was never satisfied till any great truth on which he discoursed was placed before his hearers in the grounds on which it rested, in its relations to other truths, in its various elements and details. He was not content to seize synthetically the special aspect of it that served a present and practical purpose. Other great orators have generally adopted this course; and, by the very concentration of thought upon a given view of a doctrine, have been wont to produce greater immediate effect. With Dr Symington the aim was instruction rather than excitement. He sought to plant a truth in the minds of his hearers, so that it could endure as a spring and principle of action long after the echoes of his fervent appeals had died away upon the ear. Two circumstances counteracted the least tendency to weary under his detailed exhibition of a principle-the matchless lucidity of statement in which he excelled, and the skill with which, ever and anon, the bearing of any doctrine, or part of a doctrine, he was unfolding, on Christian duty or experience, was indicated. His audience never lost confidence that some great practical issue would emerge from his most abstract discussion. It was very wonderful at times how, in the midst of a full and able statement of doctrine, by a single word almost he could stir to their depths the fountains of Christian sentiment, till one hardly knew whether the effect was due to the power of the reasoning, or the pathos of the brief appeal by which it was so skilfully relieved. His use of Scripture was admirable. There was no gathering of Scripture phrases to eke out feeble paragraphs, or cover barrenness of thought. The quotation came in so appropriately, and with such power, that it seemed as if it had been inspired in adaptation to the argument which it clenched. The key to the moral qualities of his nature was the strong sense of justice that invariably animated him. A model of courtesy to the highest style of the Christian gentleman, with domestic affections of rare poignancy and strength, accustomed to the practice of a thoughtful kindness, all the nobler that it seldom transpired, it could not be said of him, however, that, in the common intercourse of life, he would impress men with any very warm benignity of manner. He differed in this respect from his brother Andrew. But no one could be in his company without feeling at once that Dr Symington, at whatever cost or hazard, would invariably be found on the side of the right, and fit, and dutiful. It was not so much the beauty of love as the majesty of moral obligation, that was the fair ideal, haunting his thoughts, moulding his character, and shaping his life. This high sense of equity, indeed, gave colour and direction to his theology. His Christianity was of the Pauline rather than the Johannine type. The righteousness of God in its demand on the sinner; the righteousness of Christ as alone able to meet that demand; the righteousness exacted from the saint as, through grace, the essential complement of Christ's work, was the substance of his teaching, as the last, indeed, was the steady aim and, to an extent in which few men equalled him, the attainment of his life. To this good old theology he consecrated all his energies-ambitious to excel, not as a scholar, not in learning, not in any branch of science foreign to his profession, however warm his sympathies with scientific objects and pursuits, but simply as a theologian. The remark must be qualified by adding, that we have met no man whose reading in British theological literature was more extensive and profound. Every phase of theological error, even as it sprung up, was firmly confronted and accurately guaged. He had no taste for the odd and quaint in literature; the just, and true, and useful were uniformly the object of his quest. And yet his taste in the appreciation of literature was at once sound and refined. His whole read ing, in short, was subservient to public duty. This rapt consecration to the business of the sanctuary is one of the many noble lessons which he has bequeathed us. Many lessons, indeed, might be culled from his life and character. We might learn from it, what sometimes there is a tendency to forget, how possible it is to achieve greatness by attention to the common duties of life. He mingled in no great public events, such as yield materials for history; he wandered into no fields of science or general literature, in order to win the guerdon of fame. He kept his vow to Christ that he would be a servant to his cause, and nothing more. The sorrow of thousands at his death ratified the wisdom of his choice, and shewed that even the routine of a pastor's duty can be the pathway to the love and veneration of multitudes. He was besides an instance of true earnestness. There may be earnestness under an outward vehemence of manner, and under a bustling activity, bringing a man for ever under the public eye. But it is not the only kind of earnestness; perhaps it is not the highest kind of earnestness. As a lone worker in his study, amid anxious and prayerful care to bring forth "the acceptable words " which the Lord would bless to the spiritual recovery of souls, there was an earnestness more rarely exhibited, and far more likely to be fruitful in good results. Each man has his own gifts; still it is a duty to covet the best. The power and value of system was notably exemplified by our departed father. He owed most of his usefulness in life to what we may designate his peculiar love and faculty of order. His very study was the image of his thoughts-a place for everything, and everything in its place. It was the same principle that gave him success in that walk which he chiefly cultivated systematic theology. He was in his own person a living refutation of the folly of the modern prejudice against it. It was with him no dead herbarium, but a living garden-no fetter cramping the native elasticity of his thoughts, but the wing with which he soared upward, till he could take more accurate survey of the whole domain of divine truth. It is but right to add, that he "adorned" the doctrine of his Saviour, as well as professed and believed it. In private habits he was eminently devout. His delight was communion with God. His closet could testify to his prayerfulness. But yet there was nothing of the morose about him. Genial and buoyant with the glee of childhood, he was the life and spirit of every company in which he mingled; in wit and repartee never rivalled, but never losing in the joyousness of his nature the dignity which became the Christian and the minister; the youngest of his grandchildren hailed him as a companion, while they revered him as a patriarch. But we have touched on chords of love and sorrow too sacred and tender to be wakened as yet into sound for the public ear. His official character may be public property. All that he was in his private relationships-in the genial wisdom that regulated his household-to the widow who so faithfully soothed the cares of his life, and survives to mourn his death, to children and to grandchildren, must remain, a precious heirloom, in their memory for ever. TERMS OF COMMUNION. UNION implies some good measure of concord and cohesion. Agreement or identity in principle is necessary to genuine union, antagonistic principles are incompatible with it. Christ is the great centre of Christian union, and God in him. The Bible is the basis and the rule of scriptural unity. The unity of the truth received in faith and love forms the principle bond of Christian union. It is perpetuated by means of faith in Christ, and Christian truth and love to him, to it, and to its adherents, and by purity, peace, and submission to Christ's will. There must be some measure of sympathy and unity of faith, aim, and affection among the members of the Church, in order to union. There must be unity in relation to the crown as well as the cross of Christ, inasmuch as unity in relation to the latter only is not equivalent to "holding the head." The Church is the kingdom of which Christ is the King and Lawgiver. "He is the Head of the body the Church." He is the living centre and lasting bond of union among Christians, who-are all baptized into the name and faith of the blessed Trinity in unity. Union is antecedent to communion, and the latter may be said to include the former. The term communion is employed to express concord or congeniality of mind, community of interest and friendly intercourse, and union in religious worship, doctrine, and discipline, as also joint participation and celebration of the Lord's Supper. It is likewise used to signify a body of Christians who have one common faith, worship, and discipline, and the union of professing Christians in a particular church. There is fellowship in truth and in error, in good and in evil. There is visible and invisible communion, nominal and real, partial and complete. There is private and public, ministerial and Christian communion, occasional and stated, the union of co-operation for the common ends of the Church catholic, and the union of incorporation for all the ends of the particular Church or Christian denomination. Stated public, ministerial, and Christian communion is on the ground of formal incorporation, which incorporation entitles the members in full communion to elect the office bearers, and obligates the members to submit to the constitution and rules of the particular communion, and the office-bearers to act officially, in accordance with the constitution and spirit of the social compact. It is not our object to inquire particularly into the precise nature, number, or extent of any particular terms of membership or office in the Church, but chiefly into the principle of terms of communion. And 1st, It seems to be recognised by the doctrine and practice of our Lord and his apostles. Jesus recognised those as his disciples who received his doctrines, believed in his Messiahship, and submitted to his authority. "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me." "And whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple." "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart and ye shall find rest to your souls." Rely upon me as your priest, accept of my yoke of obedience as your king, and submit to my teaching as your prophet. All that were members of the Old Testament Church were not admissible to the New, whether they believed that Jesus was the Christ and submitted to his authority or not. All that were eligible to the passover were not consequently eligible to baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism was a sign of the covenant, a means of formal admission to the membership of the visible Church, a badge of distinction from the world, and a pledge of obligation to the service of Christ. Those adults who were admitted to it professed faith in the blessed Trinity, and in the one Mediator, and in his threefold mediatorial offices and work of prophet, priest, and king, and obedience to his commandments. "Teach (or disciple) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Whether opinion is well or ill founded, "that baptism is a bond of general relation to the Church universal, and the Lord's Supper a bond of particular communion with Christ and his professing members," we wait not to inquire, only it does not appear that our Lord countenanced indiscriminate admission to special preparations. "And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment. . . . Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness." Jesus, as a teacher, disowned those as his real disciples who merely called him Lord, but did not do the things that he commanded them; and as a Sovereign of a kingdom he disowned those who did not submit to his regal authority, and obey his laws. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." The Church is confessedly a kingdom, spiritual in its nature, and different and distinct from the kingdoms of this world. The subjects of the latter were not necessarily members of the former, and those who were admitted to its membership virtually professed faith in Christ as their prophet and priest, and submission to him as their king, and their consent to be governed by his laws, and to observe his ordinances. The commission of the keys of the kingdom to its rulers, with the power of admission to its membership and privileges, and of exclusion from them, and to judge of the qualifications of the candidates, seem to imply some terms of admission and exclusion, or of access to and continuance in communion. "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church, but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." The Church's Head reprehended two of the seven churches of Asia for retaining in their communion persons erroneous in doctrine and exceptionable in character and conduct.* In this case he seems to have required both faith in himself and in his truth, and practical submission to his authority to retention in the fellowship of the Church. Upon the great pentecostal awakening and effusion of the Spirit, Peter, apparently in the name of the apostles, exhorted the anxious inquirers to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins. He required both repentance and faith, in order to baptism and formal admission to the membership of the Church. "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized, ... and they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer." Did not their Christian profession virtually include a profession of faith in Christ, and in his doctrines of allegiance to him as their King, of obedience to his laws, and of obligation to observe his ordinances, to cultivate his Spirit, and to copy his example? Though there is every probability that the Ethiopian eunuch was a member of the Old Testament Church, and a believer in the Old Testament Scriptures, the evangelist Philip exacted of him an explicit confession of his faith anterior to baptism. "I believe," said he, "that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." This was a short but comprehensive confession, when taken in connection with the times and circumstances and antecedents and the discourse from the 53d chapter of Isaiah. Besides, the eunuch, by his baptism, professed faith in the blessed Trinity, in the Father who justifies, in the Son who redeems, and in the Spirit who regenerates and sanctifies, and brought himself under special obligations. All, however, who are admissible to baptism, or have been baptized, whether infant or adult, are not admissible to the Lord's Supper.. Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20, The admission of Paul and Cornelius to baptism was somewhat extraordinary or special. There was something miraculous connected with both cases. Ananias had a vision from the Lord relative to Saul's conversion. His difficulties were removed, and he received instructions how and what to do. Cornelius and Peter had each of them a vision. Peter's scruples concerning the admission of the Gentiles to the Church were obviated, and he had miraculous evidence, before they were baptized, that Cornelius and those who heard his discourse had received the Holy Ghost. Moreover, the primitive church had not in every case reached a regular and settled state to form a general rule of admission. The Synod of Jerusalem prohibited the imposition of circumcision as a term of salvation or communion, though, from their decrees, it does not appear that they discountenanced all ecclesiastical discipline in the event of the rejection or contempt of their decrees. It does not appear that the apostles were in the habit of admitting persons to the membership of the Church who denied the divine authority of the Scriptures, or rejected their own apostolic authority and doctrine, or resisted their injunctions, or refused to submit to the laws and institutions of Christ. Apparently they distinguished between the weak and not well informed in the faith and such as were the enemies of it, or erroneous, or between ignorance and error, or active and open opposition to the truth. "There is not upon the records of the Church during the first century," says the writer of Sketches of Ecclesiastical History," "an instance of any being admitted to church fellowship who denied any doctrinal truth, or rejected any practical institution. If it happened that any disciple did, after admission, embrace heresy, refuse submission to order, or practise any immorality, he was brought under suitable discipline." The apostle of the Gentiles prescribed forbearance in matters of indifference, and tenderness towards the weak in faith and ignorant, under their conscientious scruples in such cases, though in his own accommodation he does not seem to have compromised truth, sanctioned error, or treated revealed truth as a matter of indifference. But while he discountenanced making matters of indifference terms of communion, he prohibited participation in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen, or religious communion with idolaters, or fellowship with immorality or unfruitful works of darkness.§ He reproved the Church of Corinth for abuses connected with the Supper, and exhcrted them to examine themselves as to their qualifications for the joint participation and scriptural observance of that ordinance. He likewise censured that church for the retention in her communion of a person unworthy of it. Moreover, he added, " But now I have written unto you not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, he exhorted them to withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly; and in his first epistle to Timothy, he charged him to withdraw from such as taught unsound and unwholesome doctrine, and not according to godliness; and in his epistle to Titus he said, an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject. The aforesaid New Testament data include the principle of terms of communion, and from it we gather that the terms of our Lord and his apostles comprehend both faith and practice, doctrine and duty. Heresy and gross immorality, and perhaps enmity to the brethren, excluded or cut off from communion, or subjected to discipline. 2. The foundation and ends of the Church involve the principle of terms of ecclesiastical fellowship. She is founded upon Christ and the Scriptures, or Scripture truth. Upon this firm and immutable basis she stands, "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." Both the foundation and the Acts x. 44-40. Acts xv. 1, 28, 29; xvii. 4. § See Rom. xiv., 1 Cor.x., Ephes. v. 7, 11, John iv. 6. |