fail to improve. Here they find an apology for their own wickedness; from this they readily draw an excuse for their unbelief; and, in consequence of this, they discover an apparently forcible reason for their pretended conviction that the gospel is neither the testimony of God nor profitable to men. A minister of the gospel whose conduct displays the influence of a selfish, proud, or worldly disposition, can scarce expect a patient hearing from others, when he endeavours to demonstrate the necessity of selfdenial, or attempts to recommend the exercise of humility. But you may recommend these things, and point out the true influence of religion to your hearers, when they see in you a living example of this influence upon the heart and life. Your verbal instructions may be misunderstood by many; but a deportment becoming the gospel, has a language so plain and distinct that it may be understood by all who observe it without prejudice. By such a a deportment you may instruct wherever you go. Thus although many may be unwilling to receive your message; yet when they observe its efficacy upon yourself, you will have a witness in their breasts that you are in earnest while you preach the gospel, and that you really believe and practise what you say to others. Relying upon the all-sufficiency of the grace that is in Christ Jesus, endeavour to furnish such a practical evidence of your faith to them who hear you. Study to have your deportment such as to recommend to the world the excellency of a life of faith in the Son of God; to demonstrate to this people that your great aim is to promote their eternal interests; and to show, that you seek them, and not theirs, by your ministrations. Concerning these things, the words of the apostle Paul to a minister well deserve at tention:-"Having food and raiment let us be therewith content." But they that will be rich, fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which draw men into destruction and perdition." "But thou, O man of God, flee these things: and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Take heed unto thyself and unto thy doctrine; continue in them for in doing this, thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. I give thee charge in the sight of God who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus; that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: to whom be honour and power everlasting. AMEN."

MR. EDITOR

FOR THE RELIGIOUS MONITOR.

OCCASIONAL HEARING.

The attention of your readers having been turned of late to the subject of Occasional Hearing by two different papers, viz: The Warning of the Presbytery of Ohio, against occasional and promiscuous hearing, contained in your February number for 1827, and a paper in the February and April numbers for 1828, signed Xenos, it may not be improper to turn their attention a little more to this subject, by laying before them answers to a few of the many objections raised against a restricted communion, in order further to clear it up, and furnish Seceders with arguments in their own defence, when such objections are proposed to them.

Scripture and fair reasoning adduced in support of a subject, sometimes forces the mind to yield its assent generally to that subject, as a doctrine according to the word of God, while a difficulty presenting itself, or an objection starting up, throws it into a great embarrassment; especially when that subject is closely allied with the public faith of the church, and with Christian practice; and when the person would desire to be found, in both his profession and his practice, in the right way; neither too rigid, nor too bending, but where he ought to be as a true witness for Christ. And to assist such, perhaps the following may be useful. For we are to give a reason, to every one that asketh us in a decent way, of the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear. Seceders should be able to defend their peculiar principles, to show that they do not receive them upon the faith of the church courts which are over them; but know both what they affirm, in common with the body with which they are connected, and the things whereof they speak, by their public profession, to the world.-And in the hope that the following answers to objections may be of use also, to some, in this way, they are at your disposal.

A.

1. It is sometimes said, as an objection to restricted communion · in hearing the word, that there is no evil in hearing a good gospel sermon wherever we may have an opportunity afforded us. good sermon as respects the matter of it may be heard sometimes in a Romish chapel, but few sound hearted Protestants will plead that it is a duty, or warrantable, to give countenance to that mother of harlots in her ministry, or in any part of her worship. It may be heard from a Socinian, or Arminian, and from the most heterodox, when they are treating on subjects which do not interfere with the distinguishing tenets of their sect. While again, hose who are more orthodox in general, in sentiment, may, that

very day we go to hear them, be preaching what in our belief is an error. As for example,—if I am of the belief that I am bound by the authority of God, set forth in his word, to own the civil authorities which are over me, without any respect to their religious qualifications; yet should I go continuing in this belief to hear a sermon preached by one who is by his public profession of a different opinion, but is sound on the leading doctrines of the gospel, if he preaches that day, on this subject, I am hearing what is an error to me. And by my going to hear him, I go as one who may expect to hear error, because this being a distinguishing tenet in the public creed of the church to which that preacher belongs, I may expect, that as he believes, on this subject, he will speak. So if I believe that common benefits are not purchased blessings in themselves, yet hear one, who, according to the public profession of his church, believes otherwise, preach a contrary doctrine; if I believe that witness-bearing is a Christian duty, yet go to hear one ridicule and oppose that duty; or if I believe that there is an assurance in the nature of faith, yet hear a sermon, in which this is denied, by one who opposes this doctrine, I hear error; and go as one who has no reasonable ground to expect but I will hear er

ror.

To show still more the unwarrantableness of occasional hearing, in other societies, even where we may expect to hear the gospel soundly preached, we may suppose the following case to occur: A person offers himself to that religious body to which we belong to be employed in her public ministry; he is examined upon the departments of literature usually connected with the study of theology; and upon the doctrines of the gospel, and gives satisfaction; and also as to the evidences of his being possessed of personal religion. His moral character is known to be good, and nothing yet prevents but his offer may be accepted. At last the question is put to him, Does he approve of those public religious principles which as a religious body we profess? And is he ready to declare his unqualified adherence unto them? And to become, if he is not yet in the communion of our body, an actual member? He rufuses. Then, What follows? He cannot be admitted. His offer is rejected, upon the conviction, that it is not only inexpedient, but unwarrantable to employ him. Does not the case apply precisely in reference to ministers in the service of other churches? By the place they occupy, they give evidence, that they do not approve of the religious principles of that body to which we belong. They are not in church communion with us.And should they apply for a seat with us at the table of the Lord,

continuing in their present opposition to our public principles, as a body, we dare not admit them. And the inconsistency is much greater in the case of promiscuous hearing, than it would be to receive into the ministry of our church, one who neither approves, nor will subscribe our publicly professed principles: because, though in the former case we cannot give our consent that the person referred to be employed in the public ministry of that body to which we belong, for the reason that he is not actually in communion with us; yet in the other case, we not only hear those who are such as, upon the same grounds, we ought not to hear, but we add to this, that we enter into the church fellowship of that society, in that particular act of hearing the word, and in the attending acts of worship, as prayer, praise, &c. met as they are in a distinct character; whereby we, for the time, not only give up with our own character, as a part of a witnessing body, but join sides with them, in testifying against ourselves, as a society in separation from them. For a separation between two bodies, engaged in making a profession of the Christian religion, in itself amounts to a testimony the one bears against the other, though there were no express declaration made to the world, in the way of verbally testifying against each other. To present this objection, however, to the better understanding of readers, we may give it in full, in the following words: "There is no evil in hearing a good gospel sermon, even from those from whom we have adjudged it to be our duty to withdraw, because of some things in which we believe them to be unfaithful, and whose ministry in a stated way we cannot with a good conscience attend upon; yea,

Let any stranger, passing by in any part of the country, see two places of worship standing near by or opposite to one another, when the number of inhabitants did not require it; would he not, with good reason, conclude that they belong to two several societies, who disapprove of each others' religious principles, and modes of worship, so that they cannot deem it to be their duty to link themselves together in one Christian fellowship? In short, what use is there for two or more places of worship, while one would serve for the number of people, if restricted communion in hearing, as well as in the sacrament of the supper, is not a duty? One place of worship and one ministry, might serve two or more societies, otherwise. If in the sacrament of the supper only, church fellowship ought to be separate, means might be obtained to accommodate all parties, as to the acts of church communion, in case they could not unite: So, that upon a more economical plan, the gospel would be better supported in many places where it is already enjoyed, and destitute places might, by this means, be provided for, by sending a surplus ministry unto them. And really what use is there for two or more weak handed congregations, of different denominations, in the same neighbourhood, struggling through a great many difficulties to keep up the gospel among them, who can use all freedom in this act of church communion, if one ministry would sup ply them all? Let them unite in supporting and attending upon one ministry And if only in Baptism and the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, restricted communion is necessary, let a minister be sent from each of these societies respectively once a year, or oftener, to their unsupplied congregations, to bap tize their children, and dispense to the members, the sacrament of the supper.

whose ministry we dare not acknowledge as that which is over us in the Lord. Though we cannot allow them, as they are engaged in publicly opposing our religious principles, to take a seat at the table of the Lord together with ourselves; yet we may, though not regularly and statedly, yet occasionally, wait upon them in the breaking of the bread of life. Though a person, unprincipled, and in some things erroneous, ought not to be employed in the official capacity of a public teacher, in the religious body we are connected with; yet in connection with a different body or denomination of professing Christians, we may safely and consistently receive him in this very character; attend occasionally upon his ministry, and be much profited by it."

2. It is sometimes objected: Reading sermons preached by ministers of other denominations, is not considered improper, and there is no more impropriety in hearing them preached than in reading them. This objection has, in some measure, been answered under the former. But as it is separately made, a more particular attention may be given to it by itself. And there is a material difference between a sermon preached and the same sermon as read in private, as the reasons assigned under the former objection, why we cannot, with propriety and consistency, hear a sermon preached in the way of attending upon the public ministry of those who are in a state of separation from us, do not apply at all in regard to the reading of it. As it is read it wants the accidental circumstances to attend it, which attend, by necessary consequence, the hearing of it: as that when we go warrantably to hear the word publicly preached, we go as those who are to acknowledge the authority of God in the preacher, as employed in proclaiming the word of life and salvation even to us: We go to have a fellowship with the congregation attending upon the preaching of the word at that time and place, which is not required in reading it. And in many other respects they differ. But we cannot answer this objection to better advantage than by giving here the words of another, stating the difference there is between reading and hearing, especially when error is taught: "The needless reading of erroneous books (he says) that is, of books which are well known to be calculated for the propogation of gross error is to be avoided. Yet there is a difference between the reading of an erroneous book and attending to the ministry of an erroneous teacher: For, first; as it is more especially by the preaching of the word that church members are converted and edified, so it is more especially by the preaching of error that they are seduced. Secondly: In the preaching of error there is a