of lies with the Presbyteries, and cannot be reached by any action of the Assembly. Touching the alleged inequality between the ministers and the elders in our judicatories, it need only be remarked that the number of vacant churches in a growing land like this greatly exceeds the number of unemployed ministers, and in the Church at large the elders could at any time obtain a large majority, if disposed so to do. Apprehending no danger in this direction, and recognizing no antagonism between the teaching and the ruling elders in the Church, this Assembly sees no reason for special action in the case, leaving the Presbyteries in our large cities, where ministers without charge are prone to collect, to deal with them in an orderly manner as their wisdom may suggest.-1859, p. 533, O. S.

4. May a Minister hold a Civil Office?

The Committee to whom was referred the communication from the Presbytery of Ohio respecting the Rev. Boyd Mercer and his letter to the moderator of the Assembly, exhibited their report.

The report, having been read and amended, was adopted, and is as follows, viz.:

With respect to the abstract question, whether the tenure of a civil office be or be not incompatible with that of the holy ministry, the Assembly is of opinion that there is nothing in the holy Scriptures, or in the Constitution, acts or proceedings of the Presbyterian Church in these United States, expressly prohibitory of such union of offices.

With respect to the particular case referred to their consideration, as Mr. Mercer in his letter expressly asserts that it is not his intention to decline the office of the holy ministry, and that he was led to devote himself for the present to the functions of an associate judge by a state of health so infirm as to interrupt the regular discharge of his public duties as a minister of religion, your committee are of opinion that the Presbytery of Ohio ought not to censure him unless there be some circumstances in the case unknown to the Assembly.

That none, however, may so far misconstrue these sentiments as to persuade themselves that they countenance a covetous, ambitious spirit, your committee further beg leave to suggest the propriety of cautioning your clergy against worldly-mindedness; of exhorting them not to aspire after places of emolument or civil distinction; of reminding them that the cure of souls is their peculiar business, and that they who serve at the altar ought, as far as possible, to avoid temporal avocations.-1806, p. 363. Reaffirmed.-1808, p. 399.

5. He may hold the Office of Chaplain in the Army or Navy. a. Application was made to Synod by Mr. Beatty, desiring to know their mind with respect to his going as chaplain to the forces that may be raised in the Province of Pennsylvania, if he shall by the Government be called to that service. The Synod do judge it to be his duty.-1756, p.

275.

b. Application having been made to Mr. Beatty by Colonel Armstrong to serve as chaplain to the first battalion of the Pennsylvania Provincials for the ensuing campaign, he requested the advice and judgment of this Synod with respect to his duty therein. The Synod do unanimously agree that it is his duty to go.-1758, p. 282.

c. 'Tis allowed that Messrs. Alexander McDowel and Hector Allison go as chaplains to the Pennsylvania forces, and that Mr. Kirkpatrick go with the New Jersey forces, the ensuing campaign.-1760, p. 302.

d. The First Philadelphia Presbytery report that they have ordained Mr. Israel Evans and Mr. William Lynn to qualify them to act as chaplains in the army to which they had been appointed.-1776, p. 472.

e. Also ordained Mr. Robert Keith to qualify him to act as a chaplain in the army.-1777, p. 477.

f. A reference from the Presbytery of Philadelphia on the propriety of their ordaining to the work of the gospel ministry a licentiate under their care who now holds the office of a chaplain in the navy of the United States was considered, whereupon the Assembly resolved,

That this judicature of the Presbyterian Church feels a deep and lively interest in the spiritual welfare of the mariners of this country, and especially of those who are engaged in the naval service of our Union; and that the Assembly therefore will rejoice if any Presbytery under its care has the opportunity of ordaining any well-qualified persons, men of piety and learning, with a view to their rendering permanent ministerial services to large congregations of our fellow-citizens who dwell in ships-ofwar.-1826, p. 171.

6. Demission of the Ministry.

a. There being from time to time complaints of the weakness and deficiency of Mr. Robert Laing, rendering his exercise of the ministerial function a detriment to the interest of religion, and rather a scandal than an help to the gospel, the Synod advised him to demit the whole exercise of the ministry, and not to take it up again but by the approbation of at least three ministers of the Presbytery wherein he may reside; the said Mr. Laing did quietly and humbly acquiesce in the aforesaid advice.-1726, p. 84.

b. The Presbytery of New York report that the Rev. Mr. William Woodhull, one of their members, appeared before them at their last meeting, and stated to them his situation, as being still incapable of exercising his ministry by his continued indisposition, and the little, or rather no, probability of his ever being able to attempt the exercise of it in future, and that he was at the same time engaged in certain secular employments that would seem to render it improper to have his name in their records as a member, while he is incapable of attending their meetings, or discharging any of the great duties of his ministry, and therefore submits to them the propriety of their continuing and considering him as a member from time to time; and that the Presbytery, on considering his situation, thought it best to leave his name out of their records in future, till he shall be able to return to the exercise of his ministry, an event that would give them great pleasure.

The Synod considered the above report, and are of opinion that Mr. Woodhull ought to be continued a member of the Presbytery of New York, and therefore direct that Presbytery to insert his name in their roll.— 1783, p. 497.

c. In consequence of Mr. Joseph Montgomery's having informed them [the New Castle Presbytery] that through bodily indisposition he was incapable of officiating in the ministry, and having also accepted an office under the civil authority, they have left his name out of their records.

The Synod disapprove of the conduct of the Presbytery of New Castle, in striking the name of Mr. Montgomery off their roll for the reasons given in their report; neither of which, nor both together, seem to be sufficient; and in future recommend to all Presbyteries, when any ministers under their inspection resign their charge, or discontinue the exercise of their

office while they remain in the same bounds, to pass a regular judgment on the reasons given for such conduct; and continue their inspection of those who shall not have deserved to be deprived of the ministerial character, though they may be laid aside from immediate usefulness.-1785, pp. 507, 510.

d. By a report from the Presbytery of Lewes, it appeared that a minister, heretofore a member of that Presbytery, had been declared to be no longer a member thereof; and, as the Assembly were informed, is considered by them as divested of the ministeral office, and this without deposition, suspension, or censure; wherefore,

Resolved, That it is a principle of this Church that no minister of the gospel can be regularly divested of his office except by a course of discipline, terminating in his deposition. That if any minister, by providential circumstances, become incapable of exercising his ministerial functions, or is called to suspend them, or to exercise them only occasionally, he is still to be considered as possessing the ministerial character and privileges; and his brethren of the Presbytery are to inspect his conduct; and while they treat him with due tenderness and sympathy, they are to be careful that he do not neglect his ministerial duty, beyond what his circumstances render unavoidable.-1802, p. 258.

[In 1858 an overture was sent down by the Assembly, O. S., proposing to add to chap. xv., Form of Government, three sections providing for the demission of the ministry.—p. 299.

[This overture was rejected; affirmative 24 Presbyteries, negative 84 Presbyteries.-1859, p. 532.]

e. A Full Minute on Demission of the Ministry.

The Assembly resumed the consideration of the report of the special committee (Edwin F. Hatfield, D. D., Henry B. Smith, D. D., and Walter S. Griffith, Esq.) on the Demission of the Ministry. After considerable discussion, the report was adopted, and is as follows, viz.:

The Committee to whom was referred, by the last General Assembly, an overture from the Presbytery of Philadelphia, Third, on the "Voluntary Demission of the Ministry," respectfully submit the following report:

The Constitution of our Church, it is well known, provides for the deposition of the unworthy, by due process of discipline; but seems not to have anticipated that any other class would require to be separated from the responsibilities of an office so high and so sacred. It nowhere contemplates the dismission of the members of the church to the world, nor the return of the ministry, at their own instance, to the mere secularities of every-day life.

Such is the view that has been taken of our standards from the beginning. Neither the old Synod of New York and Philadelphia, nor any of our General Assemblies, has ventured to give any different interpretation. The Assembly of 1802, on the occasion of the exercise, by the Presbytery of Lewes, of the prerogative of divesting one of their ministers of his office, without deposition, suspension, or censure, passed the following resolution:

"Resolved, That it is a principle of this Church that no minister of the gospel can be regularly divested of his office except by a course of discipline terminating in his deposition. That if any minister, by providential circumstances, become incapable of exercising his ministerial functions, or is called to suspend them, or to exercise them only occasionally, he is still to be considered as possessing the ministerial character and privileges; and his brethren of the Presbytery are to inspect his conduct; and while

they treat him with due tenderness and sympathy, they are to be careful that he do not neglect his ministerial duties beyond what his circumstances render unavoidable."

The office is to be retained; but, for sufficient reason, the exercise of the office may be discontinued in whole or in part. Such was the judg ment of the Synod of 1726, in the case of Mr. Robert Laing, who, by reason of the complaints of his "weakness and deficiency," brought against him, “rendering his exercise of the ministerial function a detriment to the interests of religion, and rather a scandal than a help to the gospel," "advised him to demit the whole exercise of the ministry, and not to take it up again but by the approbation of at least three ministers of the Presbytery wherein he may reside."

Similar was the judgment of the Synod of 1783, in the case of Mr. William Woodhull, who had represented to the Presbytery of New York, of which he was a member, "his situation, as being still incapable of exercising his ministry by his continued indisposition, and the little, or rather no, probability of his ever being able to attempt the exercise of it in fu ture; and that he was at the same time engaged in certain secular employments that would seem to render it improper to have his name in their records as a member." The Synod judged, "that Mr. Woodhull ought to be continued a member of the Presbytery of New York."

Two years afterward, in the case of Mr. Joseph Montgomery, of the Presbytery of New Castle, whose name had been dropped from the roll of the Presbytery, at his own instance, on account of indisposition of body, and the acceptance of "an office under the civil authority," the Synod expressed their disapprobation of the measure, and recommended "to all Presbyteries, when any ministers under their inspection resign their charge, or discontinue the exercise of their office while they remain in the same bounds, to pass a regular judgment on the reasons given for such conduct, and continue their inspection of those who shall not have deserved to be deprived of the ministerial character, though they may be laid aside from immediate usefulness."

Thus uniformly has the doctrine been maintained by the ecclesiastical authorities of our Church, "that no minister of the gospel can be regularly divested of his office except by a course of discipline terminating in his deposition." The Assembly of 1852 took the same ground, or at least refused to take ground to the contrary. In the case of a member of the Presbytery of Portage, "who, though chargeable with no disciplinable offence, had forsaken the ministry for ten or more years, had regularly and permanently engaged in secular employments, had become a private member of the Church, and had no design of again acting as a minister of the gospel, and who, on this ground, had requested his Presbytery to strike his name from the roll of members," the Presbytery took the position "that presbyterial law contemplates the ministerial office as permanent, ceasing not but by death or deposition;" yet they referred the case to the wisdom of the General Assembly. And the Assembly of 1852, although the Committee on the Polity of the Church recommended "that the Presbytery be directed to strike his name from the roll, without implying any censure or any imputation upon his Christian character," refused to adopt the recommendation; thereby confirming the position taken by the Presbytery, and conforming their action to the uniform decisions of the highest ecclesiastical authorities of our Church from the beginning.

It is true that, in common with most of the evangelical denominations, we maintain that ordination is but a ceremony-an outward sign-a pub

lic recognition on the part of the ordainers of the fitness of him who is ordained for the office to which he is set apart; it does not impress a character or impart a fitness not previously possessed. But, in the case of a minister of the gospel, it recognizes the fact that the man has consecrated himself to this high and holy calling; has, by irrevocable vows, set himself apart from merely secular pursuits to the service of the Lord Jesus Christ in the ministry. From these vows the Church has received no dispensation to release him, and, therefore, has ever disclaimed the power and right, even in the exercise of discipline.

So long, therefore, as it is in the power of the minister, he is to exercise his gifts and graces in this particular calling. He is under covenant, both to Christ and to the Church, thus to serve God. He may not, without breach of covenant, abandon, merely at his own instance, the ministerial for a secular calling. If the providence of God puts it out of his power, evidently and unmistakably, to pursue his ministerial work, it becomes his duty to bring his case before his brethren of the Presbytery, and submit it to their decision. If any minister neglects this obvious duty, and of his own accord devotes himself to secular pursuits, his Presbytery are to investigate the case, and pass judgment upon it. Such was the judgment of the General Assembly of 1834.

66

When ministers have withdrawn," they say, or may hereafter withdraw, wholly or in part, from the work of the ministry, it is enjoined upon the Presbyteries to which they belong to require of such ministers their reasons for so doing; which reasons are to be put upon record by the Presbytery, with an expression of their approbation or disapprobation of the same."

In like manner, also, the Assembly of 1802, in order, very properly, to guard against the practical demission of the office, determined and directed, "that if any minister of the gospel, through a worldly spirit, a disrelish for the duties of his office, or any other criminal motive, becomes negligent or careless, he is by no means to be suffered to pursue this course, so as at length to be permitted to lay aside the ministry, without censure; because this would be to encourage a disregard of the most solemn obligations, by opening a way to escape from them with impunity. But, in all such cases, Presbyteries are seasonably to use the means and pursue the methods pointed out in the word of God and the rules of this Church, to recall their offending brother to a sense of duty; and if all their endeav ors be ineffectual, they are at length regularly to exclude or depose him from his office."

This rehearsal of the action of previous Assemblies, it is thought, is a sufficient answer to the overture, without entering upon a discussion of the abstract question: "May an ecclesiastical body, in any case, demit from the office of the ministry without discipline or censure?" We simply refer to the usages of our own Church, and urge them upon the attention of our Presbyteries. They are not to allow any of their ministers to retire from the ministerial work of their own accord; but to require, of such as are desirous to enter into a secular calling, their reasons for such a course, which they are to put upon record, approvingly or otherwise. The cir cumstances of the age call loudly upon this Assembly to reaffirm these long-established principles, and to enjoin upon the Presbyteries the utmost carefulness in preventing the secularization of our ministry.—1860, pp. 234, 236, N. S.

[In the Assembly of 1871 an overture on the demission of the ministry was committed to Rev. Drs. Z. M. Humphrey, Charles Hodge, Henry B. Smith, George W. Musgrave, and Elijah R. Craven, to report to the next