionally fall from his lips; but to make him a public teacher of religion would be as incongruous as to elevate a man of little experience and of but ordinary powers to the command of an army in times of the utmost peril and alarm. What losses, what disorders, what defects has the church sometimes suffered from the ignorance and weakness of her professed leaders! Well does Cowper, the honest Episcopalian, say: "From such apostles, O ye mitred heads, Preserve the church! and lay not careless hands Some hopefully pious men, moreover, have certain constitutional defects of character which would greatly mar, if not destroy, their usefulness as ministers. As there may be a sound theology without other important qualifications, so there may be many other apparent qualifications without that soundness in the faith which is needful to one whose office it is to guide immortal souls in the way of truth and duty. In judging in such cases, an association or council are to decide, not according to what a man may probably hereafter be, but according to what he professedly now is, in point of religious belief. We cannot penetrate into the future of one's course, and many most grievous mistakes have been made in attempting to do so. The greatest heretic may hereafter become orthodox; but is this a good reason for admitting him, as he now is, to our communion? What if a man have great talents and learning? So much the worse; the greater is his power to do harm, if his creed be false or defective, by erroneous teaching. Is one, also, as we are bound in charity to think, a good man? His piety may be a reason for receiving him to our communion as a private member of the church, while his errors or misapprehensions may be sufficient to make him a dangerous man in the pulpit. In refusing an approbation of him as a religious teacher, we do not necessarily deny or affirm anything with respect to his Christian character. We merely say, that, with such defective or erroneous teaching as his must be, his views continuing as they now are, he cannot have our approbation as a minister; and, if he is in an inquiring state of mind, we would advise him to wait till his opinions |